Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 19th, 2014 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Joe Sobran

By Jared Taylor

Joe Sobran, who left this world on Sept. 30, was perhaps the most brilliant man I have ever known. Not brilliant in all ways, of course, and even obtuse in some, but in his power to see the essential, to lay bare hypocrisy, to capture an idea with a turn of phrase, to mock with gentle humor, and to treat the heaviest subjects with the lightest touch, I have never met his equal and never expect to.

Like so many others, I first met Joe through his writing, specifically, his “Pensées: Notes for the Reactionary of Tomorrow,” which appeared in the December 31, 1985 issue of National Review. A friend had sent them to me, but I set them aside. The article ran for 35 magazine pages, for heaven’s sake, and I was put off by the murky title. My friend insisted, however, and so I first encountered the mind of Joe Sobran. Today the essay is only slighted dated by its Cold-War-era tone; its central wisdom and insights will never go stale. Joe cared about permanent things, and asked questions that demand answers. Here is just one: “What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?”

Joe was a very approachable man, however, and it was not long before we met at his house in a woodsy part of Arlington, Virginia. I will never forget two things about that first visit: the tip in which he lived, and the sparkle of his conversation. Practically every square inch of that house was knee deep in newspapers, books, letters, clothes—all in complete disorder. One got from room to room through narrow channels where bits of floor were still visible, but otherwise Joe lived in a landfill.

Like so many conversations I had with him since, I wish I had jotted down the dazzling observations he seemed to throw off so effortlessly. I remember two: “The purpose of a college education is to give you the correct view of minorities, and the means to live as far away from them as possible.” The other was a little story, which hinted at where his interests were heading, and that I will paraphrase as best I can remember it:

“There are lots of squirrels out here where I live. They are interesting little creatures, and I’d like to get to know them better. I suppose it’s natural for them to be suspicious of any animal that is so much bigger than they are, but you just can’t get close to them. They see anti-squirrilism everywhere.”

Later I also moved to Virginia, and Joe and I got better acquainted. We saw each other at conferences and meetings, and he must have been to my house for dinner a score of times. My wife grumbled that he came empty handed and never reciprocated. I tried to explain to her that there are limits to the entertaining powers of most middle-aged men, and that she would be risking her health to set foot in his house, anyway. I was always the debtor no matter how often he came to dinner. It was at one of those evenings that I heard another Sobranism I have often trotted out as if it were my own: “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.”

It was this light touch, this sparkle that, I believe, lifted Joe’s writing from the merely admirable to the genuinely great. I write too, but if I really care about something, I get grimly serious, and the sentences scowl. Not Joe. He cared deeply about things—Lord, how he cared—but he could write about the most awful stuff with sentences that smiled. This was a gift Joe shared with only a very few: men like H. L. Mencken and Mark Twain. I [cuts off]
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Tragedy of Joe Sobran: A Tremendous Talent Lost to Antisemitism

by Gregory Hilton
Posted on October 1, 2010 | 7 Comments


Many of my friends are now writing tributes to Joe Sobran who died yesterday at the age of 64 from complications of diabetes. He was a nationally syndicated columnist who for 21 years was both a senior editor at National Review and a CBS Spectrum radio commentator. His death brings back many youthful memories, and it is best to say I have mixed emotions.

A list of Sobran articles I have enjoyed would be long, and many of them are his early works. His towering intellect, the incisive quality of his mind, his keen wit and religious devotion can not be denied. He had other admirable qualities, but his reputation will always be tarnished by his inexcusable attitude toward Jews.

Ann Coulter says “he did a lot of good work,” while Richard Shaftan, a respected Louisiana academic, calls him “Perhaps the greatest Catholic journalist ever, and a tremendous warrior for the conservative cause.” Shaftan’s praise for Sobran’s work on social and economic issues is understandable, but the late author was more comfortable with the left wing on foreign policy, national security and trade issues.

Sobran was a paleoconservative disciple of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, who later identified himself with isolationist libertarians. Buchanan called him “Perhaps the finest columnist of our generation.” He was briefly the Constitution Party candidate for Vice President in 2000. After 21 years be was fired as a senior editor of National Review by William F. Buckley, Jr., because of his controversial comments about Jewish people. Buckley said anyone who reviewed Sobran’s articles “might reasonably conclude those columns were written by a writer inclined to anti-Semitism.”

Those who knew him well say Sobran’s outlook changed around the time of his 40th birthday (February 23, 1986) when many of his articles became sharply critical of Israel and Jews. The situation is similar to Sen. Barry Goldwater’s (R-AZ) opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater had black friends and there is clear evidence he was not a racist. Sobran had Jewish friends and they insist he was not antisemitic, but Goldwater was wrong and many of the things Sobran wrote were reprehensible.

Goldwater never regretted his opposition to civil rights, and Sobran never retracted his comments about Jews. At the end of his life, Sobran was working on a book critical of Abraham Lincoln, and his opposition to the Iraq War during the past decade was well known. He blamed Israel and Jews for the 9/11 attack.

Comments By and About Joe Sobran:

Joseph Sobran’s 2002 address to the Institute for Historical Review, which questions the existence of the Holocaust:

Why on earth is it ‘anti-Jewish’ to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?…. I lack the scholarly competence to be [a Holocaust denier]. I don’t read German, so I can’t assess the documentary evidence; I don’t know chemistry, so I can’t discuss Zyklon-B…. Of course, those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities … the Holocaust has become a device for exempting Jews from normal human obligations. It has authorized them to bully and blackmail, to extort and oppress.

Dr. Joseph Bottum, Editor of conservative religious journal First Things:

What can one say? He was a polymath, a genius, and a sometimes brilliant writer of enormous speed and fluidity. And he drove himself nearly mad, embracing conspiracy theories and the crankiest of ways to reject consensus—from the authorship of Shakespeare’s works on down. His life was filled with unhappy incidents, which may have what pushed him to the battles he constantly forced on his friends, but he remained constant in his faith. May he be taken home to God, where all those battles cease and every tear is wiped away.

