Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Neoconservatism is the new Communism ...

It is also apparently on par with Salafist jihadism.

So speaketh Shea:
That secular messianic impulse is why I keep banging on about the sinister rhetoric of Creative Destruction that is animating the latest Big Thinkers in their Wilsonian/Machiavellian attempts to create heaven on earth (in this case, via democratic capitalism). Ideologies that attempt a short cut around human nature via violence (whether jihadi or Creative Destroyer) are menaces. The common rhetoric these ideologies share with the Commies is, as the Marxist loves to say, no accident. There are few things more dangerous than a couple of Christian virtues cut off from the Tradition and used as the basis of a militant movement unashamed to use violence in pursuit of the Millennium.

This is yet another of those times when Mark is illustrating his ignorance. Wilsonianism and Machiavellianism is are fairly incompatible political ideologies, as is evident to anyone who has read or is even somewhat familiar either Wilson or Machiavelli. To put it bluntly, they take extremely different views of human nature in order to bolster their philosophies. Trying to conflate the two as neoconservatism once again illustrates that Mark has no understanding of that ideology either, as I think has been demonstrated again and again.

Bringing Islamism into the discussion is yet more idiocy. If you read Sayyid Qutb and other jihadi leading lights, you will find that a large part of his message consists of a condemnation of democracy because it allows spiritual ignorance and vice to flourish. The reason you need a caliphate is because political freedom will be misused for ill ends and hence power must be trusted to those religiously qualified to hold it. This was also the rationale of both the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. Given Mark's condemnation of the United States as being ruled by a clique of millionaires who want to kill off the poor, I would think he might be more sympathetic to this line of hyperbolic argumentation. There is an enormous difference between this type of ideology and communism, incidentally, which is why I have no idea why it is being included. If you want to argue that Salafism has Marxist overtones I'm more than game, but there is a major difference between the overtones and the ideology.

One other thing that Mark might want to consider is that whatever he believes neoconservatism to be, it is not "a militant movement unashamed to use violence in pursuit of the Millennium." If it were, I suspect that he and his paleocon friends would find themselves in a very different state of affairs given, by all accounts, the ideology has been ascendant through most of the Bush administration. There is a difference between someone writing a mean article about you in National Review and someone who is seeking to kill you. I'm not exactly seeing much of a difference between Mark's attempt to tar neoconservatism as communist and the perpetual paleocon complaint that their views are tarred as anti-Semitic when it comes to Israel.

In case someone raises the issue, I am aware that any number of paleocons have criticized what they regard as the Trotskyite roots of neoconservatism. None of the leading ones, to the best of my knowledge, have argued that neoconservatism is the full-blown equivalent of international communism complete with a willingness to use violence in order to achieve their ends. To paraphrase one of Mark's quotes, "If neocons are communists, then why aren't you in a gulag?"

And lest some commentators question why I keep highlighting Mark's ever-nuttier political views, here again this is what he wins awards for. If people are going to keep endorsing him on that basis, I think it's time that they take a good long look at what kind of views are being expoused there.


Anonymous said...

"Wilsonianism and Machiavellianism are fairly incompatible political ideologies"

Nuh-uh. Wilson was an evil racist, Machiavelli was an evil atheist, so both were essentially the same (evil -ist), which means their respective philosophies must be the same. PBUH!

Steve Golay said...

If there is one pivotal premise of Neo-conservatism understands that would be the imperfectability of man and the disaster (in this world) of seeking it.

It is right there in the personal histories of those who became neo-conservatives. It is one of the most striking instance of coming to terms with the great fault line that separates them from "the commies".

If anything, it is Mark S. who is constantly (in his areas of "expertise") of constantly reaching for perfectibility. The man needs to read his Augustine - let alone the history of the 20th century.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

The Ignorant Mr. Shea had these comments on this blog concerning an editorial about Pres. Bush's meeting with Pope Benedict:

Rome was right about this war and Rome is right to urge help for the Church in Iraq that is being exterminated by the forces unleashed by the ruthless, virile and exultant doctrine of Creative Destruction the Bushies bought into.

As I have stated and cited on numerous occasions, Rome under the late pope was engaged in an active campaign of appeasing Arab-Muslim leaders with no regard to the fate of Middle Eastern Christians in communion with it. For TIMS, the Assyrian Christians are nothing but a convenient club for him to beat Bush with, and the Palestinian Christians are nothing but a convenient club for him to beat Israel with.

Come on, you seriously think that a despicable bully such as TIMS has any moral credibility when he treats the people around him like excrement?

I note as well that Benedict's remark--"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power."--is precisely the sort of thing which, if said in the blogosphere would draw down the wrath of the Combox Magisterium and earn you all sorts of opprobrium for being a UN Euroweenie and so forth.

TIMS, the "community of nations" (as the League of Nations) allowed Fascist Italy to conquer Ethiopia. The "commmunity of nations" allowed Hitler to remilitarize the Rhineland, and annex Austria and the Sudetenland. The "community of nations" allowed Japan not only to invade China but also to treat the Chinese barbarically. The "community of nations" (as the UN) failed to stop the Cold War or to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East.

OTOH, TIMS, the "community of nations" did go to war to force Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990-91. That was a war that your false god, John Paul the Great (Dhimmi). Had the world listened, Kuwait would have become an Iraqi province and its people exposed to Saddam's tender mercies.

But then again, TIMS, facts don't mean anything to you, just as long as you can beat up on those with whom you disagree and protect the Vatican''s traversal parts for all their worth.

So what if innocent people become inconvenient?

Die Kirsche ueber alles, nicht wahr, Schweinhund?

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

One of the sentences in my last post should read:

"That was a war that your false god, John Paul the Great (Dhimmi) opposed."

Steve Golay said...


OTCH anf TIMS did not comment here. Suppose you are responding to their postings on Shea's site.

Would not never JP2 a "false god" - but he did have a few blind spots. One of them was the lack of prophetic insight regarding Islam. But the Church, since the great capitulations with the Ottomans, blinded that eye centuries ago.

Though you would know, "capitulations" was the exact term that headed the official diplomatic documents between the Vatican and Western states and the Ottomans.

Shutting off prophetic insight is worth the dhimmitude price if it protects (for a few years) a Christian community here and there.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Steve, OTOH is shorthand for "On the other hand." TIMS is my acronym for The Ignorant Mr. Shea (see the beginning of my first post on this thread).

I miswrote when I said that Shea "had these comments on this blog." I meant to say "his" blog.

As far as shutting off prophetic insight is concerned for the sake of "dhimmitude" protection of Middle Eastern Christians, I would submit to you that such Christians have felt the disconnection from prophetic insight for centuries, with no end in sight.