Hissy Fits on the Right

|

Ronald Radosh has finally lost it.

[Via LewRockwell.com.]

NEXT: Mass Protests in Hong Kong

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. he is just playing the game. someone who marched with ANSWER shouldn’t throw stones (and if you didn’t, this does apply to others here). and there really are people who talk about neconservatism the same way people used to talke about jewish conspiricies, so don’t pretend that anti-semitism wasn’t a factor among SOME anti-war protestors.

  2. a warning when linking to a pdf would be helpful for some of us whose machines are slow and get very slow and tacky on those links.

  3. Just one tiny correction, since this is where I stopped reading it: “[Justin] Raimondo also writes that “Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11,” a claim that puts him in league with the most extremist anti-Semites in the Arab world.”

    I guess that would include me too. Look into the “Israeli art students,” the apparent surveillance of the 9/11 hijackers by Israel, and the apparent attempts by Israeli officials to warn U.S. officials that something big was about to happen.

  4. “a warning when linking to a pdf would be helpful for some of us whose machines are slow and get very slow and tacky on those links.”

    If you mouse over the link your browser should indicate what type of file it points to. (Lower left hand corner, if you’re using Internet Explorer).

  5. I don’t get how

  6. I don’t get how

    As opposed to the link on “Ronald Radosh.”

  7. “I guess that would include me too.” Yep.

  8. Lonewacko,

    The line about the Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11 was unclear and should have been elucidated better, but I think the point wasn’t to say that merely suggesting that there was some level of Israeli foreknowledge in and of itself puts you in league with the most extreme anti-semites. But if you go on from this to some sort of a position of: it was a Mossad plot/it never really happened/all the jews evacuated the WTC etc. then you’re out in anti-semitic conspiratorial la-la land.

    If you’re saying that Israel was actively trying to warn us of the danger then that’s a different claim entirely.

  9. kevin: is there or is there not some who use the neocon conspiricy the same way they used to use jewish conspiracy?

    ahh the good old days of the old right, charles limburgh, classic anti-semtitism, pro-fascist rallies. funny how old-rightphiles whitewash all this from history.

  10. “is there or is there not some who use the neocon conspiricy the same way they used to use jewish conspiracy?”

    Maybe, just as there are probably people on the other side who think Arabs are all vermin. It’s best not to judge groups by their worst members.

  11. Anon 0732:

    Sure there is (sic). But to “reason” from the existence of an anti-semitic element in the old right or current anti-neocon movement, to the illegitimacy of the term neoconservative, is disingenuous.

    If neoconservatism is a “conspiracy,” it’s the kind of conspiracy that promulgates its ideology in thousands of documents in the public record, and that makes attempt to hide the names of public policy figures in the membership lists of neocon organizations.

    In other words, it’s the kind of “conspiracy” that couldn’t exist except for the moribund state of investigative journalism, and a mainstream press that limits itself to regurgitating statements from press conferences.

  12. how has he lost it? if comparing anti-war people to isonalists is unfair, so is calling pro-war people imperialists. comparing today’s events to yesterday’s is hogwash, but it is common enough on this site.

  13. btw- speakign of erasing history, isn’t it amazing that lew & co. have completely erased the fact that the Old Right did include anti-semites and pro-fascists? peace and freedom my arse!

  14. Interesting article…but tell your editor that there should be some link between the content of the artice and the title and description of the thread.

  15. i think the post referred to the PDF

  16. Yes, the “lost it” reference was to the PDF. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

    There’s nothing wrong with comparing anti-war people to isolationists — there are obvious parallels. It was the simplistic treatment of the old isolationists, the overwrought comparison to the Red-Brown alliance, and the claim that discussion of neoconservative influence constitutes an “anti-Semitic” “conspiracy theory” — all coming from someone who demonstrably knows better — that prompted my description.

