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

Old January 11th, 2012 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default The Insane Philo-Semitism of 'The Quarterly Review'

The Insane Philo-Semitism of 'The Quarterly Review'

Derek Turner’s ‘The Quarterly Review’; the pseudo-successor to ‘Right Now’, is one of the many periodicals on the nominal ‘far right’ to which I subscribe, but it is actually; in many ways, one of the more interesting precisely because it doesn’t go in too much for hyperbole and it has some noteworthy scholars; such as Frank Ellis, Kenneth Royce Moore and Dwight Murphy, who edit and contribute to it. It specialises in High Tory and occasional Libertarian opinion pieces particularly in relation to European current affairs.

Now like my comments on the Socialist History Society’s near obsession with the chosen people: I note that ‘The Quarterly Review’ has a similar obsession in spite of being on the other end of the political spectrum in both the traditional linear and the more modern matrices-based graphical representation of it. Now; unlike the Socialist History Society, ‘The Quarterly Review’ has only one jew; as far as I can ascertain, on its staff in the personage of Paul Gottfried who is on the advisory board of the publication.

In spite of this; as I have said, the periodical spends an inordinate amount of time on the jews and some of its contributors; Frank Ellis perhaps most notably, seem inordinately obsessed with the ‘persecution’ allegedly suffered by and general beatitudes apparently owing to the jews.

American Editor Mark Brennan ruminates on Walt Rostow; a jewish economist significantly responsible for the Vietnam war, and argues that ‘he was right in the end’ in contrast to his fellow jews who chose the path of socialism (he really means Marxism here). (1) While Ellis; in the next article, then promptly tries to assert the canard that Stalin was ‘anti-Semitic’ (arguable but only in the sense of sans context) (2) while failing to note that some of Stalin’s major cronies in the persecution of the ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ from 1948 to 1953 were themselves jewish (much as those killing Rabbis and Hasidim during the civil war were often jewish themselves) and that the campaign wasn’t so much against jews per se (it was partly directed against Zionist feeling among the jews) but against Soviet intellectuals as a group of whom the jews made up a large and significant percentage.

The problem with Ellis’ type of argument is that assumes an absolute valuation of what being ‘anti-Semitic’ entails and as Gavin Langmuir and Matthias Bunzl; among others, have noted the problem of assigning absolute labels to anti-jewish sentiment is a tricky one. The waters have also been notoriously muddied by Israeli propagandists and their willing/unwilling cronies who have long sought to call everyone and their aunt ‘anti-Semites’ as a way of deflecting any and all criticism of Israeli actions and maintaining the jewish community’s selective mythos.

Such arguments; arguing that such and such a historical character was anti-Semitic, are common but also very difficult to cogently make as they are often assigning much later valuations to their subject without considering context (i.e. ex post facto). That is why I myself and other historians like me have preferred to take a minimalist approach to matters of anti-jewish sentiment assignation and argue for the study of the micro-historical case before assigning rhetorical adjectives like ‘anti-Semitic’ to individuals, groups or events. In the particular case of Stalin: Ellis conveniently leaves out the fact that Stalin was notoriously paranoid against everybody and behaved; as Vadim Birstein has recently argued, more as a ‘mafia boss’ than a dictator per se.

Of course: the need for a reasoned and carefully thought out analysis of Stalin’s reasons for his liquidations and trials of jews between 1948 and 1953 isn’t considered by Ellis possibly because he feels it is self-evident. However it is not and nor does Ellis consider; even if for a moment, the possibility that jews might have actually provoked this outbreak of alleged persecution on Stalin’s part. After all such thoughts are heretical and verboten even to so prolific and otherwise praise-worthy an un-PC scholar as Ellis.

That said Ellis also obsessively claims the ‘holocaust’ happened (I mean come on Frank have you actually read the ‘witnesses’ and ‘documentation’) and that we can believe the general fantasies of ‘jewish inmates’ who seem to have memorial faculties beyond that of mere human beings as well as the ability to make the impossible possible. No mean thing even for the ‘Chosen of Hashem’ I’d wager.

Apparently the critical spirit; so fundamental to a good scholar, only goes so far and one can’t possibly question the founding myth of the modern political and intellectual world. That said Ellis does; in fact, more or less worship Israel (3) and holds persecution by the oh-so-evil Nazis as being an indicative totem for an individual or group’s desirability. (4) After all he holds the ‘White Rose’ movement; everything that Ellis I’d imagine ideologically is against, as being a bastion of moral courage!

