Now that we've learned that the idea for the War in Libya originated with French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, it's worth taking a look at this essay in the 12/1/2009 issue of The American Conservative to learn more about this brilliant thinker:
... MCLEAN, VA.—The Right. The American Right. In America, the Right does not play around. Today I meet Lewis “Scooter” Libby. A man of the Right. A true-blue “neoconservative.” And though I expect to find a man quite different from me, I am struck by our similarities. He is obviously an idealist. He has a luxuriant mane of hair despite his age. He wears an elegant YSL white shirt and has the charming effrontery to wear it open-neck. He comes enveloped in a fragrance that, I am not embarrassed to say, is delicious and intriguing. Whenever I flick my hair out of my eyes with my left hand, he does the same—only with his right hand. And when I scratch myself fleetingly, he does the same, perhaps to put me at my ease. Or does this “neocon” mock me? Oh-ho, now I see. I am on to you, my dear Scooter. Congratulations. You and your hallway mirror have won the first round. En garde.
MCLEAN, VA.—When the real Scooter Libby leads me into his study for conversation, he is not the American right-winger I had expected. He does not pass me a snake and babble in tongues while firing a machine gun into the air. He does not burn a cross on a neighbor’s lawn while petting at my groin. Not at all. In fact, he immediately impresses me with his courageous zeal to ensure the dignity of Afghan women by sending hundreds of thousands of young soldiers into their villages. ... And yet, as a man of the Left, I cannot help but think of all the things that separate this man’s views from my own. It’s just that I cannot seem to think of them right now.
PORTLAND, ORE.—A sign in a Starbucks café: “No shoes. No shirt. No service.” This totalitarian pseudo-syllogism is repugnant to me.
Americans, heed the lessons of Sarajevo. Do not let this Stalinist dress code lead you into the Gulag. They shall not stifle our toes with boots nor even with Lycra. And so I remove my loafers and heave a foot onto the counter, wiggle my toes deliciously, knock over a painfully hot cup of tea, and hop out. There comes a time when responsible intellectuals must take a stand for liberal values, no matter the price.
DEARBORN, MICH.—At a mosque, I am asked by a middle-aged woman at the entrance to remove my shoes. Can she be serious?
“Excuse me, dear Madame, but I prefer to keep my shoes on— both of them.” Yet she asks again: “If you don’t mind, hon, take them off.”
Ah, but you see, I do mind. Islamofascism. Fascislamism. Take your pick. It can happen here. To my antitotalitarian friends in America, I can only say, keep your shoes on! Let us sit on the floor and clap our shoes together! Wear shoes on your hands! Or at least socks! Hang more shoes on your ears, perhaps the lightweight sandals called “flip-flops.”
Oh no, my fascislamistotalitarian friends, we are sorry to disappoint. I am afraid we must insist on wearing our shoes, in fact a whole panoply of footwear, at all hours, in all places. The alternative, as the 20th century shows, is a path straight to the Gulag. A path trod with bare feet.
—As told to Chase Madar
Posts
34 comments:
BHL clearly understands here that Stalin, at least after the war, was a right-winger - an enemy to everyone like him and Scooter Libby. But I don't think Steve understands that at all.
"In fact, he immediately impresses me with his courageous zeal to ensure the dignity of Afghan women by sending hundreds of thousands of young soldiers into their villages."
See, it bothers him that somewhere far away, beyond deserts and mountains, there are still some women about who aren't yet sluts. And he wants to change that through the use of military force.
OT: People with Norman Names Wealthier Than Other Britons
"BHL clearly understands here that Stalin, at least after the war, was a right-winger"
Even before and during the war, Stalin had some 'right-wing' tendencies. He revived Russian culture and nationalism, stood for 'socialism in one country'(or what might be called National Communism, as opposed to Trotksy's internationalist brand), favored aspects of bourgeois culture in the arts, disdained the cultural avant garde, and made a kind of peace with the Russian Orthodox Church.
But when Jews say 'Stalin was rightwing', they really mean he was 'antisemitic'. By reviving Russian nationalism, Stalin opened the door to revival of majority gentile rule in the USSR, which eventually led to the downfall of Jewish power.
Even so, Stalin was economically no 'rightist', i.e. capitalist. Ron Paul and Ayn Rand would not have been happy in the USSR, even after the war.
Similarly, kibbutzniks, though ethnically rightist(Jewish nationalist) were economically leftist.
"Americans, heed the lessons of Sarajevo. Do not let this Stalinist dress code lead you into the Gulag. They shall not stifle our toes with boots nor even with Lycra."
I dare him to go into Starbucks fully naked in the name of liberty.
He insists on no shoes for Starbucks and shoes for a mosque. And French get so upset when we ask them a question in English. Stalingualists, all of them.
Steve, you're a better and wittier writer than Madar (and I assume could use the money more-based on your tales about your old Honda).
So why aren't you writing for The American Conservative anywhere near as much as before (if at all)?
You told us the story about why you're not writing for NR anymore. What's the scoop about
The American Conservative?