  17. archie:

    Yeah, my statements seem a lot more anti-semitic when you splice in anti-semitic language. You could produce a similar effect by taking a GWB speech and substituting “Jews” for “terrorists.” Gasp! Shrub’s speech could have been cut and pasted from an anti-semitic tract of the ’30s! Especially if you insert something like “(because all evildoers are Jews).” Gosh, yeah, you can turn any comment into a racist screed if you just add the racist language. Oh, my!

    My point, in the passage you quoted doctored, was that you DON’T have to posit a conspiracy. Neoconservatism is identified with a number of prominent organizations, with well publicized links to policy circles. All you have to do is look at the personal connections between Rumsfeld’s civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and the PNAC and Weekly Standard.

    The only thing that makes it sound like a “conspiracy,” to the sheeple who get their consensus reality from the mainstream press, is that the corporate media doesn’t print anything that isn’t spoon-fed by a government or corporate stuffed suit. It’s a fact that most of the column inches in the mainstream press are taken up with information generated by PR departments and public spokesmen.

    Oops! Now you’ll probably be saying “stuffed suit,” “PR department” and “public spokesman” are code-words for “Jew”! Ha! Ha! When the stuff on the intellectual influence of Straussianism started appearing last month, Jesse Walker predicted the “idiot brigade” would start squealing that “Straussian” was a “code-word.”

    And when you say you don’t believe in “conspiracies,” exactly what does that mean? Do you believe that the government’s publicly stated justifications for its policies are the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do you believe that the government never acts on ulterior motives, while acting under a pretext of “the public welfare”?

    If you don’t believe in conspiracies, what do you call Watergate? Do you believe in the Tonkin Gulf incident, the “incubator babies,” and those Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border in 1990? Yeah, and that shepherd guy is taking such good care of you because he just loves sheep! All those rumors of a slaughterhouse are just a conspiracy theory. Take the red pill, man!

    Shee-it, collusion between government and private interests is as old as mankind. When a local government body meets in violation of the FOI laws, and the sheriff uses county equipment to improve the roads on his farm, that’s (guess what?): a CONSPIRACY! When government officials act to promote corrupt interests, and lie about it, that’s a CONSPIRACY! So what you’re really saying is, you don’t believe politicians lie!

    say hello to mehitabel for me.

  18. >>My point, in the passage you quoted doctored, was that you DON’T have to posit a conspiracy.

    so why bring the “conspiricy” up? why continue with your post?

    >>Neoconservatism is identified with a number of prominent organizations, with well publicized links to policy circles.

    this is far from established fact, especially since many have renounced “neoconservatism” publically in favor of just “conservative.” but i suppose that is just a “cover up” and we shouldn’t take their word for it.

    >>All you have to do is look at the personal connections between Rumsfeld’s civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and the PNAC and Weekly Standard.

    typical conspiracy irrationality. do you realize that you yourself are 1 in 6 people away from having a personal connection to the editors of the Standard? That it maybe even closer??? That so is every human on the planet??

    my uncle was janitor to a girl who worked in Fred Barnes office – cue the scary music, he is ONE OF THEM.

    >>The only thing that makes it sound like a “conspiracy,” to the sheeple who get their consensus reality from the mainstream press, is that the corporate media doesn’t print anything that isn’t spoon-fed by a government or corporate stuffed suit.

    Sheeple, as in contempt for those who don’t share your estoric “truths” – your paranoia is amazing. Yes only Kevin knows the truth, everyone else is part of the “idiot brigade” who mindless repeat what the corporate media tells them too (through brainwaves of course).

    >> It’s a fact that most of the column inches in the mainstream press are taken up with information generated by PR departments and public spokesmen.

    so what? most of the publication is filled with adverstisements. and guess what? most if not all of the reporters consume products, know someone in the corporate world, own stock. THEY MUST BE PART OF THE CONSPIRICY! and we know all PR people lie…

    >>When the stuff on the intellectual influence of Straussianism started appearing last month, Jesse Walker predicted the “idiot brigade” would start squealing that “Straussian” was a “code-word.”

    yeah because we pigs in the “idiot brigade” are all part of the conspiracy, in fact anyone who has ever read strauss is part of it. and do you realize that most CEOs are 1 in 6 people (or more) from someone who read Strauss in college? EVIL i tells ya!

