The Closing of the Jewish Mind. Veterans Today
The Closing of the Jewish Mind
How Zionism Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Neoconservative Intellectuals
“U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This ‘Israelification’ of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it’s not likely to be good for the United States” … Historian Andrew J. Bacevich
In 1987, Allan Bloom of the University of Chicago shocked the academic world with the publication of The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students.
Bloom repeatedly suggests that many students are incapable of self-examination and self-understanding due to their ignorance of the past, particularly due to their deliberate ignorance of ancient philosophy. Bloom further notices that one cannot ignore that there has been a significant decline in reading the classics among young students.
The Closing of the American Mind is not a bad book. In fact it is a meditation on Western culture, American academic life, and what truth actually is.
We will explore some of the theses of the book later this summer, but what is important to our study here is that Bloom makes a stunning statement that every serious neoconservative has to answer for himself/herself:
“a liberal education means precisely helping students to pose the question to themselves [what is man?], to become aware that the answer is neither obvious nor simply unavailable, and that there is no serious life in which this question is not a continuous concern. Despite all efforts to pervert it, the question that every young person asks, “Who am I?,” the powerful urge to follow the Delphic command, ‘Know thyself,’ which is born in each of us, means in the first place “What is man?”
In order to understand anti-Jewish reactions and subversive ideology, neoconservatives, as we said in a previous article, need to “psychoanalyze” themselves and understand the deep issues that we are facing here. The vast majority of the world does not hate Jews as people! The vast majority of the world does not like criminal activity which Jewish revolutionaries have forced upon the West. Those subversive activities have come and gone and have taken different forms. We no longer have Bolshevism, but we are stuck with the neoconservative movement, which has given us a six-trillion dollar war.
Neoconservatives, if they want to be serious, need to understand this. If the neoconservatives are interested in the truth, then they must take at least some responsibility for the mess they have unleashed upon Western culture at large and upon the Middle East in particular.
Moreover, if the neoconservatives are interested in the truth, then they must be able to embrace the truth wherever it is found. Summoning words such as “anti-Semites” will not do. We are criticizing revolutionary ideologies, and I in particular have no quarrel with my Jewish friends, brothers and sisters all over the world.
Finally, truth is not always a pleasant thing and is irrespective of the person pronouncing it. If the person happens to be a Democrat and is telling the truth, so be it. If the person is a Republican and is telling the truth, we must welcome it. Having said that, let us move on to our final analysis of Ann Coulter’s work.
Coulter writes, “The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents.” But once again Coulter does not want to tell us the names of the people who largely spearheaded the Democratic Party.
We find the same line of reasoning in the writing of Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro. Shapiro keeps saying that “the left took over your TV” but Shapiro could never bring himself to the fact that the “Left” is another name for a largely Jewish movement. Shapiro never has the intellectual courage to say that the “Leftists” or “Liberals” who took over Hollywood were largely Communist Jews at the dawn of the twentieth century.
It is widely known among Jewish scholars that the “Left” was largely a Jewish town. Jewish intellectual historian Russell Jacoby of the University of California himself stated in The Last Intellectuals, “The Jewish contribution to the Left in the United States during the twentieth century ranks the highest of any immigrant or ethnic group…American Jewry has provided socialist organizations and movements with a disproportionate number—sometimes approaching or surpassing a majority—of their leaders, activists, and supporters.”
One of the founders of the “New Left” in the 1960s was none other than David Horowitz, who is now a neoconservative hawk. Horowitz, unlike Coulter and Shapiro, actually admits that
“For nearly two hundred years, Jews have played a disproportionate role as leaders of the modern revolutionary movements in Europe and the West.”
In the process, they were “the first revolutionary internationalists” to bring about kabbalistic reformation known astikkun olam in Judaism and Kabbala. Horowitz must have been a full-blown anti-Semite for saying this.
Horowitz continues, “By carrying the revolution to its conclusion, socialists would usher in a millennium and fulfill the messianic prophecies of the pre-Enlightenment religions that modern ideas had discredited. Through this revolution the lost unity of mankind would be restored, social harmony would be reestablished, paradise regained. It would be a tikkun olam, a repair of the world.”
This tikkum olam “forges the false bonds between Jewish faith and revolutionary fervor.”
Horowitz’s parents played a role in bringing about this “revolutionary fervor.” Horowitz admits, “My father thought of himself as a revolutionary. The [Communist] Party has become so much my father’s personal salvation that without it the possibilities of life itself vanish.”