"I have the right to enter other people's spaces without making any concession to their standards of dress or behaviour.
"Why? Because I'm an important French philosopher. And the sun revolves around me."
Did some editor actually pay for BHL's rant?
I could not even understand that. Was it parody?
Adding to the whole bizarre focus on his feet…I have to say that reading the article makes me think that the author is probably a little bit light in the loafers...if you catch my drift.
I'm assuming this is a parody of BHL's writing(which I have never read).
At the original AmCon link, I think they give you enough of a hint to know it's parody before it starts. Here, w/out that hint, I had to get about three paragraphs in before I guessed.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-is-the-fed-bailing-out-qaddafi-20110401
I don't get this either.
I see that some people won't rest until they identify which Jew is responsible for any given war. Libya was a tough nut to crack; but finally, success!
Funny. But not nearly true.
The problem is when it comes to implicating certain Jews for recent wars one is spoiled for choice.
Same is true for umpteen social phenomena of the 20th century. Sometimes it's straightforward -- take the founder of medicins san frontiers. Other times it's more complex -- on whom, out of the entire panoply, does responsibility for Mexicaines san frontiers rest?
Sailer,
That was a very funny review by Garrison Keillor.
This Henri-Levy, this lover of paradox, who is he?
He's verbally dextrous yet profoundly facile.
He's an interminable, vapid babbler yet a proud Jew...Er, hang on.
Just kidding. This most true and most apparent when it comes to social and foreign policy Jews. As far as they're concerned, anything but tolerance-uber-alles is a straight road to Gulschwitz. This, of course, isn't true, or likely to be true, so their positions of high influence combined with their extreme paranoia makes them a very troublesome presence.
Oh, it's a parody. Had me going there.
Nice job, Steve, embarrassing the anti-jewish and parody-challenged wing of your readership.
"I see that some people won't rest until they identify which Jew is responsible for any given war. Libya was a tough nut to crack; but finally, success!"
Funny. But not nearly true.
The problem is when it comes to implicating certain Jews for recent wars one is spoiled for choice.
Really? Let's take Libya. Here you have not exactly Jew-friendly Europeans push reluctant Americans. You have Russians and Chinese refusing to prevent the war, which, for them, is tantamount to support. You even have the Arab Freaking League call for intervention! So what conclusion do you make from this? Naturally, that the war was instigated by an obscure Frenchman with a Jewish last name.
Similarly, the Iraq war. It gets pinned on the neocons. It's the accepted wisdom now in some circles. But it's pure BS. Neocons certainly cheerleaded the war but they are not the cause. They are not even a cause, at least an important one. If you weren't so Jew-obsessed you'd see it.
Same is true for umpteen social phenomena of the 20th century. Sometimes it's straightforward -- take the founder of medicins san frontiers. Other times it's more complex -- on whom, out of the entire panoply, does responsibility for Mexicaines san frontiers rest?
Oh, on many forces. For example, American Catholic Church bears more responsibility for the current status than any Jews, individually or combined. Again, if you weren't so Jew-obsessed you'd see it.
Thank you for clarifying the connections between French philosophy and foot fetishism.
No need here for parody. Quotation is sufficient. It reminds me of the muscical Bye, bye Birdie. They wanted to mock the vacuity of Rock and Roll, so they wrote the lamest song possible - One Last Kiss - or so they thought. It became a legitimate Top 40 Rock and Roll hit - squelching the intended effect when heard in the theater.
Some things like Rock and Roll and French philosophers simply can not be parodied.
Albertosaurus
Eh, mon petit chouchou, très amusant.
From The Prestige:
Julia McCullough: "I thought up a name for you: The Great Danton. Do you like it? It's sophisticated."
Robert Angier: [scoffs] "It's French."
Here some interesting food for thought: during the next French presidential elections, the two candidates might very well both be Jews: Sarkozy on the "right" vs Dominique Strauss Kahn on the left.
A nice example of how liberalism is often no different than being infantile.
Surely right-wingers are not so desperate for social cachet that they are trying to cash in Stalin's popularity?
-Osvaldo M.
"Oh, it's a parody. Had me going there."
It sure fooled me, but in Levy's case, how could one tell? His REAL stuff reads like parody.
The problem is when it comes to implicating certain Jews for recent wars one is spoiled for choice.
LLOL (literally laugh-out-loud) funny.
"Nice job, Steve, embarrassing the anti-jewish and parody-challenged wing of your readership."
That may be but I can't tell anymore these days, when Snookie is invited to give speeches at Rugers, when Malcolm Gladwell and Kurgman write insanely ridiculous articles, when Jayson Blair got to do what he did.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Onion is redundant.
Similarly, the Iraq war. It gets pinned on the neocons. It's the accepted wisdom now in some circles. But it's pure BS. Neocons certainly cheerleaded the war but they are not the cause. They are not even a cause, at least an important one. If you weren't so Jew-obsessed you'd see it.
