Excellent article! The following is to add some additional historical and contemporary context to the article.
Knowing that so many readers here have already been "radicalized” as "Conservative Revolutionaries" like Carl Schmitt (a rival fascist to the Nazis to begin with, before becoming one, while wishing not to go “quite so far” as the Nazis) was, and the "National Conservatives/Straussians/Trumpites/New Right” (I repeat myself) are as identical to Schmitt, as their favorite “big tech” Oligarch Peter Thiel propagates and funds, sharing this link (see below) to Amazon’s page on "Conservatism: A Rediscovery” is not to favorably share Hazony’s ideas.
They’re already out there and have done their harm as “Fascism: A Rediscovery,” in my opinion. Which is not to say its “rival,” (like the “rivalry” between the Nazis, and the "Conservative Revolutionaries” in Germany circa 1926-1932), so-called “Liberalism” and/or "Progressivism,” as American Exceptionalism, represented primarily with the Democrats now, isn’t also a form of political bacillus today, and eating away at a political plurality necessary for a healthy body politic.
But Hazony’s ideas are falling on “fertile soil,” as the “minds” of Conservatives have been previously prepared/conditioned by similar ideas from the “original” New Right’s theorists, those CIA officers who founded National Review and the Conservative Movement as an “Influence Operation.” Intended as it was to move the US populace in the same direction that their favorite foreign leaders, Franco and Trujillo, were. And where their fellow CIA officers from the one-time Nazi “Gehlen Organization” was, providing more than a “fascist” flavor from the very beginning to the CIA. (See The Devil’s Chessboard, and Stephen Kinzer’s books on Sydney Gottlieb and the Dulles Brothers for more on that.)
So there has always been an anti-Enlightenment element in the U.S., post-WW II. And in Israel, as represented by Menachem Begin post-WW II, and the Nakba, and his fascism. But not to be missed, in both countries, “Enlightenment” ideas, calling for “Liberalism;” but those were only intended by many in each society, as "for me (the invaders), not for thee (the indigenous)."
But the aforementioned, new, New Right, under the guise of “Nationalism,” the "National Conservatives/Straussians/Trumpites/New Right,” hereafter, simply, "New Right," now openly display similar hostile ideas to the Enlightenment influence (if not all ideas labeled “Enlightenment” were sound, most were, including our founding U.S. ideas of “Rights,” so despised by the post-WW II Conservative Movement theorists, and “Originalists") as a German, and fellow fascist/Conservative Revolutionary with Schmitt, Franz von paper, expressed here in his Marburg speech:
"If the liberal revolution of 1789 was the revolution of rationalism against religion, against attachment, so the counter-revolution taking place in the twentieth century can only be conservative, in the sense that it does not have a rationalizing and disintegrating effect, but once again places all of life under the natural law of Creation. That is presumably the reason why the cultural leader of the NSDAP, Alfred Rosenberg, spoke of a conservative revolution. “
Sharing those anti-Enlightenment, conservative, fascist ideas with Schmitt and von Papen, and a former Yale professor who helped found National Review, was this fellow:
"In a radio broadcast on April 1, 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, proclaimed it clearly: with the Nazi revolution “the year 1789 has been expunged from the records of history.” It was obvious to all why Goebbels compared 1933 to 1789: any contemporary, whether schooled in history or not, instinctively knew that the French Revolution was the measure of things in the modern world. “[W]e want to eradicate the ideology of liberalism and the freedom of the individual,” stated Goebbels, "and replace it with a new sense of community” in which human equality and free will would give way to a racial order.10"
What did Rosenberg say?
"The historical importance of 1789 was the idea of democracy, wrote Alfred Rosenberg, the self-designated ideologue of the Nazi Party, in a special issue of School Letters (Der Schulungsbrief) dedicated to the topic “From the French to the Ethnic Revolution”: “Today we stand, however, in front of a similarly important historical fact . . . that millions and millions forsake the altar of democracy” and join the racial revolution.13 Applauding the Nazi nationwide book burning of May 10, 1933, Ernst Bertram, professor of German at the University of Cologne, spoke “against the enemy of life – rationality, against destructive Enlightenment . . . against every kind of the ‘ideas of 1789,’ against all anti-German tendencies.”14”
“Critically” glance/read (don’t buy the book, and I won’t advise like Abby Hoffman, to steal a book) at Hazony’s "Conservatism: A Rediscovery,” or as I think of it as: "Fascism: A Rediscovery,” (and I will add to that, Bacevich’s celebration of the CIA militarist founders in his panegyric to Conservatives/Militarists) as well as some of the writings I’ve shared from a particular enthusiast for Leo Strauss’s thought from Oklahoma, and the Conservatives they both influenced down to the present, and unless one is terminally stupid, one can’t help but see the similar, anti-Enlightment ideas permeating all of them.