Dr. Hunter Baker of Houston Baptist University reacted to Joe Bottum’s obituary by saying:

Highly appropriate and rightly charitable remarks. What a tragic story. One of the longtime greats in conservative publishing once told me Joe Sobran was just about the best writer with whom he’d ever worked. He lost all that to his increasingly heterodox views.

Ben Domenech, Editor, The New Ledger:

Sobran was accused of anti-Semitism by several, most notably Norman Podhoretz. It was an accusation that was certainly borne out by his later writings, and by his association with the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The National Review firing was a severe blow to a man who’d invested twenty-one years of his life in a publication and was shown the door in middle age. It’s clear that Sobran never truly recovered, though he did reconcile with WFB before the latter’s death. . .

Sobran’s early work has much to recommend it — he is at times supremely eloquent, with a fierce logic behind his words. Read his Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions, published in 1983, and you can see why Buckley liked the man. But at some point, Sobran lost his mental footing: the darkness came, and he descended rapidly into the paranoia of glowering anti-Semitism.

I am sad about Joe Sobran. He was a brilliant fellow in some respects, but he lost himself to darker things. So, in much the same way I will be sad when Pat Buchanan inevitably passes, and Peter Brimelow, and yes, Andrew Sullivan — I am sad tonight for what this man could have been, and what he instead chose to be.

Quin Hillyer, the American Spectator:

It has been many years since I read a single piece by Sobran, because I got so disgusted with what certainly appeared to be his trafficking in anti-Semitism. I just could not bear to read that crud. But I must say that before he lost his bearings, Sobran was one of the most elegant and eloquent columnists I have ever read. . . . Sobran wrote “For years I all I have wanted is a president who was as simple as Ronald Reagan. It is a mystery to me why simple virtues like Ronald Reagan’s are thought to be anything but a great qualification.” It is the Joe Sobran who wrote that column, not the one later so rightly criticized by William F. Buckley, who I choose to remember. R.I.P.

Karen Powers, an anti-abortion activist:

I knew him from his writings on politics, culture and Shakespeare – and from a school carpool we shared. I didn’t always agree with what he wrote, but he always made me think and was enthusiast to explain concepts and ideas to me whenever we talked. He was a pretty original, independent person. I liked him very much.

Jason Maoz, The Jewish Press, March 10, 2006:

“He’s the columnist who complained “Hitler died in 1945, but anti-Hitler hysteria is still going strong”; cautioned against “the excessive moral prestige Jews have in the media and the public square”; whined about “Jews deciding the standards, setting the criteria of humanity”; and observed, in chilling if artful prose, that because Jews “set themselves up as the arbiter, there is, if you’ll pardon the expression, a certain ‘kill the umpire’ impulse.”

“He’s the writer who decried, in a column following the release of Schindler’s List, what he called “all this Holocaust-harping” and characterized Nazi genocide as basically a German overreaction to the crimes of “Jewish-led communist movements.” And he’s the commentator who warned that “History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger. Such was the experience of Europe during Jewish-led Communist revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Romania and Germany.”

“No, he’s not Patrick Buchanan, he’s Buchanan’s ideological soulmate, Joseph Sobran, a talented writer who in the mid-1980’s descended into the fever swamp of anti-Semitic polemics and hasn’t emerged since. Though Sobran’s work is now mainly relegated to the Internet, he’s had a remarkably mainstream career, not only as a syndicated columnist but as a regular commentator, from 1979 to 1991, on the CBS radio network’s “Spectrum” series and as a senior editor at National Review for nearly two decades.

“Israel,” Sobran has written, “exemplifies most of the ‘anti-Semitic stereotypes’ of yore: it is exclusivist, belligerent, parasitic, amoral and underhanded. It feels no obligation to non-Jews, even those who have befriended it.” And, in a column in which he condemned the “relentless pro-Israel propaganda” of non-Jews like Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will, Sobran complained that it was due to the enormous power of the American Jewish establishment that “Israel’s journalistic partisans include so many gentiles – lapsed goyim, you might say.”

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010...regory-hilton/
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #23
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

It's infuriating what those filthy Trotskyite Podhoretz kikes did to Sobran - but they couldn't have done shit if Buckle-ly & the rest of the "white" cahnslurpatives weren't cowardly whores. I mean, what could the kikes actually have DONE to Buckley if he'd told them to go fuck themselves? Could they have somehow stopped National Review from being published? Nah.

What doth it profit a man to keep being invited to Manhattan cocktail pahties if he lose his soul....
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #24
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Tragedy of Joe Sobran: A Tremendous Talent Lost to Antisemitism

by Gregory Hilton
Posted on October 1, 2010 | 7 Comments


Many of my friends are now writing tributes to Joe Sobran who died yesterday at the age of 64 from complications of diabetes. He was a nationally syndicated columnist who for 21 years was both a senior editor at National Review and a CBS Spectrum radio commentator. His death brings back many youthful memories, and it is best to say I have mixed emotions.

A list of Sobran articles I have enjoyed would be long, and many of them are his early works. His towering intellect, the incisive quality of his mind, his keen wit and religious devotion can not be denied. He had other admirable qualities, but his reputation will always be tarnished by his inexcusable attitude toward Jews.

Ann Coulter says “he did a lot of good work,” while Richard Shaftan, a respected Louisiana academic, calls him “Perhaps the greatest Catholic journalist ever, and a tremendous warrior for the conservative cause.” Shaftan’s praise for Sobran’s work on social and economic issues is understandable, but the late author was more comfortable with the left wing on foreign policy, national security and trade issues.