Paul Gottfried; the jew of the outfit, focuses on the issue of jewish support of Bismarck in his review of Steinberg’s new biography of the man of ‘Blood and Iron’: Otto von Bismarck. He notes that attacks on the Iron Chancellor; such as Steinberg’s, are particularly supported by ‘jewish liberals’ (5) and that Steinberg fails to evidence the ‘direct connection’ between Hitler and Bismarck as well as the fact that some of Bismarck’s most loyal supporters (i.e. of Bismarck’s National Liberal party) were jewish and that jewish bankers underwrote most of Bismarck’s aggressive policies including the famous Kulturkampf.

I agree with Gottfried’s point that Bismarck’s politics and Hitler’s have little to do with each other, but I’d also point out that Hitler’s politics; that of anti-Semitic volkisch nationalism (which is incidentally my own preferred brand), owes the basis of its thought to Bismarck’s time and was; as Alexander Jacob has pointed out, a direct intellectual descent of the politics that Bismarck’s own policies fostered.

However Gottfried isn’t being particularly disinterested here as he is writing to convince others; possibly even himself, that jews have nothing to fear from the authoritarian right and that as a political philosopher of well-known anti-democratic views (based on Carl Schmitt’s beautiful legal and philosophical demolition of representative ‘democracy’ as a political system) he is offering an ‘alternative’ to jews (of a sort anyway) in his brand of philo-Semitic (well he is a jew) authoritarian patriotism.

The editor of the outfit; Derek Turner, indirectly praises Guillaume Faye for his support of Israel and ‘disbelief in Jewish plots’ (6) as well as offering support for Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the United States. (7) While the deputy editor; Leslie Jones, seems to believe that Christianity is actually Judaism and that this is a very positive thing. (8) Although contributor Peter Stark sees the historical issues surrounding Christianity, in particular its direct links to Mithraism, far more clearly than does Jones. (9)

Mark Brennan; the American editor, also seems to think readers would be interested in his nonsensical views on the ‘holocaust’ and how it happened (he predictably tries to avoid the nasty little issues of feasibility and documentary support), but that doesn’t stop him opining on a supposed magnum opus of ‘holocaust scholarship’ (two words that simply don’t belong together). (10) Interviewee Ron Paul opines that Israel is; in effect, controlled by the American government (11) and that the illegal immigrant community will simply go home if state aid stops being given to them. (12)

Two words: oh dear.

What is behind all this insane philo-Semitism?

(1) I think it is a mix of factors, but we may summarise these as follows:
A hankering for someone who ‘stands up’ for perceived Western (read Christian) values and the partial identification of that personage in the Israeli battles against various opponents: the most vocal of whom are radical Muslims.

(2) An emotional need; which is rationalised intellectually, to distance themselves from the more traditional far right beliefs; which I myself hold, particularly opposition to jews that prevents fundamental beliefs on the assumption maker’s part being challenged (i.e. Britain sacrificed itself to stop the ‘evil Nazis’).

(3) The belief that as Christianity is equitable with Judaism that this therefore means that jews are ‘friends of the West’ and are to be treated as allies rather than its most deadly enemies as more traditional far right beliefs would; rightly, assert.

I suppose you could say it all comes down to the same problem that Revilo Oliver observed in the late 1960s: conservatives simply can’t pull themselves away from their own beliefs to get to the core of the issues. Nietzsche’s demand that we get to the fundamental assumptions and facts behind an issue are all the more poignant in this light and in this we can say; with much justification, that ‘The Quarterly Review’ represents a bastion of high and mid brow intellectuals who just can’t bear to take the last jump from ardent conservative to revolutionary nationalism as they; as Slavoj Zizek observed of his fellow leftists, want a conservative revolution without the characteristics of a revolution.

Such is the world in which we live: revolutionaries who cannot stomach actual revolution, liberals who condemn liberties and conservatives who aren’t sure what they want to conserve.

Oh well: c’est la vie.

References

(1) Mark Brennan, 2011, ‘From Rags to Riches – what next for the Western Consumer?’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 59
(2) Frank Ellis, 2011, ‘The Time of Great Death’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 69
(3) Frank Ellis, 2011, ‘The Promised Planet’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 23
(4) Frank Ellis, 2010, ‘Banking on Germany’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 48
(5) Paul Gottfried, 2011, ‘The Sinking of Bismarck’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 79
(6) Derek Turner, 2010, ‘Futurology Imperfect’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 60
(7) Derek Turner, 2010, ‘A Matter of Moral Courage’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 3
(8) Leslie Jones, 2010, ‘Cross of Iron’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 66
(9) Peter Stark, 2010, ‘Last Post for the Bronze Age in Catalonia’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 29
(10) Mark Brennan 2010, ‘The Last Word in Holocaust Scholarship’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 67-69
(11) Peter Gemma, 2010, ‘Commonsense and Conscience in Congress’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 8
(12) Ibid, p. 10


---------------


This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...quarterly.html
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; January 11th, 2012 at 01:00 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.
Page generated in 0.39433 seconds.