---

Additional Titles

THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR III
PART 5

 

By Michael Moriarty
September 26, 2012

NewsWithViews.com

The American Intellectual Elite and Its French Revolution On U.S. Soil

Part Four of my History of World War III asks, “When will World War III end?”

It can only end when the French Revolution on American soil ends.

That, however, and tragically, may never happen.

The Grand, Worldwide Left owes all of its roots to the French Revolution, the Communard and Voltaire’s prescient description of Paris’ intellectual community as “enlightened despots.”

America has its Conservative Intellectuals, Thomas Sowell being one of its most eloquently realistic. There is, however, nothing “elitist” about his writings. It is unrelenting common sense.

On the other hand, here is a perfect example of a French Revolutionary pundit of the Left, Maureen Dowd, and her most recent and mildly anti-Semitic, boldly anti-Israel inferences.

Please note the immediate French culinary allusion in her article’s first sentence:

“PAUL RYAN has not sautéed in foreign policy in his years on Capitol Hill.” Italics mine.

“The 42-year-old congressman is no Middle East savant …”

Again in the very next sentence … the italics mine.

“Till now, his (Paul Ryan’s) idea of a border dispute has more likely involved Wisconsin and Illinois.”

A certain insider’s laugh must now come from her Eastern Seaboard, Chicago and Hollywood fan club. Let most of the Midwest rot in its own prehistoric America.

Maureen Dowd in the midst of her hauteur

She continues, “Yet Ryan got up at the Values Voter Summit here on Friday and skewered the Obama administration as it struggled to manage the Middle East mess left by clumsily mixed American signals toward the Arab Spring and the disastrous legacy of war-obsessed Republicans.”

“Clumsily mixed American signals toward the Arab Spring …”

Hmmm … we hadn’t heard of The Arab Spring until Obama entered the White House. Is there room … or an opening for negotiations here? Something regarding a “shared blame” of sorts?

However, she goes on, “Ryan bemoaned ‘the slaughter of brave dissidents in Syria. Mobs storming American embassies and consulates. Iran four years closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the Obama administration.’ American foreign policy, he said, ‘needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose.’”

Now here comes the revelation of Ms. Dowd’s decades of inner-circle, Washington Beltway expertise, laced with the always impressively ancient allusion, “Manichean.”

From even Wikipedia we have the normal simplification of “Manichean”:

“Manichaean as used in contemporary popular discourse refers to someone who sees the world as a struggle between Good and Evil.”

Internet publication of her New York Times interview certainly makes her part of a “popular discourse”.

So, one can only conclude that Manichean, when translated, must mean, to a certain extent, that Ms. Dowd considers the idea of “Good and Evil” possibly passé!

Or, at least, Good versus Evil is the foolish, out-of-fashion, possibly outré and dated dialectic which died with the death of melodrama and was roundly demolished by not only Marxist theory but dialectical practice by even such “dated” Americans as the Nixon/Kissinger rapprochements with Mao Zedong of dialectically victorious Communist China.

Politely put, the likes of Paul Ryan and his following are “unenlightened.”

I, despite my Ivy League education, Fulbright Scholarship and thirty years of having lived in New York City, am equally “unenlightened.”

I presume that Ms. Dowd might feel the same way about Thomas Sowell.

What a thrilling debate that would be: Dowd versus Sowell regarding almost anything under the sun.

I, on the other hand, in a debate with Ms. Dowd, would cheat. My position is that the Holy Bible, its depth and longevity, will unrelentingly defy and ultimately defeat everything that Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto and The New York Times’ dreamed-of Progressive New World Order have to offer.

Our audiences therefore would be found behind either the Judeo-Christian Bible or behind the principle reading list for the editorial staff of The New York Times.

At this point, it looks like I might be on the losing end. History has frequently been declaring an end of Judeo-Christianity for five thousand years.

“It’s all over now!”

Right.

Ms. Dowd goes on to say in her most subtly degrading manner, “A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption — it’s all ominously familiar.”