In the case of Hazony’s, the “Godhead” of the National Conservatives, and perhaps inspiration for Israeli fascist (as he’s called in Israel) Ben-Gvir, he differs from Rosenberg, Goebbels, Schmitt, Paper, et al., to include similar minded Americans founding the “Conservative Movement,” as a “Comparative Politics” analysis would show, and even more, today’s “New Right,” with origins to the same sources, by way of Leo Strauss’s “coyly” expressed fascist ideas, only in the preferred “racial” groups he proffers as “Superior,” in my opinion. In Israel, it’s self-evident, in the U.S., the Anglo-Saxons, and and in Europe, the “White” Europeans.
I welcome comments, and rebuttal, so I can expand on this :-)
But here’s the latest version of the ideas of all the aforementioned fascists, in my opinion, to give some context to the excellent article Chas shared:
On Jan 12, 2023, at 6:22 AM, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
Today’s Israel is no ‘light unto the nations’ – or unto the JewsThe deepening anti-liberal spirit is not going to disappear anytime soon and Diaspora Jews can no longer rely on Israel as a symbol that unites themAvi Gil January 10, 2023
Many Jews in the Diaspora are in a state of shock over Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government. They would like to wake up from this nightmare to an Israel that is an exemplary state, a light unto the nations. But this nightmare will go on for a long time to come. Diaspora Jews will have to digest this bitter truth and learn how to cultivate their Jewish identity even if Israel loses its centrality as a unifying symbol, a beacon to the Jewish people. For years, we learned to recite that the special relationship forged between Israel and the United States is based on common values: liberty, justice, morality, democracy, human rights, equality before the law, fair treatment of minorities, preventing the tyranny of the majority, battling racism, and Tikkun Olam. But over the years, the harsh reality has disproven what was once taken for granted. The internal ideological polarization has sharpened both in the United States and Israel and this has taken a toll on values that were once considered “shared.” Today, one part of America identifies with the values of the Israeli right while the other side identifies with the values of the Israeli left. Consequently, a destructive rift has emerged within the Jewish people, one that is plainly illustrated by differing views of Donald Trump. Most Jews in Israel supported Trump, while most American Jews vehemently opposed him (70% voted for the Democratic ticket, more than half of them identify as liberals, and only 20% consider themselves conservative). Now, following the establishment of the new government, many American Jews see Israel as violating the shared values that formed the foundation of the alliance between Jerusalem and Washington – by its unequal treatment of Israeli-Arabs, by gender discrimination, religious interference in affairs of state and the life of the individual, by elevating Jewish values (in their Orthodox interpretation) over democratic values, by expanding the settlements and by completely avoiding any diplomatic process that seeks to bring an end to Israel’s control over another, disenfranchised people. Demographic trends in Israel are diminishing the weight of the secular sector that holds liberal values, while the power of the sectors that see liberal values as a threat is on the rise. Demography, however, is not the only cause of the hobbled state of Israeli liberalism. Among many, liberal ideology is identified with Israel’s most vehement critics. Of course, lessons from our own history – exile, pogroms, the Holocaust – also have an influence. And so, the term “liberal,” which in Israel is associated with the secular population, is hurled at them with the same venom of the usual slurs – leftists, delusional, hegemons, self-hating Jews, those who “have forgotten what it means to be Jews,” in Netanyahu’s words. Unlike the Jewish community in the United States, which as a small minority naturally supports an ideological perspective that protects the rights of minorities, in Israel the majority belongs to the Jews. Many Israeli Jews see nothing wrong with exploiting this status to ensure dominance over the Arab minority, including granting legal preference to Jews over non-Jews. The anti-liberal spirit that is deepening in Israel is not going to disappear anytime soon, and the works of John Stuart Mill and other liberal philosophers will not be best sellers in Israel in the foreseeable future. There is an illusion that the Israeli body politic is divided into two camps of roughly equal size, but this mistaken perception stems from a temporary political conjuncture in which the main debate revolves around a person rather than an issue: for Bibi or against Bibi. Most of the Israeli public is on the center-to-right of the political map and therefore a significant number of the political players and their voters currently in the anti-Bibi camp would readily join a right-wing coalition if he were out of the political picture. Demography, political sociology, the conflict with the Palestinians, regional threats, antisemitism, and international hostility are all pushing Israel in an anti-liberal direction. The Jews of the world must look at Israel as it is, without illusions and without glossing over the harsh reality. They should assist those Israelis who are trying to restore liberal values to their country and unhesitatingly express their pain to Israel’s government. Perhaps, here and there, they will find listening ears among the few ministers who still understand that in times of crisis, Israel is likely to need the help of Diaspora Jews and that it would be a strategic mistake to alienate them. At the same time, Diaspora Jews must formulate new strategies for maintaining Jewish identity and educating the younger generation that does not rise and fall according to the conduct of the government of Israel. The Nation-State Law declares that Israel “shall act to preserve the cultural, historical, and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora,” but this pretense of ours to “educate” the Jews of the Diaspora is nothing more than empty arrogance. Israel, especially following the establishment of the new government, is far from being perceived among world Jewry as an admired educational role model. Most of our Diaspora brethren shudder with horror at the idea that their children will be educated according to the visions of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Deri, Goldknopf, and Maoz. All of us must face the truth: Present-day Israel is neither a light unto the nations – nor unto the Jews.
-- Salon mailing list Salon@listserve.com https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
|