“…Nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled regime.

“No other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardness, in the range of its ambitions, or in its thorough-going and unmitigated totalitarianism…” Alexander Solzhenitsyn[1]

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Russell Kirk

The late Russell Kirk, who shaped the old conservative world with his study The Conservative Mind, was frightened to see where the “New Conservatives” were going, people whom he viewed primarily as of “Jewish stock” and who “recruited some Protestant and Catholic auxiliaries.”^[2]

Among those “Protestant and Catholic auxiliaries,” Kirk could have named people like Jerry Falwell, Michael Novak, William F. Buckley, etc.

Kirk wrote,

“How earnestly they founded magazine upon magazine! How skillfully they insinuated themselves into the councils of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations! How very audaciously some of them, a decade ago, proclaimed their ability to alter the whole tone of the New York Times.”^[3]

This assertion is not without merit. Jewish scholar and intellectual historian Stephen M. Feldman of the University of Wyoming declares on the first page of his recent book Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court:

“For more than twenty-five years, starting in 1980, neoconservatives stood at the intellectual forefront of a conservative coalition that reigned over the national government.

“Neocons earned this prominent position by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nation in the 1930s.”[4]

This has been confirmed and documented by numerous other scholars.[5] Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar himself called this “the insurrections of the intellectuals.”[6]

In the 1930s and 40s, the New York intellectuals—namely former Trotskyists, Leninists and Stalinists—“owed their name and distinctness, as a group, to their Jewish origins.”[7] Irving Howe (born Irving Horenstein) would later declare that

“the main literary contribution of the New York milieu has been to legitimate a subject and tone we must uneasily call American Jewish writing.”[8]

Those intellectuals eventually took over some of the major universities in the country and began to use their academic advantage as a form revolutionary cell to destroy the “hegemonic pluralist democratic regime.”

This revolutionary cell, Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal tells us, found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”[9] Even the New Republic complained then that “Trotsky’s orphans were taking over the government.”[10]

The late Jewish literary writer A. M. Klein argued that the New York intellectuals were trying to build society “in the shell of the old.”[11]

In short, deconstructing the old conservative world and building a new heaven on earth was the paradigm shift among the New York intellectuals. A classic example would be Jewish professor of philosophy Morris Cohen of the City College of New York.

Cohen would use his class precisely to attack the old conservative view and substitute his own subversive weltanschauung, which he indirectly picked up from the rejection of the moral and political order.

Irving Howe —a member of the Young People’s Socialist League who became a literary critic for magazines such as Partisan Review, Commentary, The Nation, The New Republic, and the New York Review of Books—would later declare,

“You went to a Cohen class in order to be ripped open and cut down.”[12]

Howe went on to say that Cohen was “like a fencing master facing multiple foes…challenged students to his left and to his right, slashing their premises, destroying their defenses…”[13]

Philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, would agree:

“He [Cohen] could and did tear things apart in the most devastating and entertaining way.”[14]

Cohen was not the only one. Irving Kristol, when he was at the City College of New York, tried “desperately to manipulate [students] into the ‘right’ position.”[15]

Irving Howe

Kristol was a Trotskyist, and although he left that movement in the 1940s,[16] the revolutionary practicality of Trotskyism never left the neoconservative movement. Kristol admitted quite frankly that Jewish revolutionaries like himself

“did not forsake their Jewish heritage to replace it with another form of cultural identity or ethnic belonging.

“What they sought can be best described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally of universal scope.

“Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness.

“ For many this departure under the sacred halo of socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems—a solution that was enormously attractive since it also held out the utopian promise of the ‘genuine emancipation’ of all Jews in a socialist republic of universal brotherhood devoid of national, religious, and social discrimination or even distinctions.”[17]

What actually happened was that Trotskyism, which was promoted in defunct magazines such as Partisan Review,[18] attracted a number of intellectual luminaries such as Richard Rorty of Stanford. Rorty himself viewed Trotsky as a hero[19] and, with Jewish revolutionaries such as Sidney Hook, founded the American Workers Party. Rorty himself admitted,

“I was just brought up a Trotskyist the way people are brought up Methodists or Jews or something like that. It was just the faith of the household.”[20]

Rorty admits that books like The Case of Leon Trotsky and Guilty were

“books that radiated redemptive truth and moral splendor… Having broken with the American Communist Party in 1932, my parents had been classified by the Daily Worker as Trotskyites’, and they more or less accepted the description…

“I grew up knowing that all decent people were, if not Trotskyites, at least socialists.”[21]

Biographer and sociologist Neil Grass of the University of British Columbia writes,

“The party [the American Workers Party], with revolutionary aims, was intended as an alternative to both the Communist and Socialist parties and eventually merged with the Trotskyist Communist League.”[22]

How did Rorty view his philosophy of teaching? Pay close attention:

“The Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions.’

“This is the concept the victorious Allied armies used when they set about re-educating the citizens of occupied Germany and Japan.

“It is also the one which was used by American schoolteachers who had read Dewey and were concerned to get students to think ‘scientifically’ and ‘rationally’ about such matters as the origin of species and sexual behavior (that is, to get them to read Darwin and Freud without disgust and incredulity).

“It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.

“The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point.

“Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students…

“When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.

“We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank.

“You have to be educated in order to be…a participant in our conversation… So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.

“I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents…

“I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause. Trotskyism also got dissolved swiftly into neoconservatism, and that movement itself picked up where Trotskyism actually left off.”[23]

MORE HERE: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotsk...