What happens when you get Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel, Jody Bottum, Russell Hittinger, David Novak, Robert P. George and company in the same room? A First Things Hootenanny

Labels: neocons

As it is nearing Christmas, I intend to blog my thoughts on Weigel's proposals in the New Year and look forward to what I'm sure will be an engaging discussion with my readers.

In the meantime, here's the publisher's info:

More than half a decade after 9/11, safe passage through a moment of history fraught with both peril and possibility requires Americans across the political spectrum to see things as they are.

In this incisive, engaging study of the present danger and what we must do to prevail against it, George Weigel, one of America’s foremost public intellectuals, does precisely that: he sees, and describes, things as they are—and as they might be. Drawing on a quarter century of experience at the intersection of moral argument and public policy, he describes rigorously and clearly the threat posed by global jihadism: the religiously inspired ideology which teaches that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means are necessary to compel the world’s submission to Islam. Exploring that ideology’s theological, social, cultural, and political roots, Weigel points a new direction for both public policy and interreligious dialogue, one that meets the challenge of jihadism forthrightly while creating the conditions for a less threatening, more mutually enriching encounter between Islam and the West.

Essential reading in a time of momentous political decisions, Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism is a clarion call for a new seriousness of debate and a new clarity of purpose in American public life.

The book has garnered high praise from Norman Podhoretz (Commentary), William Kristol (Weekly Standard), R. James Woolsey (former director of the CIA), Fouad Ajami (Middle East Studies author), and Senator Joseph Leiberman.

Lest you're wondering, I'm also reading Pope Benedict XVI's Spe Salvi (in between naps, as is the tendency these days), and will blog my (meager) thoughts in January.

Labels: books, neocons

I have over the course of the past two years joined many others in their increasing discomfort with the way Mark Shea has conducted himself as a Catholic apologist in the public sphere -- in his clear misrepresentation of others' positions and treatment of those with whom he disagrees by the imputation of the worst possible motives.

Back in August 2006, I took issue with what I took to be an unfair and cynical characterization of the position of William Kristol and "neoconservatives":

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you. . . .

And it's quite clear that, for the neocons, the only thing that matters is war and the entire prolife movement and social conservative types can drop dead. The Neocons are All About Power and Realpolitik. Conservatives are morphing into the mirror of their postmodern nihilistic Leftist opponents.

and in a subsequent post I responded to the strange manner in which Mark's commentary on social and political issues had illustrated a reliance upon strings of jingles and catchphrases which bore little resemblance to the complexities of reality (and usually directed at the neocon shibboleth).

To cite but just two examples:

. . . "War Zealots and Master Planners with big ideas for a New American Century based on "creative destruction" and other Machiavellian schemes" (Catholic and Enjoying It August 19, 2006).

". . . the Creative Destructionist Righty who promises an End to Evil and the triumph of the New American Century via murder of wounded combatants and torture, . . . (Catholic and Enjoying It August 17, 2006).

Unfortunately, in the months that followed it became apparent that this combination of soundbytes with inflammatory rhetoric -- what one might expect from, say, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and other liberal pundits -- was simply becoming the norm.

This concern cemented itself with Mark's role in the so-called "torture debate" in the online Catholic blogging community. For what it's worth, here were my contributions to "the torture debate": On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Part I), Part II and Part III.

Part II and III specifically concern themselves with Mark Shea's comments, especially on the matter of the Abu Ghraib scandal. While I share similar concerns about the policies and conduct of the Bush administration and the lack of accountability, I find that pounding the table and asserting that "Dick Cheney wants more Abu Ghraibs" (to quote Shea), that "virtually the entire field of GOP Candidates and most of the Allegedly Conservative Punditocracy Favors [beating a man to death]" (to quote Shea again), or that the only reason "people were prosecuted and sent to jail [for Abu Ghraib] is because it would have been political suicide not to do so" (Shea yet again) really does nothing to advance the discussion.

On the matter of the "Rubber Hose Right", I would also note that both Michael Ledeen and John Derbyshire have penned forceful columns against torture in the National Review.

