|
Back to the Thirties?
Victor Davis Hanson has written an article entitled “The Brink of Madness,” in which he argues that the world is back in the 1930s mentality of yielding to aggressive evil. Steve Sailer suggests that Hanson is himself on the brink of madness for saying so. Who is right? Consider this article by Andrew Bostom on the nature and objectives of the Iranian regime. Then consider the broad support for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah throughout the Western world. Then consider the number of people who believe that Israel should not exist, that its very birth was a terrible crime against the Arabs, and that the only way to right this crime is for Israel to disappear. In the 1930s, Hitler said Jews didn’t have the right to exist, and the world only weakly protested. Today, Muslims and their apologists are saying that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist, and the world is only weakly protesting. Sailer mocks the idea that the world is in a moral crisis. But how can a man who believes that genes and utilitarian desires are the highest reality even conceive of the reality of evil, let alone of good? As a correspondent said to me about Sailer:
I suppose it would be natural for a man who only “gets” biology, and not history, culture, religion, or civilization, to see Israel as, in the words of someone who shall remain nameless, “a pointless country,” not worth the fuss it engenders. Tom S. writes:
Steve Sailer has been a real disappointment in this crisis. I don’t believe that he is an Israel-hater in the way that many of his pals at The American Anti-Semite magazine are (he has written in the past that the U.S.-Israel relationship has been beneficial to both sides), but he seems to be in deep denial with regard to the danger that both Israel and the West face from Iran. He seems to have convinced himself that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons, and that if they do obtain them, they will not be used against Israel or the U.S. How anyone can look at the record of the Iranian government with regard to terrorism and believe this boggles the mind. Admittedly, Hanson sometimes uses overheated faux-Churchillian rhetoric, but to anyone looking objectively at the situation, it’s obvious that Hanson is basically right, and Sailer basically wrong. It’s a shame, really—Sailer is a very intelligent guy, but the current conflict in the Middle East does not fit his Darwinian pre-occupations, so he chooses to ignore it. Yet another application of the old saying, “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” A sad development for a man who posts the motto “Live not by lies” at the masthead of his website.Alan L. writes:
I was not impressed by Victor Hanson’s belch of hot air at NRO. Yes, he is at least on the “right side,” but I found the article full of clichés about the appeasers of the 1930s. and comparisons that are not valid. To bracket Chamberlain and Daladier with Father Coughlin is absurd. Of course appeasement in the 30s was a disaster. Nevertheless, it was in many ways far more excusable, far LESS insane, than the eruption of sheer suicidal mania we are seeing now. I might also mention that Chamberlain, however foolish and dangerous his conduct was up to 1939, was also a man of great courage who had the sense to change course and lead Britain into war. (Churchill actually came to respect him.)LA replies:
As one who has probably been Hanson’s most outspoken and most frequent critic, I was obviously not endorsing the entire column. I was agreeing with his central point, on the parallel between the Thirties and today. Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 07, 2006 07:02 PM | Send Email entry |