    >And when you say you don’t believe in “conspiracies,” exactly what does that mean?

    it means I don’t resort to confusing half-truths and a paranoia with the TRUTH. I understand that people have individual motivations and are not don’t act always in concert. i can admit my ignorence and see history as just of one many interpretations. a useful model, but not the TRUTH.

    >> Do you believe that the government’s publicly stated justifications for its policies are the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    nonsensical, but it is likely that some INDIVIDUALS in goverment really believe it is the truth. the goverment is not a unified entity.

    > Do you believe that the government never acts on ulterior motives, while acting under a pretext of “the public welfare”?

    I admit some INDIVIDIDUALS in goverment have ulterior motives. some don’t.

    >>If you don’t believe in conspiracies, what do you call Watergate?

    A criminal action by a few individuals, followed by an institual breakdown, later remedied by due process. We know who did it and who covered it up. End of story.

    >>Do you believe in the Tonkin Gulf incident, the “incubator babies,” and those Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border in 1990?

    NEWSFLASH – people lie. including most powerful people. but they always lie for personal gain. that is human nature, accept it. should we hold individuals accountable for lying? should we check their story? Absolutley, but is simply paranoia and contrary to common sense to disbelieve everything, as people also tell the truth (again, for personal gain). common sense tells us that most people tell their version of the truth — most of the time.

    >>Take the red pill, man!

    apparently I have. i have broken myself away from the stupid pointless fantasies (such as conspirircy theories) that most people surround themselves with and see the world for what it is.

    >>Shee-it, collusion between government and private interests is as old as mankind.

    Yeah and always will be. Such is human nature.

    >>When a local government body meets in violation of the FOI laws, and the sheriff uses county equipment to improve the roads on his farm, that’s (guess what?): a CONSPIRACY!

    No, that is just a criminal action.

    >>When government officials act to promote corrupt interests, and lie about it, that’s a CONSPIRACY!

    No that is just people lying. Happens everyday.

    >> So what you’re really saying is, you don’t believe politicians lie!

    Nice logic. Nope. i just took the red pill

    >>say hello to mehitabel for me.

    not sure who that is. sorry.

  19. Kevin,

    If the “sheeple” stop agreeing with what they are spoonfed by the mainstream press and instead agree with whatever you say, will they cease to be “sheeple” at that point? Just curious.

  20. archy:

    You’re the one who first used the word “conspiracy.” Along with “tin foil hat” and “anti-semite,” it’s a word that seems to appear on the board within minutes (usually in an anonymous post) of a reference to neoconservatism. My post was intended to mock your reflexive charge of conspiracy theory. But apparently irony is as beyond you as the “Shift” button.

    You admit that some “individuals” in government lie, cover up, and act from corrupt motives. Do these individuals ever act in collusion, or is your methodological atomism absolute? Have you ever read Spinoza?

    And although you admit that collusion between government and private interests is “human nature,” and that individuals in government lie and cover up such collusion, you don’t believe in conspiracies. Just how do you define conspiracy, anyway? Reminds me of women who believe in equal pay for equal work, etc., but aren’t “feminists.” Your use of the word “conspiracy” is as empty of content as you claim my use of “neocon” is.

    mehitabel, along with archie, was a character in e.e. cummings’ poetry. archie, the fictional author of the poems, was a cockroach who was too small to reach “shift,” and therefore typed in all-lowercase.

    Eric:

    Yeah, I’d say that anyone who started reading the mainstream press skeptically and doubting the government’s stated justifications for its policies would definitely be ex-sheeple. As opposed to those who, after reading the latest issue of Newsweek, bleat: “B.B.’s just raised the choco-ration. Double-plus good, eh?”