So has Victor Davis Hanson for that matter, who Mark recently dismissed as a "Pagan Realpolitik Zealot."

And the virtual mouthpiece of the neoconservative movement -- The Weekly Standard -- has published articles criticizing the Bush administration's practice of rendition and in support of a uniform standard prohibiting detainee abuse.

I have endeavored to point out all of this to Mark on numerous occasions (on this blog and in his combox), but he's quite wedded to his current approach of slamming the "Rubber Hose Right" and "The Torture Party" en masse -- which sacrifices clarity for convenience and actually has the unfortunate effect of alienating possible allies on the right (not to mention fellow Catholics).

This pattern of verbal abuse extends itself to other topics as well. Sadly, when Mark moves from hurling general broadsides at political parties ("Tweedledum" and "Tweedledee") and takes aim at specific individuals, his remarks are not merely ignorant and comical. Rather, to concur with Sydney Carton, his "so-called sarcasm is intensely personal, characteristic of a vindictivness that is surprising."

The matter of Mark's libel against Michael Ledeen has been explored and documented in the past; I wish to cite three more examples of such misrepresentation and unjust treatment:

Mark Shea on Michael Novak

As part of the trio of 'Catholic neocons', Michael Novak (along with Neuhaus and George Weigel) receives a great deal of criticism for expressing his personal support of the Iraq war and the foreign policy of the Bush administration in general. Whilte Fr. Neuhaus is curiously absent from Mark's criticism, his remarks about Novak leave much to be desired:

• July 2004 - In a column for the National Review (Why the Dems Will Lose), Novak expressed the following sentiment:

  I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.

  Novak's phrasing is a bit "over the top", and he raises some puzzled eyebrows and chatter over at Amy Welborn's. But while Patrick Sweeney ("Novak makes the obvious-to-all point that Bush took the risk of doing something unpopular because he believed he needed to protect American lives"), Maclin Horton ("[Novak expresses] the hope that God will bless Mr. Bush's work and the opinion that it deserves blessing: certainly debatable points, but not so very bizarre as all that"), Rich Leonardi ("A charitable reading of this section of the piece would infer that Novak hopes Providence plays a role in aiding Bush, since he acknowledges that things don't always work out the way we think they should") and Christopher [Fotos] ("This is an unremarkable yearning that God will favor what, in Novak's eyes (and mine), is the good guy") offer charitable interpretations, Mark siezes upon the opportunity to bash Novak as neocon "court theologian":

  Michael Novak acts as Court Prophet for the Bushies.

  I think T. Marzen gets it just about right over on Amy's blog.

  Novak's vocation as paid Neocon Court Theologian has led to this, has it? Bush's "willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq"? How glorious! How noble! Never mind about the lives of the American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians that were sacrificed to the Goddess Liberty.

  This is really nutty. But Novak’s honesty (or revealing lapse) does provide us an open glimpse of what really makes these guys tick. Next thing he'll be advocating is for us to offer a pinch of incense to whoever is current American Caesar (at least if he’s a Republican).

  Memo to Novak: The central story of history is about the progress of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the success of the American Experiment and the Triumph of Our Way of... well, not "Life" exactly (given that we are busily attempting to establish two sins that cry out to heaven as fundamental human right and laboring to invent new evil via biotech), but "Doing Things".

• October 2004 - Novak is once again treated to ridicule:

  Some people failed to get Michael Novak's memo about the universal longing for liberty

  Not a few people would very much prefer to be tagged like sheep. After all, an extremely powerful alliance of business, science, and political power will always want to take care of us and would never hurt or exploit us. It's part of the blessed assurance we have from the Holy Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.

  Strangely, Novak's book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, had little if any relevance to the subject Mark was addressing in this post. (I may as well pose the question here, as often as he pokes fun at the title, has Shea even read it?)

• November 2004 - In a guest post from a reader endorsed by Shea, Novak's pre-war visit to Rome is dismissed as "the height of intellectual arrogance" (In a post to First Things' blog, Novak provides the context and details of his visit to the Vatican, noting in part the curia's reaction).