Sobran was a paleoconservative disciple of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, who later identified himself with isolationist libertarians. Buchanan called him “Perhaps the finest columnist of our generation.” He was briefly the Constitution Party candidate for Vice President in 2000. After 21 years be was fired as a senior editor of National Review by William F. Buckley, Jr., because of his controversial comments about Jewish people. Buckley said anyone who reviewed Sobran’s articles “might reasonably conclude those columns were written by a writer inclined to anti-Semitism.”

Those who knew him well say Sobran’s outlook changed around the time of his 40th birthday (February 23, 1986) when many of his articles became sharply critical of Israel and Jews. The situation is similar to Sen. Barry Goldwater’s (R-AZ) opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater had black friends and there is clear evidence he was not a racist. Sobran had Jewish friends and they insist he was not antisemitic, but Goldwater was wrong and many of the things Sobran wrote were reprehensible.

Goldwater never regretted his opposition to civil rights, and Sobran never retracted his comments about Jews. At the end of his life, Sobran was working on a book critical of Abraham Lincoln, and his opposition to the Iraq War during the past decade was well known. He blamed Israel and Jews for the 9/11 attack.

Comments By and About Joe Sobran:

Joseph Sobran’s 2002 address to the Institute for Historical Review, which questions the existence of the Holocaust:

Why on earth is it ‘anti-Jewish’ to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?…. I lack the scholarly competence to be [a Holocaust denier]. I don’t read German, so I can’t assess the documentary evidence; I don’t know chemistry, so I can’t discuss Zyklon-B…. Of course, those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities … the Holocaust has become a device for exempting Jews from normal human obligations. It has authorized them to bully and blackmail, to extort and oppress.

Dr. Joseph Bottum, Editor of conservative religious journal First Things:

What can one say? He was a polymath, a genius, and a sometimes brilliant writer of enormous speed and fluidity. And he drove himself nearly mad, embracing conspiracy theories and the crankiest of ways to reject consensus—from the authorship of Shakespeare’s works on down. His life was filled with unhappy incidents, which may have what pushed him to the battles he constantly forced on his friends, but he remained constant in his faith. May he be taken home to God, where all those battles cease and every tear is wiped away.

Dr. Hunter Baker of Houston Baptist University reacted to Joe Bottum’s obituary by saying:

Highly appropriate and rightly charitable remarks. What a tragic story. One of the longtime greats in conservative publishing once told me Joe Sobran was just about the best writer with whom he’d ever worked. He lost all that to his increasingly heterodox views.

Ben Domenech, Editor, The New Ledger:

Sobran was accused of anti-Semitism by several, most notably Norman Podhoretz. It was an accusation that was certainly borne out by his later writings, and by his association with the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The National Review firing was a severe blow to a man who’d invested twenty-one years of his life in a publication and was shown the door in middle age. It’s clear that Sobran never truly recovered, though he did reconcile with WFB before the latter’s death. . .

Sobran’s early work has much to recommend it — he is at times supremely eloquent, with a fierce logic behind his words. Read his Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions, published in 1983, and you can see why Buckley liked the man. But at some point, Sobran lost his mental footing: the darkness came, and he descended rapidly into the paranoia of glowering anti-Semitism.

I am sad about Joe Sobran. He was a brilliant fellow in some respects, but he lost himself to darker things. So, in much the same way I will be sad when Pat Buchanan inevitably passes, and Peter Brimelow, and yes, Andrew Sullivan — I am sad tonight for what this man could have been, and what he instead chose to be.

Quin Hillyer, the American Spectator:

It has been many years since I read a single piece by Sobran, because I got so disgusted with what certainly appeared to be his trafficking in anti-Semitism. I just could not bear to read that crud. But I must say that before he lost his bearings, Sobran was one of the most elegant and eloquent columnists I have ever read. . . . Sobran wrote “For years I all I have wanted is a president who was as simple as Ronald Reagan. It is a mystery to me why simple virtues like Ronald Reagan’s are thought to be anything but a great qualification.” It is the Joe Sobran who wrote that column, not the one later so rightly criticized by William F. Buckley, who I choose to remember. R.I.P.

Karen Powers, an anti-abortion activist:

I knew him from his writings on politics, culture and Shakespeare – and from a school carpool we shared. I didn’t always agree with what he wrote, but he always made me think and was enthusiast to explain concepts and ideas to me whenever we talked. He was a pretty original, independent person. I liked him very much.

Jason Maoz, The Jewish Press, March 10, 2006:

“He’s the columnist who complained “Hitler died in 1945, but anti-Hitler hysteria is still going strong”; cautioned against “the excessive moral prestige Jews have in the media and the public square”; whined about “Jews deciding the standards, setting the criteria of humanity”; and observed, in chilling if artful prose, that because Jews “set themselves up as the arbiter, there is, if you’ll pardon the expression, a certain ‘kill the umpire’ impulse.”

“He’s the writer who decried, in a column following the release of Schindler’s List, what he called “all this Holocaust-harping” and characterized Nazi genocide as basically a German overreaction to the crimes of “Jewish-led communist movements.” And he’s the commentator who warned that “History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger. Such was the experience of Europe during Jewish-led Communist revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Romania and Germany.”

“No, he’s not Patrick Buchanan, he’s Buchanan’s ideological soulmate, Joseph Sobran, a talented writer who in the mid-1980’s descended into the fever swamp of anti-Semitic polemics and hasn’t emerged since. Though Sobran’s work is now mainly relegated to the Internet, he’s had a remarkably mainstream career, not only as a syndicated columnist but as a regular commentator, from 1979 to 1991, on the CBS radio network’s “Spectrum” series and as a senior editor at National Review for nearly two decades.

“Israel,” Sobran has written, “exemplifies most of the ‘anti-Semitic stereotypes’ of yore: it is exclusivist, belligerent, parasitic, amoral and underhanded. It feels no obligation to non-Jews, even those who have befriended it.” And, in a column in which he condemned the “relentless pro-Israel propaganda” of non-Jews like Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will, Sobran complained that it was due to the enormous power of the American Jewish establishment that “Israel’s journalistic partisans include so many gentiles – lapsed goyim, you might say.”

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010...regory-hilton/
What a roll call of cuntz....they hate Sobran because his example burns them like the biblical coals of fire heaped on the head: yes, his refusal to lie led whores like these to shun him & ruin his career, but it made him truly great - and they can't stand it.

Enjoy your fat paychecks, Shlomo's poodles. You'll all be forgotten the moment you're lowered into the grave.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ran-1946-2010/
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
It's infuriating what those filthy Trotskyite Podhoretz kikes did to Sobran - but they couldn't have done shit if Buckle-ly & the rest of the "white" cahnslurpatives weren't cowardly whores. I mean, what could the kikes actually have DONE to Buckley if he'd told them to go fuck themselves? Could they have somehow stopped National Review from being published? Nah.

What doth it profit a man to keep being invited to Manhattan cocktail pahties if he lose his soul....
They're mostly catholics, and they prefer to suffer. Jews prefer to make other people suffer.
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #27
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
What a roll call of cuntz....they hate Sobran because his example burns them like the biblical coals of fire heaped on the head: yes, his refusal to lie led whores like these to shun him & ruin his career, but it made him truly great - and they can't stand it.

Enjoy your fat paychecks, Shlomo's poodles. You'll all be forgotten the moment you're lowered into the grave.
Yep.

Key thing is, all these detractors - not one of them will quote him and explain why it's wrong. It's purely conformist fear motivating these conservative cowards. Frankly, I feel tainted myself that I was ever involved with them.
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #28
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

What we should see from this is that fear is the most basic and overriding human instinct. All these people are smart enough to know better, but only one of them can overcome fear. Of course, I assume the one felt fear, which may be incorrect.
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

MOB
October 2, 2010 - 4:58 am | Permalink
Joseph Sobran was, for decades, the writer whose columns and articles provided me with the greatest amount of information and understanding of world events: he had one equal, and that was Pat Buchanan. These two men brought to their writing a density of contextual historical detail that made reading their work thrilling–-patterns and insights emerged as I read. Here is a small Sobran sampling. Though not in special order, The Friends of Uncle Joe, might actually be my #1 choice, since it was, for me, such an eye opener into WWII. Because of length, I’m submitting this in two parts. MOB