Why doesn’t Coulter tell us any of this? Well, according to the neoconservative reading of things, that would insinuate that Coulter is also an anti-Semite—and Coulter doesn’t want to be called an anti-Semite. In fact, Coulter almost got into trouble in 2007 when she mentioned that Jews ought to be “perfected” by accepting the New Testament. She was accused of being an anti-Semite by the ADL.
In order to redeem herself from political mudslinging, Coulter quickly said during the show that “We think Jews go to heaven.” Coulter learned not to bring this topic again in any of her discussion. She now uses words such as mob and “Liberals” in her books, not Jewish.
The only place she actually mentions that Jews largely supported the Left for decades was on her website back in 2007. To my knowledge, she never mentioned this in her books. Coulter wrote then,
“For decades, most Jews supported the left, and the left supported Jewish causes. But the left moved on long ago.” Coulter apparently contradicted herself a few paragraphs later by saying that “The Democratic Party sleeps with anti-Semites every night…”
Coulter continues to write that the ADL represents “not Jews or women or civil libertarians, but the left wing of the Democratic Party. The blood of millions of Israelis is at stake, and the ADL is flacking for a party that yearns to surrender to the terrorists” The ADL does not represent Jews at all?
Ann Coulter vs. the New Testament
Listen to Coulter very carefully here:
“The seminal event of the New Testament—Jesus’ crucifixion—is a dramatic illustration of the power of the mob. When the mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate’s wife couldn’t convince him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate’s wife sent her husband a note saying that Jesus was innocent—a ‘just man.’ Pilate knew it to be true and that the mob hated Jesus out of ‘envy.’
“But not his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the mob. Three times Pilate told the ‘multitude’ that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to ‘chastise him, and release him.’ But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus’ crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist—in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob ‘spoke with one voice,’ demanding ‘with loud shouts’ that Jesus be crucified. Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus’ death.”
I can assure you that Coulter would be a bad cop. If we take Coulter seriously here, then we might as well shut down the CIA, the police department, and all other government agencies which seek to draw connections between criminal activities and the description of the people who are part of those criminal activities. Those two elements play a huge role in forensic investigation.
In the textbook The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, we learn that “often the victim or the gang members are of the same ethnic group.” Another textbook tells us that when looking at terrorism it is important to look at nationality or ethnicity or religion.
The authors move on to say that investigators should be aware of the culture and even the language of the individual or group under investigation. They declare, “A number of the more notorious gangs are formed on the basis of ethnic or racial identity,” going further to provide evidence from Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize, and the United States. Another textbook declares that even when selecting an undercover investigator, it is important to put some weight on the investigator’s background.
It would be foolish to say that these policies are solely based on ethnicity. Serious investigators are very careful in making generalizations with a limited number of facts. Individuals must be treated for who they are: people who are part of the human race (something law enforcement recognizes).
But criminal investigation has to start somewhere and has to include certain factors which may or may not lead to a cumulative case. This is called categorical suspicion in criminal law, a principle which “refers to suspicion that falls on suspects because they fit into a broad category of people, such as being in a particular location, being members of a particular race or ethnicity, or fitting a profile.
Categorical suspicion is never enough by itself to amount to reasonable suspicion. But taken together with individualized suspicion, it can be one of the building blocks in the whole picture of reasonable suspicion.”These factors allow an investigation to be pursued in a specific, logical way.
Although the Department of Justice forbids the use of ethnicity in “making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions,” it does say that “officers may rely on race or ethnicity in a specific suspect description.” If discarded, police would have a much harder time pursuing crimes.
To illustrate this better, why does the world admire Arthur Conan Doyle’s imaginative detective Sherlock Holmes? Simple: Sherlock is skilled at making connections, using clues to pursue further investigations and drawing conclusions from those investigations.
On what grounds, then, should historians, scholars, and people of reason such as Ann Coulter suspend this method when it comes to examining Jewish participation in subversive activity? Should we apply the method everywhere—even when examining terrorism in the Muslim world and crimes in the black community—but ignore it when it comes to Jewish participation in revolutionary activity? Moreover, is it rationally sound to quickly conclude that a person who does name names is by definition an anti-Semite?
There is a logical breakdown here that can hardly be ignored. As a lawyer, Coulter indeed understands this, but she is not allowed to tell us who the New Testament mob was even though it is pretty clear that it was the Jewish leaders who were exclusively saying that Pilate had to put Jesus to death.
The same passage Coulter seems to be citing declares,
“When he [Pilate] was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus” (Matthew 27:19-20).