• March 22, 2006 - Adopting what has not become his as-of-late "pox upon both your houses" approach to U.S. politics, Shea took yet another a swipe at Novak:

  This is why I'd like to see a healthy Dem party re-emerge. Opposite evils, so far from balancing, aggravate one another. A Wilsonian Drunken Sailor Safety Through Torture Right inflames an hysterical angry vengeful Left. Meanwhile, when Elephants and Donkeys fight, it is the grass that suffers. The Left fanatically aims for the maximum number of babies to die, while the Right continues pissing away our grandchildrens savings and trying to make the world into the image and likeness of Michael Novak through the exportation of our democratic capitalist system at the point of a gun (only to wind up with Muslims who tend to see the image and likeness of Madonna instead--and to to hate us all the more).

  Once more in the combox, Daniel Darling, Sydney Carton and others engage in a futile endeavor to educate Shea as to Michael Novak's actual thought, with little success.

• March 23, 2006 [Update] - Mark Shea attempts to downplay his earlier ridicule of Novak and bolster his case for his criticism of neoconservatism that "they are basically arguing that democracy capitalism will fix the Islamosphere":

  . . . I don't think Michael Novak is a bad guy. I do think that the attempts by the Money and Power guys who are writing policy to hold up Novak as a sort of Voice of Catholic Teaching Blessing our Policies vs. the Euroweenie opinions of our Peacenik Pope and his Clueless Bishops was highly cynical. I wish Novak had been more vociferous in saying that it is precisely at the moment when the whole world is shouting for one thing and an almost unanimous chorus of bishops is saying "Whoa!" that the duty of the Catholic is to inform his conscience with the teaching of the Church, not join the shouting throng. But I also think Novak is not a materialist so much as a guy who has been beating the drum of democratic capitalism for a long time and who naturally gravitated toward people who found him...useful.

  So instead of Novak the "Court Theologian to the Bushies", we have Michael Novak the useful and exploitable peon by the Money and Power Neocons.

  Again in the combox, Ed Graham, Paul Zummo, and Daniel Darling -- displaying a comprehension of what 'neoconservative' foreign policy actually entails (and what Michael Novak himself really proposes in his book) -- attempt to provide a basic education in political thought.

Mark Shea on Tom McKenna

In November 2006, responding to Mr. Tom McKenna on the matter of sentencing Saddam Hussein:

Tom McKenna is Predictably Angry with Me

Reason: I demonstrate an insufficiently insatiable hunger and thirst for death, death, death, and more death, so that means I regard Saddam as a victim, you see.

McKenna, whose blog is more or less devoted to obsessing over how to execute as many people as humanly possible, is naturally orgasmic at the idea of hanging Saddam. Failure to be thrilled at the death of a human being and a general agreement with Pope John Paul that it's better to forego executing people unless you really need to is, for McKenna the ultimate crime and the source of numberless entries on his vengeful blog.

At the time, Mr. McKenna was expressing his personal frustration with the comments of Cardinal Martino on the execution of Saddam ("punishing a crime with another crime"). He was certainly not alone among Catholic bloggers in doing so (see fellow apologist Jimmy Akin).

Nor was McKenna alone in expressing confusion over what he perceived to be the embrace of an 'abolitionist' mentality on capital punishment by the Vatican. Other Catholics like Justice Antonin Scalia (Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty in First Things and Michael Dunnigan ("The Purposes of Punishment" CHRISTIFIDELIS Sept. 14, 2003) have expressed similar concerns about the present faming of this issue in the Catechism.

One can certainly sympathize with Mark's inclination to defend John Paul II against McKenna's criticism, but Mark's decision to paint his subject in the worst possible light ("devoted to obsessing over how to execute as many people as humanly possible" and "naturally orgasmic at the idea of hanging Saddam") only greatly impeded this effort (much less the possibility of a fair and civil exchange on Shea's blog).

Incidentally, Tom McKenna happens to be a criminal prosecutor by profession. "Orgasmic at the idea of an execution"? Devoted to "death, death and more death"? -- No, but as he reminds us, he HAS "had to sit with the families of murder victims and witness first hand the social, moral, and personal destruction wrought by murderers", and one of the necessary obligations of his office is to weigh the "proportionate, careful use of the death penalty."