  21. Oops. Forgot to sign my name. Guess this makes me part of the conspiracy.

    BTW, archy, are those of us who refer to neocons acting as individuals, or are we part of an anti-semitic conspiracy? And when we deny being anti-semites, do you take our word for it, or we just “covering up” for what we “really” mean? Just curious because, frankly, you seem a mite paranoid. But then, I’ve exchanged emails with Lew Rockwell in the past, so I’m probably within six degrees’ separation of the leadership of the paleolibertarian cabal. And if you substitute “Jew” for “Kevin” and add in “conspiracy theorists (who are all Jews)”, your post sounds just like it was cut and pasted from a speech by Father Coughlin. Aaaaargh! I have bugs crawling on me!

    Thank God there is at least one cockroach with marginal typing skills who is aware of the real, hidden, esoteric meaning of those of us who make critical references to neoconservatism.

  22. >>You’re the one who first used the word “conspiracy.”

    actually JESSE was the first poster.

    >>Along with “tin foil hat” and “anti-semite,” it’s a word that seems to appear on the board within minutes (usually in an anonymous post) of a reference to neoconservatism.

    you think that would be a clue…

    >> Do these individuals ever act in collusion, or is your methodological atomism absolute?

    sometimes, but not all the time. but even collusion is not an abosolute status, but an abstraction we apply to periods when actions are coodinated.

    >>Just how do you define conspiracy, anyway?

    probably my fault for sloppy context, but i meant in the context of conspiracy theory, not in the legal sense.

    >>Your use of the word “conspiracy” is as empty of content as you claim my use of “neocon” is.

    again, it is hard to maintain context on these boards but i appologize. i agree it is empty in meaning, that indeed is my point. conspiracy theory is empty thinking.

    never read cummings. thanks for the heads up.

    “B.B.’s just raised the choco-ration. Double-plus good, eh?

    does anyone know any non-handicapped people that actually say stuff like this? hyperbole is way too common on this board (i admit i am also guilty).

  23. >>are those of us who refer to neocons acting as individuals, or are we part of an anti-semitic conspiracy?

    no, if you refer to individuals or institions i have no problem. or at least recognize the vagueness of the term and identify who or what you are talking about when you say “neocon” so we can be clear.

    >> And when we deny being anti-semites, do you take our word for it, or we just “covering up” for what we “really” mean?

    fyi – i never called you anti-semite, but said your posts reminded me of anti-semitism. i would and do believe that you are not. but don’t be surprised if others don’t.

    >>But then, I’ve exchanged emails with Lew Rockwell in the past, so I’m probably within six degrees’ separation of the leadership of the paleolibertarian cabal.

    i have know people that personally know lew. so what? “cabals” is a meaningless term. there is no such thing as a paleolibertarian cabal or a neoconservtive cabal.

    >>your post sounds just like it was cut and pasted from a speech by Father Coughlin

    not even close, as my posts focus on Kevin Carson and conspiricy theorists and not an abstract class of people.

    >>Thank God there is at least one cockroach with marginal typing skills

    ad hominem and ripping on my typing skills. what’s next my spellingg and punctuation.?! i think that usually signals the end of any discussion.

  24. I believe the archy and mehitabel stories were actually written by Don Marquis, with illustrations by the great George Herriman.

    As for whether I’m responsible for bringing the word “conspiracy” into this thread, I suppose I am, but only because I started it off by linking to a Ronald Radosh essay which purports to find conspiracy theories where they don’t actually exist.