How does Coulter respond? “Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd,” she writes. “C’mon, everybody’s doing it—it’s cool. Now let’s go mock Jesus.”
Now here Coulter is not talking like a rational person. The Pharisees and the elders were not liberals! If anything, they were much more in line with Trotskyism and Leninism in revolutionary ideology by asking Pilate to release Barabbas, who was indeed a revolutionary.
Christ was the “party” of peace; Barabbas the party of revolution. Trotskyism got morphed into the neoconservative movement, and now we have apologists such as Coulter defending the war in Iraq which gave us massive death. The neoconservative movement is the party of perpetual wars in the Middle East. And now the American people are learning that at least 60 billion dollars have been wasted in reconstruction in the region.
How can Coulter with good conscience look at the average American taxpayer and the Iraqi family and say that that the war was good?
Ann Coulter and 9/11
Listen to Coulter two days after the 9/11 attack:
“We don’t need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don’t need an ‘international coalition.’ We don’t need a study on ‘terrorism.’ We certainly didn’t need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week. The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or ‘religious’ profiling.”
USS Liberty was bombed by our closest “ally”
Here Coulter was saying that we should suspend the rules of law which have kept the West strong and immerse ourselves into the neoconservative madness. Once again, why don’t we apply this ridiculous system to all terrorist acts in history? Doesn’t Coulter know that Israel deliberately bombed the USS Liberty in 1967?
Almost three years ago, I personally contacted Retired U.S. Naval Officer James N. Ennes, author ofAssault on the Liberty, and one of the crew members aboard the ship at the time of the attack. As he detailed in the book itself, the Israelis did this deliberately and they knew perfectly well that the USS Liberty was an American ship. Why did they do it?
Well, the Israelis wanted America to put the blame on Egypt so that America would eventually attack the country.
The only person who is spending time in prison for passing out classified documents to Israel is Jonathan Pollard, but the Israeli government has been trying to persuade the U.S. for years to release Pollard.
Alan Dershowitz, who constantly advocates torturing Muslim terrorists in his books, writes of Pollard’s sentence: “As an American, and as a Jew, I hereby express my outrage at Jonathan Pollard’s sentence of life imprisonment for the crime to which he pleaded guilty. I am confident that when passions cool and a sense of perspective returns many Americans will come to regard Jonathan Pollard’s sentence as excessive.”
We can torture innocent Muslims for months, but when only one Israeli spy gets caught and pleads guilty for his crime, all of a sudden his sentence is “excessive”! (Keep in mind that Dershowitz is not some psychopath out there who doesn’t know what he is doing. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at one of our prestigious institutions, Harvard Law School. If this is what Dershowitz means by moral clarity, then it is hostile to the West and to the traditional American ideals.)
Doesn’t Coulter know that Israeli terrorists bombed the King David Hotel in 1946 so they could blame it again on their opponents? Doesn’t Coulter know that Jewish terrorists were the main culprit behind the Levon Affair?And after fifty-one years, what did Israel do to the Jewish terrorists who were involved? They honored them in 2005. I’m just curious to know how this has escaped Coulter’s entire writing career altogether.
Doesn’t Coulter know that the Mossad has been going all over the world doing covert and illegal activities?
Since Coulter left reason and evidence out of the equation, she then moved on to use Christianity for her own neoconservative ideology. She wrote, “We should invade their countries [the Muslims], kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war”
What is Coulter talking about? Forced conversion is what’s going to convert Muslims? Where did she learn this crazy idea? She got it from the mob in the Middle Ages. Forced conversion has never been taught by a single pope in history, and popes throughout the Middle Ages and beyond wrote against it. But the idea was very popular among the mob.
Coulter could have been a much more serious writer and on many occasions she says things that are true, but the neoconservative ideology forbids her to reach her full potential as a rational human being and a clear thinker. The neoconservative ideology has turned her into a monster.
As E. Michael Jones rightly put it, “when I hear an American talk about the dangers of ‘Islamofascism,’ I think it’s an infallible sign that I am in the presence of either a propagandist, an intellectual coward or a useful idiot.”
Intellectual cowards like Coulter never talk about how the CIA is currently aiding the Syrian rebels/terrorists.They are quick to talk about “Islamofascism,” but they can never explain to us the internal contradiction that exists in their own system, i.e., funding terrorism while pretending to fight terrorism. Yet the Associated Press, in order to play games, called the Syrian rebels/terrorists “Syrian Moderates.”