Mark Shea on Norman Podhoretz

In May 2007 Mark used the death of a U.S. soldier to smear Norman Podhoretz:

Another Cubicle Dweller Has More Plans for More Andy Baceviches

When it comes to Grand End to Evil Planners, no sacrifice of other people's children is too much.

I want to reiterate: my criticism of Mark is not motivated by personal disagreement with the content of his position. There are some issues on which we disagree and a great deal more on which we are in clear agreement. And on the matter of the conduct of the Bush administration and their prosecution of the war in Iraq and even its defenders, reasonable criticisms should and has been made. But if you hope to persuade somebody of your position on the war or any other issue, fostering an environment conducive to civil exchange and accurately presenting your opponent's positions will work in your favor.

To quote Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ:

Barbarism likewise threatens when men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument, the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice . . . when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues . . . when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other's argument only through the screen of their own categories; when defiance is flung to the basic ontological principle of all ordered discourse, which asserts that Reality is an analogical structure, within which there are variant modes of reality, to each of which there corresponds a distinctive method of thought that imposes on argument its own special rules. When things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversation becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue.

On Fr. Neuhaus' Foreward

It is at this point I'd like to note Mark's mention of Fr. Neuhaus' decision to write a foreward to his upcoming book. I have been a subscriber to First Things for decades (at least since I was in college) and have long-admired the journal as an example of how the free exchange of ideas ought to occur.

For example, it's refreshing to pick up a magazine and see such disparate parties as George Weigel, Peter Griffiths, Rowan Williams and Stanley Hauerwaus weigh in on just war theory in the pages of a single journal; or Cardinal Dulles and Justice Scalia debate the contemporary application of capital punishment and its presentation in the Catechism -- contrast this with the daily dose of polemics and what merely passes for debate on, say, Fox News and even on many blogs. And if First Things has been a model of civil discussion, Fr. Neuhaus has exemplified the same -- both in his own writing and in his response to various critics.

Now contrast this with Shea's caricatures of neoconservatives in general as "Money and Power Firsters" who are "All About Power and Realpolitik" and "pissing away our grandchildrens savings and trying to make the world into the image and likeness of Michael Novak through the exportation of our democratic capitalist system at the point of a gun" to the more recent (and completely absurd) fulminations about "sinister rhetoric of Creative Destruction that is animating the latest Big Thinkers in their Wilsonian/Machiavellian attempts to create heaven on earth" -- and his persistent slander and obstinate misrepresentation of countless individuals. . . .and you have an inkling of why I am absolutely baffled that Neuhaus would, at this particular time, commend Mr. Shea in the form of an introduction to his forthcoming book.

It is a strange and disappointing move for someone dedicated to fostering -- in his own words -- a "civil public square."

Update

A reader had responded to me privately posing the question of whether -- as opposed of being dishonest -- Mark Shea was merely out of his league, his present approach and blogging style masquing an ignorance of the complexities of the political situation.

Judge for yourself with tonight's post:

"Change--above all violent change--is the essence of human history." - Michael Ledeen

Labels: Salvation Through Leviathan By Any Means Necessary

posted by Mark at 4:31 PM

Mark Shea links to a CBS News story about U.S. soldiers rescuing "24 special-needs boys from a Baghdad orphanage after finding the children suffering in horrific conditions" in a government-run orphanage:

Inside the building, a government-run orphanage for special needs children, the soldiers found more emaciated little bodies tied to the cribs. They had been kept this way for more than a month, according to the soldiers called in to rescue the 24 boys.

"I saw children that you could see literally every bone in their body that were so skinny, they had no energy to move whatsoever, no expression on their face," Staff Sgt. Michael Beale said.

"The kids were tied up, naked, covered in their own waste — feces — and there were three people that were cooking themselves food, but nothing for the kids," Lt. Stephen Duperre said.

It's a brutal story, but let's face reality: it could happen anywhere, indeed probably has happened, in every major city in the U.S. (and then some). Want to experience the loss of humanity? The callous neglect of the poor and suffering? Turn on the six o'clock news.