http://www.sobran.com/friends.shtml
THE FRIENDS OF UNCLE JOE (Sobran’s Vol. 7 No. 2 February 2000)
The year 2000 has brought a predictable flood of retrospection, with several equally predictable nominees for Man (or rather “Person”) of the Century. These include Albert Einstein (chosen by Time), Winston Churchill (the choice of The Weekly Standard), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (the choice of several, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the New York Daily News).
The gushing encomia deal very lightly, as one might also have predicted, with one fact common to all three: their fondness for Joseph Stalin, perhaps the Mass Murderer of the Millennium. Time fails to mention that the saintly Professor Einstein, a man of “humane and democratic instincts,” was a relentless fellow-traveler who defended even Stalin’s macabre 1938 Moscow show trials; the anti-Communist philosopher Sidney Hook recalled in his autobiography, Out of Step, that getting Einstein to criticize the Soviet Union was like pulling teeth.
Roosevelt’s eulogists likewise avoid the subject of Stalin, for whom FDR had the highest regard, calling him “a Christian gentleman” during the Yalta conference. He had befriended Stalin from the first year of his administration, when he extended diplomatic recognition to the murderous pariah state. Time and again he chose to help “Uncle Joe” when he didn’t have to, appeasing him from a position of strength. Even Neville Chamberlain never idealized Hitler as “Uncle Adolf.” When FDR asked Pope Pius XII to condemn Hitler, Pius sent back word that if he did so he would also have to condemn Stalin; Roosevelt withdrew the request.
As for Churchill, we are assured that he had no illusions about Stalin, which only makes his wartime indulgence of the tyrant harder to excuse. His 1946 complaint (in a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri) about the “Iron Curtain” falling on Eastern Europe after World War II is treated as prophetic, when it was just the opposite: a totally hypocritical gesture. Anyone who didn’t know what to expect of Stalin by 1946 — or who could believe his guarantees at Yalta in 1945 — was a moron. And Churchill was no moron, only a cynic feigning alarm at the obvious.
Stalin had shown his true colors long before Roosevelt and Churchill took on as their ally the brave, bluff “Uncle Joe.” Had they never heard of the forced famine of Ukraine, the NKVD mass arrests, the Gulag camps, the purges and show trials, the murder of Trotsky, the invasions of Poland (with the Katyn Forest massacre of 15,000 Polish officers), Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? All these things, and more, revealed not only the brutality of Stalin but the logic of Communism itself, which had begun its reign in Russia with the mass murder of Orthodox priests under Lenin. Communism was in essence a reversion to the principles of primitive warfare, directed not only against external enemies but against its own subjects if they resisted (or were even suspected of a disposition to resist) its tyranny.
The alliance with the Soviet Union is a permanent bloodstain on the Western democracies. It was part of what F.J.P. Veale, a British jurist, called the Allies’ “advance to barbarism” in his mercilessly trenchant book of that title. Long out of print, Advance to Barbarism is now available only from the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California. The book is both essential to read and difficult to obtain. It’s remarkable for the iron logic with which Veale seizes on the damning casual admissions, and even the occasional twinges of conscience, of the victors of World War II. (He finds such twinges far more often in Churchill than in Roosevelt.)
______________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/issuetexts/2002-05.htm
THE OBSESSION
Now and then I get letters and e-mail messages asking why I am so “obsessed” with Jews and Israel. The question amuses me. It would be one thing if I often wrote about Mali, or Honduras, or Borneo, or any other nation or country most people remember only as a name from geography class.
I should think it’s obvious that I’m *responding* to an obsession — an obsession of contemporary culture, politics, the media, the arts. We have been getting 24/7 coverage of Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel for years now. The front pages, the evening news, the magazine covers devote so much attention to Israel — a country the size of New Jersey on the other side of the world — that you could get the impression that it spans several time zones and includes much of the world’s population (plus a few gentiles). Many columnists write about it more often than I do: Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Paul Greenberg! , Mona Charen, and George Will, to name a few. Of course they write uncritically about Israel, so they aren’t considered obsessed; Eric Alterman of THE NATON has compiled a list of more than 60 well-known pundits who “reflexively” support Israel, while finding only 6 who are frequently critical.
Every American president has to spend a disproportionate amount of his time coddling Israel and denouncing or actively fighting Israel’s enemies. It’s become part of the job description, as much as if it were written into the Constitution — or more so, since constitutional obligations have become optional and *this* obligation is definitely not. At the same time, no president or any other politician may suggest that the American-Israeli alliance imposes undue risks, costs, or burdens on the United States.
Journalism still devotes so much attention to the Holocaust that, as I once quipped, “The NEW YORK TIMES should be renamed HOLOCAUST UPDATE.” Books and movies about it continue to pour forth; bookstores have whole sections on the Holocaust, and universities consecrate entire departments to “Holocaust studies.” Holocaust memorials spring up everywhere. Elie Wiesel preaches that we *should* be obsessed with the Holocaust, as he is. Churches, accused of silent complicity in, and even ultimate responsibility for, the Holocaust, do their best to repent and atone.
Current Jewish sufferings are treated as specially tragic facts, extensions of the Holocaust itself. When Arab terrorists seized an Italian ship, the Achille Lauro, and threw a Jewish passenger overboard, a leading American composer, John Adams, wrote an entire opera, THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER, about the incident.
“Anti-Semitism” has become the chief of sins. It’s seldom helpfully defined, but it seems to take a thousand forms, from outright genocide to indiscreet bons mots about Israel. Many gentiles live in dread of being labeled anti-Semitic, a charge against which there is no real defense or appeal: to be accused is to be guilty! The burden of proof, as I’ve often pointed out, is on the defendant – and a difficult burden it is, since he hardly knows what he’s being accused of. How can you prove your innocence of an undefined crime? By the same token, there is no penalty for false charges of anti-Semitism, since a meaningless charge can’t be proved false anyway.
No gentile is quite safe from the charge. The Gospels, Catholicism, and the papacy have been indicted; so have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Edmund Burke, Dickens, Henry James, Henry Adams, Dostoyevsky, Mark Twain, Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Hemingway. (So far Jane Austen and Emily D ickinson seem to have escaped the accusation.) Then there are whole anti-Semitic nations, among them Russia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Germany, France, and Spain, lately joined by most of the Arab nations (thereby proving it is possible to be Semitic and anti-Semitic at the same time).
. . . The plague-carriers, so to speak, are the secularized, liberal, middlebrow Jews whose vulgarity sets the tone for American politics, public discourse, and popular culture. Some of them, like Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand, have real talent, of sorts; most of them are good at making money and aggressive in using it for their pet causes. Above all, they have a low genius for propaganda — for shaping the popular mind and its characteristic platitudes.
This is the prevalent body of Jews, our unacknowledged third party — the party of Zionism, Holocaust promotion, secularism, sexual license (including “gay rights” and legal abortion), and an aggressive U.S. foreign policy (in the interests of Israel, not the United States itself). The Jewish Party, only a small fraction of the U.S. population, donates more than half the! money received by the presidential candidates of the two major parties. It also dominates the major news and entertainment media.
_______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/articles/faction.shtml
THE JEWISH FACTION (Expanded from SOBRAN’S, May 2004, pages 3–6)
As with other “minorities,” the Christian habit with the Tribe is simply to pretend not to notice obvious and distressing things. This, we assume, is just their nature; they aren’t going to change; maybe they can’t help being this way.
This is what “interfaith dialogue” has come to: Christian despair and surrender.

http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml
THE JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT by Joseph Sobran
In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in the Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.
. . . It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others – you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.
. . . Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly discussed is one thing. You may think organized labor or the Social Security lobby abuses its power, but you don’t jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy Name in the Old Testament, is another matter entirely.
______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-07-lead.shtml
FEAR OF THE SMEAR (SOBRAN’S, July 2006, page 1)
As you probably already know, Israel is the only “democracy” dedicated to the proposition that all men sure as hell aren’t created equal.
More than sixty years after Hitler’s death, this seems to be the golden age of anti-Semitism, judging by the frequency with which the charge is made. Apparently anti-Semitism was the first word Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and the neoconservatives learned to pronounce right after mama and dada. An anti-Semite used to be a guy who hated Jews; now he’s a guy whom Jews hate.
_______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml
FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS (Expanded from SOBRAN’S, September 2002, pages 3-6, taken from a speech given at the IHR Conference held in Los Angeles, June 21û23, 2002.)
The news that I would be addressing the Institute of Historical Review came to some people as … well, news. It was mentioned in the Jewish newspaper Forward and on the Zionist Wall Street Journal Online. The editors of two conservative magazines called and wrote me to express their concern that I might damage my reputation, such as it is, by speaking to “Holocaust deniers.”
I’m not sure why this should matter. Even positing that I was speaking to a disreputable audience, I expect to be judged by what I say, not whom I say it to. I note that my enemies have written a great deal about me, yet they rarely quote me directly.
, , , The charge of anti-Semitism doesn’t have to be proved; and it can’t be disproved. It’s an assertion about motives, not actions. That’s the beauty of it: its unfalsifiability. Joe McCarthy was ruined for calling too many people Communists, even card-carrying Reds; but has Norman Podhoretz paid any penalty for calling too many people anti-Semites?
, , , Any number can play, including gentiles. Taki was accused by his Catholic publisher. My fate was crueler: I was defended by mine. Bill Buckley denied that I was anti-Semitic, but wrote a sentence, or a chapter (with Bill, the difference may be unclear), adding that though I was innocent of the crime, I somehow deserved to be falsely accused of it. That was a little like saying, “True, he was a guard at Auschwitz, but let’s give him credit: he always showed up for duty on time.” Thanks, Bill!
. . .In a peculiar way, the Holocaust story has promoted not only pity, but actual fear of the Jews. It has removed them from the universe of normal moral discourse. It has made them victims with nukes. It has made them even more dangerous than their enemies have always charged. It has given the world an Israel ruled by Ariel Sharon.
_____________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070319.shtml
THE NEW TABOOS (SOBRAN’S – February 1998)
A French court recently fined the nationalist leader Jean-Marie LePen a quarter of a million dollars for belittling the Holocaust — a hate crime, under French law. Other countries have similar restrictions on speech; the dissident historian David Irving has been prevented from visiting some countries because of what might be called Semitically incorrect things he has written in England. A new twist on international law, I suppose. And I suppose we might escape such penalties by announcing that we believe the Nazis killed whatever the minimum number of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others the law permits you to believe in the, er, democracies. Just to be on the safe side, we could even profess to believe the actual number of victims was double the permissible minimum.
. . . Ours is a golden age of taboos. They surround the Holocaust and other Jewish sensitivities, race, “gender,” and, just as much as ever, sex. The old taboos have been reversed, not abolished: it’s the concept of perversion that’s forbidden now, not perversion itself. Even conservative Christians feel compelled to mention that they have gay friends.
. . . Among the strongest of the new taboos are those imposed on public religious expression. The courts have outlawed many traditional religious observances in public schools and on any public property. The “holiday season” bears witness to the growing prohibition on the very mention of Christmas (though not Hanukkah or “Kwanzaa”).
The “multicultural” agenda professes equal tolerance for all cultures. But at its core is a fanatical hatred of Christian culture.
____________________________________________
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #30
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.sobran.com/equal.shtml
CREATED EQUAL (SOBRAN’S, January 2000, page 3)
“Stereotypes” may contain sound sociology.”
. . . The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal; the Constitution forbids titles of nobility; it eventually outlawed chattel slavery; “civil rights” has come to mean that even private employers must not hire according to ethnic criteria; racial prejudice, “racism”, has become a social taboo; and even generalizations about ethnic groups are frowned on (unless they flatter the “contributions” of this or that group). The only trait it’s now safe to ascribe to whole races is victimhood.
And yet common sense tells us that groups and nations do have distinct characters, with characteristic vices as well as virtues. When we aren’t on our guard against the thought police, we may discuss such things freely. American individualism is balanced by the earthy sociology of stereotypes, which, as the great sociologist John Murray Cuddihy assures us, “are more or less accurate.”
How does a group get a reputation that lasts over centuries? Is any such reputation a “prejudice”? A “prejudice” need not be a prejudgment; it may be the settled conclusion of long experience. In Europe Jews and gypsies were unpopular for centuries. Many Jews blame this fact – which they call anti-Semitism, on Christianity, which they consider superstition, thereby denying any empirical foundation to the gentiles’ distrust. The word anti-Semitism itself implies that all frictions between Jews and gentiles must be blamed on the gentiles.
But the slang words jew and gyp tell another story–the bad reputations of both groups have less to do with religion than with practical experience and word-of-mouth tradition. Notice that the unpopularity of such groups has more to do with distrust than with simple hatred. The verbs jew and gyp imply sharp dealing and low ethics. The Middle East bears witness that the Jews may be unpopular even where most of the population is non-Christian. They haven’t endeared themselves to Muslim Arabs; just as they were unpopular in the ancient pagan world. As a matter of fact, most of the world’s Jews have chosen to live in Christian countries. Would they have done so if Christians were always hostile to Jews?
Hilaire Belloc’s book The Jews, published in 1922, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand what used to be frankly called (even by Jews) “the Jewish problem”. Belloc addressed the problem from the Christian point of view, but he did it in an even-handed way, acknowledging that the vices of the Jews are often the obverse of their virtues. He wrote at a time when Jewish Bolshevism, based in Russia, menaced Christendom. The Jewish Communists in every country seemed to embody, in extreme form, every bad trait ascribed to the Jewshatred of the majority and its religion, duplicity, materialism, lust for power.
. . . Of course most Jews no longer believe in Judaism; many are hostile to any religion, including their own. In substituting Zionism for Judaism, they have adopted a self-exalting modern nationalism, rejecting all criticism as “anti-Semitism”. The state of Israel practices every form of discrimination against non-Jews that secularized Jews reject when they are a minority anywhere else in the world. But this obvious fact is mentioned publicly at one’s own risk. Zionist jingoism, forever casting Jews as innocent victims, has taken its toll on the ancient Jewish capacity for rigorous self-criticism. Just as gentile criticism of Jews has become “anti-Semitism”, Jewish self-criticism has become “self-hatred”.
. . . “Israel’s right to exist” really means the right of Jews to dominate non-Jews. That is the foundation – the virtual constitution – of the Jewish state, and Jewish courts have ruled that non-Jews may not claim the same rights as Jews. Under the “right of return”, any Jew in the world may “return” to Israel (even if none of his ancestors ever lived there) and immediately claim rights denied to Palestinians whose ancestors have lived there for untold centuries.
Such facts, along with Israel’s heavy dependence on American aid, confirm the very stereotypes Jews constantly protest, of Jews as duplicitous “parasites” who recognize no moral obligations of Jews toward gentiles. So do Israeli espionage and technology theft against this country. The convicted spy Jonathan Pollard is widely celebrated as a national hero in Israel. And yet we are told, not only by Jews but by our own native prostitute politicians, that Israel is our “reliable ally” as well as a model of democracy.
. . . Until the heroic Alexander Solzhenitsyn published his great trilogy, The Gulag Archipelago, in the 1970s (excerpts of which, be it noted, were carried in the New York Times under its Zionist editor Abe Rosenthal), the heavily-Jewish U.S. liberal media still maintained that the Russian people were far better off under Communism than under the despotic tsars.
In Germany, especially after Jewish-led Communist insurrections there and in Hungary and Romania, Hitler could argue plausibly that Soviet Communism showed what the Jews meant to do to other countries. . . In America, Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest, warned of Jewish Bolshevism too, cataloguing the real Jewish names of the Soviet ruling circles and accusing the Soviet regime of murdering 20 million Christians (a figure that later turned out to be far too low, according to Solzhenitsyn and others). Nevertheless, Stalin enjoyed widespread support from Jews around the world, even after his bloody purge of most Jewish members of the Soviet hierarchy.
Is there a “Jewish problem” in the United States today? In the media age, Jews prevail in the media – in television news, punditry, major newspapers, and Hollywood entertainment. They also constitute a powerful lobby, devoted to a range of liberal causesfeminism, “civil rights,” legal abortion, banning religion from public places – whatever seems to irritate the Christian population. Many ethnic Jews (as well as many nominal but effectively apostate Christians) still carry what might be called the Bolshevik gene code. But Jews are so powerful in this country that any mention of the Jewish angle in liberalism is taboo . . . a journalist may endanger his career by discussing Jewish interests in any light except a highly favorable one. An especially vivid illustration is provided by the media’s concerted hate campaign against Pat Buchanan. Jewish power is such that even Jews in the media are themselves afraid of it.
. . . The chief reason is that they are serious. As the great Jewish polemicist Maurice Samuel explained, Jews have a general contempt for sports and games and don’t waste their time on these gentile frivolities. Try to imagine a Jewish couch potato sitting in front of the television with a six-pack watching three football games in a row! It’s hard to picture.
People who don’t hate the Jews are nevertheless afraid of them, afraid of crossing them. Given their inordinate power in the media, this means that the general public hears very little criticism of them, even when they deserve it. . . It amounts to private censorship. Jewish power inhibits free speech even when the press is absolutely free from government control.
The general public has become accustomed to judging everything from a Jewish point of view. This is most striking – to me, anyway – in the constant harping on World War II, which has long since ceased revolving around Pearl Harbor and Japan and now centers obsessively on the “Holocaust” – a word never used during the war itself. We are taught that it is good that the United States won, because Hitler was destroyed. In fact, the real victor was Stalin, who quickly took ten Christian countries under Communist rule; but since Communism enjoyed a good deal of Jewish support and most of its victims were Christians, its role in the war is barely acknowledged. Even Jewish anti-Communists (of whom there are now many) say next to nothing about the savage Communist persecution of Christians. In contrast to the endless hunt for old Nazis, there has been no campaign to find and punish aging Communist criminals, or to exact reparations for the cruelty and suffering they inflicted.