  25. you do realize that your post could be a cut and paste job from a 1930s anti-semite tract. add that in with the fact that most accused of being “neocon” are Jewish or also accused of being “Zionists” and something really stinks.

    the facts may be the facts, but you have a conscience choice of how you present them. and those who use a presentation that quite frankly reeks of racism shouldn’t be surprised when someone points a finger at them (see Lott, Trent).

    anti-semitism is a meme that ought to have been smashed to pieces a century again. pardon me for getting paranoid when i see people throwing around the term “neocon” while out and out anti-semites use the same term and language.

    it is an imprecise term at best, and i hear it used to describe everything from FORMER scoop jackson democrats to FORMER trots (people are not allowed to changer their minds and not be held suspect?), from reganites to pro-war libertarians. but i also see neo-nazis and anti-semite arab nationists and islamistists use the term for “Jewish Consipirircy.”

    the burden of proof is in your lap.

  26. Prior to this website, the last place I read the word “neocon” was in that Nazi rag, The New Republic. Boot clicking SS bastards.

    If someone using the term “neocon” makes a statement or argument that is antisemitic, call them on the argument. Don’t try to strike words out of public discourse because they sort of remind you of something else that may or may not have anything to do with antisemitism.

  27. its not the term, its the mentality. conspiricy theory is irrational bunk and is an idea whose consquences has been murderous. its aim is to scapegoat a class or group.

    civilized public discourse should focus on actions and positions, not on “hidden” motivations or affiliations.

    talk of a “neocon conspiricy” is a way of subverting legitimate debate of individuals’ and institutions’ positions and policies. it is a dishonest way of dodging arguments and is in the same class as ad hominem. it is a method of spreading fear and suspicion, erroding any chance of honest discussion.

    as I said, “neocon” is a term rife with misconceptions. if you are talking about johnah goldberg or david horowitz, why not just focus on the man and his stated positions instead demeaning him as part of some conspriricy?

  28. Not only is “neocon” not a code word for “Jew,” it’s not a code word for “conspiracy” either. The assumption that anyone who uses the word “neoconservative” is talking about a secret cabal is as silly as claiming anyone who uses the word “libertarian” or “Democrat” or “anti-Semite” is talking about a secret cabal.

  29. i am not claiming that ANYONE who uses the word “neoconservative” is talking about a secret cabal — only that there are MANY who really do use the word to describe a secret cabal, or as a code-word for “Jews” or as obscure term for “those I disagree with” — and therefore those who throw the word around have the responsibility to clarify specifically who or what they are talking about.

    BTW – it is pretty clear kevin above uses the term as a code-word for secret cabal, scare-quotes on conspiricy aside.

  30. Eric,

    The successful effort to lie America into an invasion of Iraq through a series of fabrications and misdirections was a conspiracy against the American public. The passing of the war as a preo-emptive stike at an imminent threat, rather than the ideological project it actually was, was a conspiracy.

    And while the genuine rationale for the war is a matter of public record via the PNAC, the creation of a pretext by the White House and Pentagon civilian appointees was a conspiracy.

  31. So if Radosh has lost it, then why does listing what the major arguments of anti-war people actually were constitute “losing it”? And, if he mischaracterized some of those arguments, then which ones, and how was he wrong? And, why is he losing it this week, but Ed Crane and Will Niskanen weren’t last week? Their piece was far more overwrought and oversimplified.

    And as far as “anti-neocon movement”, movements that start with the prefix anti don’t have a history of bringing out the best in people, especially when what they’re against is something defined so broadly and vaguely as “neocon”.

  32. To the gutsy anonymous poster who can’t use the “shift” key (archy the cockroach?):

    WHAT statements, specifically, could have been cut and pasted from an anti-semitic tract? Please let me know exactly what statements I’m allowed to make about the neocons, and what’s off limits.

    YOU’RE the one who keeps talking about a “conspiracy.” Every time somebody uses the term “neocon” in a post on this blog, in a matter of minutes some anonymous hero brings in the obligatory denunciations of conspiracy theory and the ineviatable playing of the Jew-card. You’re saying more about YOUR OWN obsessions than about mine. And at least I put my name on MY opinions.