So why, may I ask, would Mark deliberately choose to link to the story in such a way as to suggest that Michael Ledeen is responsible? To suggest that Ledeen condones this kind of abuse?

Got me.

I posed this question twice in the combox -- deleted on both counts.

Labels: mark shea, neocons

"I think that, on the whole, the faith that democratic capitalism is the Answer is one that tends to characterize the neocon project."

Methinks there is more to "neoconservatism" than meets the eye, or the curt dismissal of Mark Shea. For example, here is Irving Kristol, considered the "founder" of American neoconservatism:

Though the phrase "the quality of life" trips easily from so many lips these days, it tends to be one of those cliches with many trivial meanings and no large, serious one. Sometimes it merely refers to some externals as the enjoyment of cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner streets. At other times it refers to the merely private enjoyment of music, painting and literature. Rarely does it have anything to do with the way the citizen in a democracy views himself -- his obligations, his intentions, his ultimate self-definition.

Instead, what I would call the "managerial" conception of democracy is the predominant opinion among political scientists, socialogists, economists, and has, through the untiring efforts of these scholars, become the conventional journalistic opinion as well. The root idea behind this managerial conception of democracy is 'a political system' (as they say) which can be adequately defined in terms of -- can be fully reduced to -- its mechanical arrangements. Democracy is then seen as a set of rules or procedures, and nothing but a set of rules and procedures, whereby majority rule and minority rights are reconciled in a state of equilibrium. If everyone follows these rules and procedures, then democracy is in good working order. I think this is a fair description of the democratic idea that currently prevails in academia. One can now say that it is the liberal idea of democracy par excellence.

I cannot help but feel there is something ridiculous about being this kind of a democrat, and I must confess to having a sneaking sympathy for those young radicals who also find it ridiculous. The absurdity is the absurdity of idolatry -- of taking the symbolic for the real, the means for the end. The purpose of democracy cannot possibly be the endless functioning of its own political machinery. The purpose of any political regime is to achieve some version of the good life and the good society. It is not at all difficult to imagine a perfectly functioning democracy which answers all questions except one -- namely, why should anyone of intelligence and spirit care a fig for it?

There is, however, an older idea of democracy - one which was fairly common until the beginning of this century - for which the conception of the quality of public life is absolutely crucial. The idea starts from the proposition that democracy is a form of self-government, and that if you want it to be a meritorious policy, you have to care about what kind of people govern it. Indeed, it puts the matter more strongly and declares that if you want self-government, you are only entitled to it if that "self" is worthy of governing. There is no inherent right to self-government if it means that such government is vicious, mean, squalid, and debased. Only a dogmatist and a fanatic, an idolater of the democratic machinery, could approve of self-government under such conditions.

And because the desirability of self-government depends on the character of the people who govern, the older idea of democracy was very solicitous of the condition of this character. It was solicitous of the individual self, and felt an obligation to educate it into what used to be called "republican virtue". And it was solicitous of that collective self which we called public opinion and which, in a democracy, governs us collectively. Perhaps in some respects it was never oversolictitous - that would not be suprising. But the main thing is that it cared, cared not merely about the machinery of democracy but about the quality of life that this machinery might generate.

Shea portrays neoconservatives as treating democracy as a panacea for troubles in the Middle East -- their fault in, quoting Shea, "predicated on a sincere religious faith in a false god and that god's power to redeem and heal": overthrow a tyranny, put in a "managerial" form of democracy, and things will right themselves as long as the machinery of democracy is in place.

I think the quote from Kristol -- a neoconservative if there ever was one -- demonstrates that Kristol possesses anything but a faith in democracy as a "cure-all," as "The Answer." Kristol in this case (if I read him correctly) argues against such an idolization of democracy, a concern for establishing the "machinery" of democracy without taking into consideration the development of character that is essential for its very survival.

So when Shea characterizes "the Neocon project" as an idolatry of democracy, I have to wonder how much he really knows of Irving Kristol, the founder of neoconservatism?