Similarly familiar is the anti-Semitism of not only recent history and the history of World War II but, finally, 5,000 years of Biblical history.

Somehow, though, through those millenniums, a “moral and muscular foreign policy” by beleaguered Jews have kept the Jewish race alive.

Why does human history for Maureen Dowd seem to begin and end with the French Revolution?

Why doesn’t she see the increasingly numerous assaults of Radical Islam upon both Israel and America as threats?

Why is she so … well … French?!

Why doesn’t she take the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel threats of Iran’s Muammar Ahmadinejad as seriously as the threats that Hitler posed to all of European Jews, Gypsies and basically non-Germans?

Why, in regard to such virulently spreading anti-Semitism, is Maureen Dowd so reminiscent of World War II France and Marshall Pétain?!

What Kissingerized, highly sophisticated, urbane and shamelessly negotiable “Real Politic” is Maureen Dowd wallowing in?

She further “opines” “You can draw a direct line from the hyperpower manifesto of the Project for the New American Century, which the neocons, abetted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to prod an insecure and uninformed president into invading Iraq — a wildly misguided attempt to intimidate Arabs through the shock of overwhelming force. How’s that going for us?”

The Arab world had nothing to do with the Bush Family’s invasions of Iraq?!

From The Congressional Research Service we read this:

Hmmm … despite the highly volatile questions Americans have about Saudi involvement in 9/11, both the Bush and Obama administrations have maintained a close relationship with the Arab world, an agreeable connection which still existed during and following the war in Iraq.

Apparently Saddam Hussein was no one’s friend in the Middle East.

The applause over Hussein’s defeat and death was hardly limited to Western Civilization.

Yet Ms. Dowd claims there was a “neo-con, Cheney/Rumsfeld” conspiracy, devoid of any Arab consent.

Out of this blind but very French bunker she writes: “After 9/11, the neocons captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world. Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.”

“Jejeune,” eh?

“Boring” is one of the more apt translations for Mr. Dowd’s pejorative use of “jejeune.”

The neocons are so “boring”! Quel Cauchemar!”

At least T. S. Eliot’s Portrait of a Lady … includes the love of friendship.

“Without these friendships, life, what cauchemar!”

However, taking Eliot’s own and increasing distance from the “Lady” he is portraying … he dons the air of a consummately more discreet version of Maureen Dowd.

God willing, Eliot is the character he is satirizing most in his “Portrait of a Lady.”

In Maureen Dowd’s exegesis of Paul Ryan’s true intent and/or content?

Well, the real villain is apparently a man named Dan Senor.

One of Dowd’s defenders at the Huffington Post compares Dan Senor, metaphorically mind you, to convicted felon, Bernie Madoff.

“Every Jew” for a “neo-con” … at least in the minds of Dowd et Al … “is all Jews”.

No. The major subject of concern, for both Paul Ryan and, one would hope, for Maureen Dowd as well, is Israel. In one sense, and certainly in my opinion, Israel does, indeed, represent all Jews.

Apparently for Dowd et Al, it doesn’t. That is why Dan Senor’s pro-Israel beliefs are her target.

Here is Dowd’s claims against Dan Senor: “Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East — trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost — because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We’re still stumbling in the dark. We not only don’t know who our allies and enemies are, we don’t know who our allies’ and enemies’ allies and enemies are.”

Iran is unequivocally neither a friend of the Free World nor one of its allies. Canada recently withdrew its embassies from Iran and expelled Iran’s ambassador in Ottawa.

From the above cited article on Stephen Harper, “His government's recent decision to close the Canadian Embassy in Iran, expel the Iranian ambassador in Ottawa, and cut off ties with this rogue state, is a significant statement about the Harper government's stand on human rights, justice, democracy and global security.”

I personally consider Stephen Harper, at this present moment, the greatest leader within the entire Free World.

Dowd says “we don’t know who our allies and our enemies are?!”

Iran and its present leader Muammar Ahmadinejad are not the most openly avowed enemy of both Israel and America?!?!

