An excellent point, and one which I wish I had seen myself. It makes me lament my poor education, because no matter how much I read about logic it was never taught to me early enough for it to be second nature. Seems perfectly obvious now, of course. I thank you for the lesson.
Jim Wilson

You are correct that unhinged liberalism, ie universalism, will inherently become anti-Semetic. The fact is taht all nationalisms are verboten to it.
Judaism is one of the more anti-assimilationist and particularist religions and thus must be either subverted or is an enemy. Likewise, Zionism is unnacceptable to universalists.

I would then add the Third-Worldist attitude, which is pro-Arab, and the Cultural Marxist (PC) assumptions (which have always been aimed, in part at Jews) that are the modern orthodoxy on campus.

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are inevitable.

Thanks to Mr. Wilson for the kind comment, but I’d be interested to know which logical point he means. :-)

I also thank Ron for his good observation, which I wish I had included in the article. Liberalism must produce anti-Israelism, not just because, as I wrote, Israel is the putatively dominant power in relation to the Palestinians, but because Israel is a particularist state (or at least it used to be), and so is unacceptable to liberalism for that reason alone. Of course, it’s the Israeli left itself which has been the main purveyor of the idea of the badness of Israeli particularity in recent years, with their post-Zionist ideology and pedagogy which is similar to American multiculturalism.

” … the Israeli left itself … has been the main purveyor of the idea of the badness of Israeli particularity in recent years, with their post-Zionist ideology and pedagogy … ” — Lawrence Auster

Already post-Zionist? But that’s not fair! They never had a chance to be Zionist first! Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen? Isn’t somebody breaking the rules? Don’t the rules say a country gets to be a country a century or two, and only THEN gets the left’s blessings of “post-countryness” imposed on it? Wasn’t that the deal? At least post-America didn’t get rammed down our unwilling throats until, what — a couple hundred years after America started out? The poor Zionists are getting the shaft after only fifty years! We at least got to expand! Those poor bastards never got to have more than a tiny sliver of a country!

I mean, there is something really deeply wrong with these people if according to them no country, not even one nine miles wide or whatever it is, and not many more than that in length, has a right to exist. I think Queens, the New York City borough I grew up in, is ten miles from side to side. So, you’re not even allowed to have a country with the physical dimensions of Queens.

What about past history? Let’s not even talk about great, vast countries like France, Russia, and the United States. Was it unmitigated evil that even such city states as renaissance Venice and ancient Athens existed? They weren’t wider than Queens either. Do these weird sickos regret their existence too? If so, where do these morons think their own culture came from — the thing that allows them to be the psycho-scum they are and get away with it? It came from ancient Athens. It came from the hundreds of years during which the city-state of Venice defended itself against the Turk so that it and all of us today wouldn’t suffer the fate of Constantinople and be praying five times a day on our knees in the direction of Mecca.

I READ YOUR ARTICLE IN FRONTPAGE & IT WAS A REVELATION! IT JUST BLEW ME AWAY! IT EXPLAINED SOME ESSENTIAL CONTRADICTIONS IN LIBERAL BEHAVIOUR THAT I NEVER UNDERSTOOD. IT’S ALSO THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENT I’VE EVER HEARD WHY RELIGION AND MORALITY ARE NECESSARY TO OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

BY THE WAY: I BOUGHT YOUR BOOK THIS MORNING RIGHT AFTER I READ THE ARTICLE & AM CURRENTLY READING EVERYTHING ON YOUR WEBSITE.

THANKS FOR YOUR BRAINS!

Thanks to Belen Rubio for the warm praise!

Un’s comment about the insanity of a “post” Zionism when there had barely been an established historical country to be “post” to, just brings out the basic irrationality of leftists/liberals, that they are in rebellion against existence itself and are only kept alive by not being consistent in their liberalism.

In fact, it just occurred to me that the archetypal modern liberal, Rousseau, did the very same thing. Rousseau did not actually teach that we should leave civilization (which he said was the source of inequality) and return to nature and become noble savages, but rather that we should live as close to that state as possible, while still remaining in civilization. This made possible the first outbreak of Radical Chic—French noblemen on their estates imagining themselves to be in “the state of nature” while continuing to enjoy all the amenities of civilization. The point is, liberalism is parasitical on that which it (theoretically) aims to destroy.

However, in the case of the Israeli left, I think we can fairly say that here we have liberals who are truly consistent in their liberalism; that is, they are acting in such a way as to destroy their own country and get themselves all killed.

I normally don’t read the comments at FrontPage on my articles (or anyone’s articles) because the Comments section is unfortunately not moderated and so often gets out of hand. But the comments on this article are interesting because they are about evenly divided between those who like the article very much and those who think it is fascist. http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/CommentsOverview.asp?ID=5423

Interesting how at least one of the commenters at Front Page makes an _unprincipled exception_ to tolerance for “evil” (by which presumably he means e.g. Aztec religion involving human sacrifice, etc). That is the secret to liberalism’s resilience: it presses on relentlessly in its ideological war, and then when objections are raised liberals cry “straw man” and make unprincipled exceptions based on “common sense”. Just because all religious outlooks have to be tolerated it doesn’t imply that things like ritualistic cannibalism will ever be tolerated, of course. Oh, but wait:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001109.html

So liberalism brooks no objections, because those fascist luddite conservatives are just making up straw men. Of course today’s straw man is tomorrow’s art, and tomorrow’s art is next week’s religion.

I think liberals are drinking their own kool-aid when it comes to the “unprincipled exception” principle. That is, I think they really believe it when they say that conservatives paint them as more extreme than they actually are. Part of the problem is again nominalism, which leads liberals to believe that they personally control the consequences of their alliegences with their own will: they don’t WILL their own ideology to lead to ritualistic cannibalism, so if someone points out the FACT that is DOES that is a straw man. How is such a thing to be countered?

Matt has offered a useful expansion of the Unprincipled Exception thesis. It’s not just that liberals make unprincipled exceptions to avoid the (to them) unacceptable consequences of their own belief system, but that they make unprincipled exceptions to preclude any criticisms of liberalism coming from the outside. In the first instance, they say: “Well, we don’t actually want X, Y, and Z; that would be going TOO FAR.” (But why it’s “too far” they never say.) In the second instance, as soon as any objectionable consequence of liberalism is pointed out by a non-liberal, they say, “But that’s not liberalism; we all know that that would be going TOO FAR.”

But, as Matt said, “Today’s straw man is tomorrow’s art, and tomorrow’s art is next week’s religion.”