Posted under Election 2012 & Interventionism & Political Correctness & Republican Party & Ron Paul
The man is obviously obsessed. Now he is raising the anti-Semitism charge again. Is he a hired gun? Just fixated? Can’t help but return to the scene of his past beatdowns hoping for a different outcome this time? He even mentions Tom Woods by name. You know how when a boxer shakes off a punch saying how it didn’t hurt you know it did? Likewise, Lord calling out Tom Woods by name means he felt the past wounds Woods inflicted on him. Below is one of my replies in the comment thread:
Wait a minute now. I have no use for arm chair theologians rambling about the Talmud or Jew obsessed conspiracy theories, but to deny that concerns about Israel play an inordinate role in shaping American foreign policy is willful ignorance. When the issue of ending foreign aid comes up, the defenders of foreign aid to Israel are quick with undisguised special pleadings for why it should be continued. When the issue of Iran getting nukes, which they obviously have no delivery method to get to the US, comes up it is always brought up that the nukes could be used against Israel, as if that is somehow automatically an American military concern. You cannot have it both ways. You can’t object to people complaining about the undue influence of Israel on US foreign policy considerations in one breath, and then plead “what about Israel” in the next. If you don’t want people to complain about the exaggerated importance of Israel then when the issue of Iran getting nukes comes up, don’t bring up Israel. When the issue of cutting foreign aid comes up (which any conservative worthy of the name should support reflexively) don’t say, “Well except Israel.” Do we have a deal Mr. Lord?
Also, it is disingenuous to ask why Paul’s campaign alone attracts the Jew obsessed and you know it. Who are the Jew obsessed supposed to support? Mitt Romney? Rick Perry? Paul is the only candidate who takes a neutral position toward Israel so therefore he is going to differentially attract those who are opposed to our obviously Israel deferential status quo foreign policy compared to a candidate who is openly supportive of it. Some of those people who oppose the status quo will be authentic conservatives and libertarians who support non-intervention. Some will be the Jew obsessed. This is not rocket science, so quit playing your Cultural Marxist games.
Brock Townsend on 27 Oct 2011 at 10:43 pm #
Well said and posted.
Chris Hewlett on 28 Oct 2011 at 8:45 am #
I guess this is a Tom Woods quote. I expected a Lord quote.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Oct 2011 at 11:36 am #
I clicked on the link and read the article. Lord indeed is the one obsessed, with Ron Paul and with Jews.
RedPhillips on 28 Oct 2011 at 12:26 pm #
Oops Chris. The quote is what I posted in the reply thread. I guess I should have made that clear.
Aaron on 31 Oct 2011 at 5:16 am #
Using a right-wing swear word, “Cultural Marxist,” against someone outside of the right wing is not effective. It just makes you sound like a crank, which you’re not. It’s swearing at someone in a foreign (to him) language. Imagine that a Communist called you a running-dog capitalist lackey. You’d probably just laugh or say, “Huh”? Same with “Cultural Marxist.”
RedPhillips on 31 Oct 2011 at 12:42 pm #
I get that you don’t like the charge of Cultural Marxist, but the point is to emphasize the double standard (want to cut foreign aid to Israel you’re an anti-Semite, want to bomb Arabs you’re a Patriotic American) and the quick resort to cliams of bias, as if that is the worst possible charge. That is some of what Cultural Marxist has come to mean whether it is historically accurate or not. What would you have me call them to make the above two points? (I think it is accurate, but the story is more complicated than some tell it.)
Aaron on 31 Oct 2011 at 3:17 pm #
I don’t know this Jeffrey Lord guy, so I don’t know what his politics are. I’m just saying, if you’re going to swear at people, and you want them to take it seriously, you have to swear at them in their own language. “Politically correct” is a term that liberals understand and use, and they’d probably object to being labeled that (as opposed to leftists, who might wear it as a badge of honor).
But if this Lord guy does actually use the term “Cultural Marxist” himself, then it would be effective to call him one.
Chris Hewlett on 01 Nov 2011 at 10:02 am #
I personally know liberals who are proud to be called politically correct. They will boast that they changed a word or action so as to be politically correct.