http://www.sobran.com/jewid.shtml
THE CHURCH AND JEWISH IDEOLOGY (Sobran’s – May 1999)
The prevalent Jewish myth today is not the founding myth of Abraham or Moses on Sinai, but the story of Jewish persecution. In our time the Jews are defined less by ancestry than by “anti-Semitism,” which is cited for many purposes, including the legitimation of the state of Israel. Most Zionists no longer claim that God gave the Holy Land to the Jews; instead they contend that the Jewish state is necessary as a haven for world Jewry.
According to this modern myth, the Jews are in no way responsible for their own unpopularity from ancient times. What, then, is the source of such persistent hostility to this fundamentally innocent people? Why, the Catholic Church, of course!
. . . In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies. Even Einstein, the greatest of Jewish scientists, was, unlike Sir Isaac Newton, no mere contemplator of nature’s laws; he helped inspire the development of nuclear weapons and consistently defended the Soviet Union under Stalin.
. . . Jews have generally supported Communism, socialism, liberalism, and secularism; the agenda of major Jewish groups is the de-Christianization of America, using a debased interpretation of the “living Constitution” as their instrument. When the Jewish side of an issue is too unpopular to prevail democratically, the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue a “constitutional” one, appealing to judicial sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters. Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion illustrates that many Jews hate Christian morality more than they revere Jewish tradition itself. This fanatical antagonism causes anguish to a number of religious, conscientious, and far-sighted Jews, but they, alas, are outside the Jewish mainstream.
. . . Clearly, it is futile for the Church to try to mollify a hatred so ancient and so deep as the Jewish animus against Christianity. Despite all the sentimental rhetoric to the contrary — such as pious nonsense about “the Judaeo- Christian tradition” — Judaism and Christianity are radically opposed over the most important thing of all: Jesus Christ, who commands us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, and to love our enemies, which does not mean mistaking them for friends.
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Joe Sobran :
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call ‘minorities.’
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

BECOMING A DEVIL by Joseph Sobran
March 22, 1999
But a perverse moral has been drawn. Liberal pundits are citing this bizarre murder as evidence of persistent white racism in America. King is being turned into a symbol of general white guilt.

The truth is more specific. A clue to the real explanation lies in King’s personal history.