    BTW, regardless of your disingenuous pretense of ignorance, neoconservative has been used as a term of SELF-DESCRIPTION by many. Here’s a jacket blurb from R. Emmett Tyrell’s *Liberal Crackup*: “A major neo-conservative voice of the new generation. –Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick” Anybody recall seeing either of those two in a yarmulke lately?

  33. Hidden affiliations nothing. The Project for a New American Century’s conspiracy to involve us in an Iraqi war, and their membership, has been part of the public record for a decade. The only time I have seen the Jewishness of some of their members brought up has been by pro-war types who’d rather not discuss the issues.

  34. Joe,

    How is it simultaneously a conspiracy and part of the public record? And why is Project for the New American Century’s influencing public policy a conspiracy? What about the Cato institute?

  35. kevin:

    as you requested:

    “If the Zionist Cabal is a conspiracy, it’s the kind of conspiracy that promulgates its ideology in thousands of documents in the public record, and that makes attempt to hide the names of public policy figures in the membership lists of neocon organizations.

    In other words, it’s the kind of conspiracy that couldn’t exist except for the moribund state of investigative journalism, and a mainstream press that limits itself to regurgitating statements from press conferences (cause the Jews run the media).”

    i am sure charles lindburg would agree. and you can say what you want, but i will continue to call you out on this. it is a meme that deserves to be destroyed.

    my anonymonity is irrevent to the argument, though i understand it deprives you of any chance of ad hominem. and you would be surprised how many “heros” are posting on this issue (other than me).

    and yes i am aware that some individuals indentify themselves as neoconservative. and i really don’t have an issue identifying those that self-describe themselves that way. but there are plenty of regular conservatives (self-decribed) – as well as policy makers – that don’t.

    and i don’t talk about conspiricies, as i deny their existance.

  36. joe: hold your breath and read an anti-zionist slanted newspaper, or visit an extreme leftist or neo-nazi site. you will hear plenty about the jewishness of the “neocon cabal.” the pdf in the original post also cites a few other mainstream examples.

  37. Perhaps I misread you, but I thought you were (at 08:57) describing my statement about Radosh as “denying that there *were not some* in the anti-war movement with anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories.” If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

    I don’t recall anyone saying here that no one in the anti-war movement is an anti-Semite or a conspiracy theorist. But maybe I missed a comment.

  38. 1) Jesse Walker wrote at July 1, 2003 12:53 PM

    “…and the claim that discussion of neoconservative influence constitutes an “anti-Semitic” “conspiracy theory” — all coming from someone who demonstrably knows better — that prompted my description.”

    2) Denying that there *were not some* in the anti-war movement with anti-semetisim and conspirac theories is crap. Radosh may be guilty of hyperbole or generalizations, but you also share that guilt.

  39. Denying that there *were not some* in the anti-war movement with anti-semetisim and conspirac theories is crap.

    I don’t think anyone here has done that — certainly not me. Radosh accused specific people of engaging in anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories when they in fact were not. His claims only make sense if you believe that all “discussion of neoconservative influence constitutes an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.”

  40. “I don’t think anyone here has done that — certainly not me.”

    Surprising, as i was savaged by a certain somebody for suggesting it.

    ” Radosh accused specific people of engaging in anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories when they in fact were not.”

    Well i am not defending Mr. Radosh, as he is clearly guilty of hyperbole and generalization.

    “His claims only make sense if you believe that all “discussion of neoconservative influence constitutes an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.”

    well then that is a false claim (as are most claims starting with “all”). but certainly such discussions do exist and are common enough to comment on.

    let me simplify my argument: if anti-war libertarians want construtive dialog with others they should focus on making reasoned arguments on specific issues and not focus on name-calling and conspiriacy theories.

    as stated earlier, the FT story by ed crane that you recently linked to was just as rife with hyperbole and generalizations. this is counter-productive to reasonable discussions about the war and civil liberties (which, believe it or not, can be seen as two entirely different issues).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.