“I beg your pardon, Ms. Dowd?”

Not being able to deal with such clarity, if only because of its lack of French subtlety contained in France’s Vichy years, Ms. Dowd concentrates upon the still-little-known figure of Dan Senor.

Perhaps Dan Senor’s years in Canada at the University of Western Ontario has, since I’m a Canadian resident, my automatic bias in his favor.

However, his time at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has most of my interest, particularly in light of Ms. Dowd’s attacks upon him.

His years at Harvard?

I must forgive him for those. It’s an obligatory corner of my lapsed relationship to religion and the Ivy League.

What I cannot forgive is Maureen Dowd’s appeasement of Iran’s undeniable Adolf Hitler. It’s Muammar Ahmadinejad: “If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come.”

Maureen “Neville Chamberlain” Dowd!

Then again, Ms. Dowd mustn’t be anymore of a fan of Winston Churchill than the President she so lamely defends. Both the President and Dowd have cast the bust of Churchill back into halls of the British Embassy.

No wonder she’d hand Israel to complete destruction in the same way Chamberlain opened the door to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

Why do I stress the controversy now surrounding Maureen Dowd?

Having lived with her judgments and those of the New York Times for 30 years in the sometimes oppressively close quarters of Manhattan, I find her glib contempt or, perhaps I should say, Attitudes des Elites, painfully reminiscent of Maximilien Robespierre’s infamously liberated Paris.

I hear Maureen Dowd, rather like Robespierre’s own version of Marie Antoinette, proclaiming “Let Israel eat the guillotine!”

Robespierre actually did “eat the guillotine.” The blade from his own personal “Raison d’Etat” in the Place de la Concorde stuck in his jaw and failed to cut his head off. He was bandaged, brought back to his cell and more efficiently executed the next day.

There’s something Biblical about that exquisite justice for Robespierre and his death by his own instrument of French Revolution! Rather like Jezebel’s death by Elijah’s prophecy: Jezebel fulfilled the prophecy, being eaten alive by dogs. Her sin in God’s eyes and Elijah’s? She demanded the death of the firstborn in all Baal-worshipping families.

Sounds somewhat like legalized abortion, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, back in America, with Obama in power, as were Robespierre and Jezebel for a time, the President’s favorite, literary carnivores are out chewing up the political opposition with typically flared, contempt-filled and nostalgically French nostrils.

The Established Elite of the New York Times and the Washington Post and Time Magazine must rule!!

Really?

Perhaps the equally Francophilial elite of the American Supreme Court pushed things a bit too far with the Roe v Wade Decision legalizing abortion for the insouciantly homicidal and increasingly revolutionary “Progressive Movement.”

The Elitists of the American Supreme Court had certainly made the same mistake over a century and a half before with the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 legalizing slavery. That hellish decision and 89 years of slavery ended with the American Civil War.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Since these pro-abortion Elitists, rather like the 89 year-old pro-slavers in the Southern Confederacy, are determined to turn the entire world into a Globalized European Union/North and South American Union and Sino/Soviet Union of the Orient? All “Unions” then combine to create the Progressively Marxist/Leninist New World Order Union! And do so regardless of a few obviously death-dealing obsessions such as Radical Islam and the inevitable tyranny within a fully Communist New World Order?

Islam’s populations worldwide undeniably dwarf the citizens of Israel … ergo … even by Democratic standards, … Israel, for the sake of the Progressive New World Order, may just have to “go!”

No room for minorities?

At all?!

Here is the most eloquent of recent revelations about tyranny and the end to not only minorities but all forms of free speech.

Please read the piece slowly and in its entirety.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali possesses a courage that Ms. Dowd could not possibly possess let alone comprehend.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all by herself, defies all that Muammar Ahmadinejad of Iran stands for.

God bless Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

And may God have mercy upon the soulless contempt for Israel that Maureen Dowd feels almost addictively obliged to rain down upon Israel and its defenders.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

� 2012 - Michael Moriarty - All Rights Reserved