King served a two-year prison sentence for burglary, which suggests a predisposition to violate other people’s rights. While in prison, he joined a white supremacist group and covered his body with Nazi and Klan tattoos. One psychiatrist at his trial suggested that this may have been a way to deter attacks by black inmates. Time magazine quotes another witness as saying King became part of a group known as “peckerwoods,” described as “whites who would not yield money or sexual favors to blacks.”

Just a few details mentioned in passing. But they are worth dwelling on. White convicts complain, unavailingly, of a particularly ugly fact of life in prisons: racial attacks on whites by non-whites. Assault, robbery and homosexual rape are commonplace. The fact that there was a special slang term among inmates in King’s prison for “whites who would not yield money or sexual favors to blacks” is grim evidence of this condition. Apparently there was no need for a term for blacks who wouldn’t yield money or sexual favors to whites.

There could hardly be a better recipe for racial hatred. Young whites like King, a minority in prison, are thrown to the wolves, and they know they can expect no protection or sympathy from prison officials, liberal opinion or society in general when they are bullied and raped. The fear and humiliation they suffer is almost unimaginable, and it goes unreported.

In such snake pits, their only safety may lie in joining racial gangs. It should be no surprise when they emerge from prison not only hating blacks, but despising all conventional standards of morality…

Few men want to talk about having been raped. It has the same horror for them as for women, with the added disgrace of feeling one’s manhood annihilated in a setting where one can least afford to lose it. To be raped in prison is to become a target for frequent rape. When the rapes also have a racial motive, the victim can be expected to respond by going to irrational extremes — murder, suicide or generalized hatred against the whole race he feels violated by…

If society in general can be blamed for anything, it’s for making a prison sentence a sentence to hell, where becoming a devil may be a survival strategy…
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #33
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
Shakespeare on War and Empire

Joseph Sobran discusses Shakespeare's insights on War & Empire at the Costs of War Seminar.

[44:58]

MP3 DOWNLOAD
http://mises.org/media/1074/Shakespe...War-and-Empire

Last edited by Solskeniskyn; March 21st, 2014 at 02:39 PM.
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #34
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
Fran Griffin: Remembering Joe Sobran

Fran Griffin recounts the career of Joe Sobran, and discusses the remarkable breadth of his writings

[20:06]

MP3 DOWNLOAD
http://podbay.fm/show/647482565/e/13...76?autostart=1

Last edited by Solskeniskyn; March 21st, 2014 at 02:38 PM.
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #35
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

This was a gem of a find.

Quote:
The Articles - Pensees: Notes for the Reactionary Of Tomorrow
If I were asked to provide a single article demonstrating a modern Conservative critique of Liberalism, I would hand over Joe Sobran's 1985 Pensees: Notes for the Reactionary Of Tomorrow (it is a large document so give the PDF some time to download), published in National Review's 30th Anniversary edition.



PDF DOWNLOAD


A few years after the publication of the essay, National Review sold cassettes of Sobran reading Pensees. Of course I purchased and instead of printed quotations from the essay, here are mp3's of Sobran reading Pensees:

Part one (William F. Buckley, Jr. introducing the essay). (2.6 MB, 2:53 minutes in length)

Part two - Prologue. (19.3 MB, 21 minutes in length)

Part three - The Rule of Law (1). (20.3 MB, 22 minutes in length)

Part four - The Rule of Law (2). (1.5 MB, 1:39 minutes in length)

Part five - Native Aliens. (17.2 MB, 18:47 minutes in length)

Part six - The Socialist Phenomenon. (19.8 MB, 20:40 minutes in length)

Part seven - The 'Liberal' Strategy. (20.3 MB, 22:14 minutes in length)

Part eight - Sex, Etc. (17.7 MB, 19:21 minutes in length)

Part nine - Organized Irreligion (1). (4.69 MB, 5:07 minutes in length)

Part ten - Organized Irreligion (2). (12.9 MB, 14:08 minutes in length)

Part eleven - Minority Rule. (21.4 MB, 23:47 minutes in length)

Part twelve - Prospects. (4.78 MB, 5:13 minutes in length)
http://culturaloffering.com/2012/03/...#ixzz2wd9LZDFO
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #36
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
Joseph Sobran: The Media: Handmaids of Big Government

[33:27]

MP3 DOWNLOAD
http://ashbrook.org/podcast/soban_93-04-23/

Last edited by Solskeniskyn; March 21st, 2014 at 02:37 PM.
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #37
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
The Bigotry of Tolerance

June 16, 2000

Mr. Sobran talked about efforts to promote tolerance and multiculturalism. He said that those supporting this agenda often employed double standards in order to suppress ideas with which they did not agree. Among the topics he addressed were race relations, homosexuality, and traditional interpretations of history.

[54:22]
C-SPAN VIDEO AT LINK: http://www.c-span.org/video/?157744-1/bigotry-tolerance
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #38
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
The Sobran Scandal

July 14, 1986

Joseph Sobran discussed the "Sobran Scandal", complaints about reviews and columns that he has written. He answered questions from viewers.

[58:30]
C-SPAN VIDEO AT LINK: http://www.c-span.org/video/?123711-1/sobran-scandal
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #39
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
South Africa

August 19, 1985

Mr. Sobran discussed political affairs in South Africa and responded to callers' questions.

[58:06]
C-SPAN VIDEO AT LINK: http://www.c-span.org/video/?72614-1/south-africa-
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #40
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
Libertarian Convention Day 3 Luncheon Speech

July 6, 1996

Mr. Sobran spoke about the need for more than two major political parties to revive the U.S. political system. He criticized Republicans and Democrats for trying to keep other parties from growing.

[31:05]
C-SPAN VIDEO AT LINK: http://www.c-span.org/video/?73458-1...uncheon-speech
 
Reply

Tags
#1, joe sobran

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.
Page generated in 0.20751 seconds.