Yes, I understand. Jews have zero influence on anything that happens. Jews have zero conception of ethnic interests. And Jews certainly never, ever pursue their ethic interests. (How can they? They can't even conceive of such a thing as Jewish ethnic interests!)
You know, the funny (or sad) thing is that I actually agree that such a thing as jew-obsession exists and that it's pretty godawful stuff. (On the race blogs they think I'm a Jew because I point this out.) But I'll be damned if I allow that to prevent me drawing some of the most obvious conclusions out there.
"Yes, I understand. Jews have zero influence on anything that happens. Jews have zero conception of ethnic interests. And Jews certainly never, ever pursue their ethic interests."
So Iraq war was in Jewish "ethnic interests"? In this case why the support of this war among Jews was the lowest of any group*? I mean, even during the run up to the invasion, when Americans supported the war by a 20 point margin, the Jew were evenly split 49-48. How do you explain that? False consciousness?
* Source: Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War.
Maybe the most famous leader/thinker pair involved Alexander and Aristotle.
Every thinker dreams of advising/serving his Alexander, and every leader dreams of gaining the approval/confidence of his Aristotle.
But today, Sarkozy and Levy, Obama and Sunstein.... how the world had fallen.
But the most hilarious was Quayle and Kristol, which tickled me to no end.
So Iraq war was in Jewish "ethnic interests"? In this case why the support of this war among Jews was the lowest of any group*? I mean, even during the run up to the invasion, when Americans supported the war by a 20 point margin, the Jew were evenly split 49-48. How do you explain that? False consciousness?
Firstly, I wasn't contending that this Jew did this or that group of Jews did that. I was making the general point that Jews are influential and have ethnic interests, and that this often works at cross-purposes with the interests of other people. You can squeal all you like and it's not going to change that rather obvious fact.
Secondly, I'd "explain" the role of Jewish influence in the Iraq debacle by pointing out that there is quite often a divide between Jews with positions of community leadership -- and there's not a few out there -- and the Jewish "street."
Your anxious heckling would only be appropriate if I were out there claiming that everything bad comes from Jews and only bad can come from Jews. That's not even remotely true.
"So Iraq war was in Jewish 'ethnic interests'? In this case why the support of this war among Jews was the lowest of any group*? I mean, even during the run up to the invasion, when Americans supported the war by a 20 point margin, the Jew were evenly split 49-48. How do you explain that? False consciousness?"
1. Bush was president. If Clinton, Gore, or Obama were president, Jewish support would have been higher. It was just political knee-jerk reflexivity.
2. Jews were hedging their bets. Though they hoped the war would be good for Israel--by removing Hussein for good--, they knew it might also cause problems.
It's like Goldman Sachs pushed certain stuff onto their clients WHILE AT THE SAME TIME betting against that stuff behind closed doors. Or, it's like how Hyman Roth acts like Michael is his son while conspiring to kill him.
Most Jews are smart enough to engage in a kind of strategic double-think. This is why liberal zionists collude with neocons in GOP to play the goyim from both sides.
I'm with international Jew. As puzzled as some of the folks here were reading the parody, I was scratching my head that some of them thought it was real. I have to say, this parody was a lot more entertaining than the recent Tom Clancy one.
Similarly, the Iraq war. It gets pinned on the neocons. It's the accepted wisdom now in some circles. But it's pure BS. Neocons certainly cheerleaded the war but they are not the cause.
This is mind-boggling mendacity.
Of course, they're its cause, and it's readily admitted in the Jewish community. The Forward put Wolfowitz atop the Forward 50 (its list of the 50 most influential American Jews) in 2002 for his role in bringing about the invasion.
I was making the general point that Jews are influential and have ethnic interests, and that this often works at cross-purposes with the interests of other people. You can squeal all you like and it's not going to change that rather obvious fact.
I wasn't arguing with this "fact". It is impossible to argue with, because it's unfalsifiable and so is a matter of belief. I was making a narrower statement about the supposed role of Jews in the recent American wars.
Secondly, I'd "explain" the role of Jewish influence in the Iraq debacle by pointing out that there is quite often a divide between Jews with positions of community leadership -- and there's not a few out there -- and the Jewish "street."
As I anticipated, you responded with a variant of the false consciousness argument. Even then it makes no sense. Are you saying that unlike the regular Jews the Jewish leaders supported the war? Do you have evidence for that? Looks to me like you simply take the whatever the fraction of Jews that supported the war (the neocons?) and designate them leaders. As I said, unfalsifiable.
If Clinton, Gore, or Obama were president, Jewish support would have been higher. It was just political knee-jerk reflexivity.
Read the link. Even among the Jewish Republican support for the war was much lower than for the Republicans in general.
This is mind-boggling mendacity.
Of course, they're its cause, and it's readily admitted in the Jewish community. The Forward put Wolfowitz atop the Forward 50 (its list of the 50 most influential American Jews) in 2002 for his role in bringing about the invasion.
Apparently he was number one in 2003 as well, for the same reason.
Post a Comment