We saw in a previous article that hundreds of British Muslims joined the Syrian rebels/terrorists. Now the British newspaper The Telegraph is telling us that “British Muslims fighting in Syria’s civil war could return home to carry out terrorist attacks, intelligence chiefs have warned. There are “hundreds” of Europeans now fighting in Syria, some of whom are with groups linked to al Qaeda…”
How can the neoconservatives in good conscience maintain the categorical lie that they are fighting terrorism? That’s worse than stupid in a psychological war.
Recently, a gallop poll was taken last Monday and it certainly showed the obvious contradiction that exists when Zionism becomes the dominant worldview:
“a majority of Americans – while supporting air strikes in foreign countries against foreign nationals suspected of Terrorism – oppose such air strikes when used to target US citizens who are suspected Terrorists, whether at home or on foreign soil.”
In other words, you don’t want your children to be dead by drones, but you want other people’s children to be dead by drones. How does that work? And do the neoconservatives really think that the Muslim world is that dumb?
A Fork in the Road
Which way will you choose?
As we saw in the previous article, John Quincy Adams declared in his address celebrating the Anniversary of Independence, 1821, “America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy…She might become the dictatress of the world: she should be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
In a contradictory way, Ann Coulter declares, “The survival of Israel is inextricably linked to the survival of the Republican Party and its evangelical base.”
Where did Coulter get this? Did she learn that from her antecedents? Did she learn this from George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, etc.?
No. She got that from her neoconservative worldview. As philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke point out, “the neo-conservatives have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour, veering away from the balanced, consensus-building, and resource-husbanding approach that has characterized traditional Republican internationalism…and acted more as a special interest focused on its particular agenda.”
Should we favor the neoconservative movement over Adams and the Founding Fathers? This is a question that Coulter needs to wrestle with, and this is a question that every decent American has to ponder upon because we either embrace Coulter’s future of America, which is the neoconservative dream, or we go back to traditional principles as articulated by the Founding Fathers.
Given the only two options, The American people would be right in line with historical thought by sticking with the Founding Fathers.
 Andrew J. Bacevich, “How We Became Israel,” American Conservative, September 10, 2012.
 Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schusters, 1987), 21.
 Ben Shapiro, Prime Time America: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV (New York: Broadside Books, 2011).
 See for example Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (NJ: John Wile & Sons, 1979).
 see for example Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Doubleday, 1988).
 see for example Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (New York: Basic Books, 1987).
 Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 87.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 953.
 Coulter, Demonic, 14.
 Charles E. O’Hara and Gregory L. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, 7th ed. (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 2003), 491.
 James W. Osterburg, and Richard W. Ward, Criminal Investigation, 6th ed. (New Province, NJ: Matthew Bender, 2010), 520.
 Michael J. Palmiotto, Criminal Investigation (Lanham: University Press of America, 2004), 113.
 Stephen Tong, Robin P. Bryant, and Miranda A. H. Horvath, Understanding Criminal Investigation (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 40.
 Gary W. Cordner and Kathryn E. Scarborough, Police Administration, 7th ed. (New Province, NJ: Matthew Bender, 2010), 19.
 Joel Samaha, Criminal Procedure (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008), 105.
 Cordner and Scarborough, Police Administration, 218.
 John N. Ferdico, Henry F. Fradella, and Christopher D. Totten, Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice, 10th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009), 427.
 Coulter, Demonic, 15.
 Lara Jakes, “Too Much Money Spent in Iraq for Too Few Results,” Time, March 6, 2013; David Wood, “Iraq Reconstruction Cost U.S. $60 Billion, Left Behind Corruption and Waste,” Huffington Post, March 6, 2013.
 Ann Coulter, “This Is War,” National Review, September 13, 2001.
 Aland Dershowitz, ChutzPah! (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), 291.
 See for example S. Teveth, Ben-Gurion’s Spy: The Story of the Political Scandal That Shaped Modern Israel(New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services (New York: Grove Press, 1991).
 See for example Michael Bar-Zohar and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins, 2012); Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon (New York: Levant Books, 2012); Gordon Thomas, Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2012); Victor Ostrovsky, By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad Officer (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990).
 Coulter, “This Is War,” National Review, September 13, 2001.
 “Report: CIA Supplies Syrian Rebels with Intelligence Against Government Forces,” Haaretz, March 23, 2013.
 James Kirkup, “British Muslims Fighting in Syria Could Commit Terrorist Attack in UK,” The Telegraph, March 26, 2013.
 Glenn Greenwald, “The Racism That Fuels the ‘War on Terror,’” Guardian, March 25, 2013.
 Quoted in Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 1.
 Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 9
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=245710
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on Mar 29 2013,