You can read more of Kristol's work in Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. For a broader perspective on neoconservative thought, see The Neocon Reader (Grove Press, 2005).

At the same time, it was reading Mark's post that called to mind a passage from Building the Free Society: Democracy Capitalism and Catholic Social Teaching, edited by George Weigel, Robert Royal. (Eerdmans, 1994), a great compilation of essays -- not necessarily "neoconservative" -- on various encyclicals and conciliar documents. This from Kenneth Grasso:

There is no single notion of democracy. Rather, there are various theories, rooted in different understandings of politics and animated by divergent conceptions of nature and destiny of man. Although similar in their institutional and procedural frameworks, the democracies created by these conflicting philosophies differ greatly in their spirit and substance. In the face of the democratic revolution that is sweeping the world today, the key question becomes: Which conception of democracy is animating this revolution?

This is no academic question. History attests that democracy is a rare and delicate form of government that has eventuated more often in anarchy or tyranny than in the regime of ordered freedom it promises. Democratic institutions, as John H. Hallowell has warned, "are a means to freedom . . . but they are not identical with freedom itself." In the end, "it is the way in which they are conceived and the way in which they are used that will ultimately determine their efficacy as instruments of freedom." Not all versions of democracy are equally capable of advancing the cause of the freedom and dignity of the human person, or of providing a secure foundation for a vigorous democratic polity. "The fatality that has worked against . . . modern democracies," Maritain observed, is "the false philosophy of life" they have enshrined at the center of their public life. The direction taken by the democratic experiments of today will depend largely upon what philosophy undergirds them.

• UPDATE! Scott Carson (An Examined Life) offers some philosophical reflections on Kristol and democracy in "Freedom and Human Dignity".

Labels: mark shea, neocons

[Mark Shea:] First, the issue for me is not Lieberman as Senator but the Weekly Standard's dreamy hopes for Lieberman as a GOP Veep. If that's not prostitution of the entire pro-life movement to the neocon agenda, I don't know what is.

I hold no brief at all for Lamont as Senator. Sounds like another typical Sacrament of Abortion Dem to me.

Personally I hold no enthusiasm for bringing Leiberman aboard as VP on any kind of ticket -- but at the same time, I think I know Kristol well enough through his other writings to find myself skeptical of your explicit agreement with Pat Buchanan's caricature (and your own "Money and Power Firster"). As I believe I've demonstrated, rather than impute in Kristol the most Machiavellian of intentions, another (perhaps more charitable) reading is possible.

I don't think "neocon" is a code word for "Jew". . . .

[Mark Shea:] I think ["neocon"] is a term that loosely defines a wide number of people from many backgrounds who have the Administration's ear and who have had Big Dreams about making America a force for good in the world, even if some eggs have to be broken to make that geopolitical omelette. It's not an ignoble dream, but it is one that has shown itself vulnerable to all the normal drawbacks associated with attempts to seize the One Ring and do good with it. The commonality I see between the contemptible power-worshipping ideas of guys like Michael Ledeen and the equally contemptible power-worshipping ideas of John Derbyshire (not Jewish, so far as I know) are an easy willingness to do evil that good may come of it. What irked me about the warm fantasizing over Lieberman at WS was the transparent disinterest in issues some of us still think are vital, so long as it afforded an opportunity for Gondor to continue the dream of remaking the world in this New American Century. . . .

When Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are referred to as "neocons" (Is Neoconservatism Really Conservative?, by J.P. Hubert Jr. TCRNews.com); when the Houston Catholic Worker can assert that "Neoliberalism is known in the United States as neoconservatism"; when conspiracy-minded "end-times" quacks rave about The Prince of Darkness and Other [Jewish] Neocons Pulling Bush's Strings . . . it's more than enough to propose that the term neocon be banished from blogdom. And I daresay you'd agree with me here.

[Mark Shea:] I'm just sayin' some of us think that it's possible to have a conservative who supports the war on Terror *and* cares about human life. That the latter issue is so remote from Kristol's mind as he gazes dreamily into the New American future says rather a lot about him, and Weekly Standard's editorial stance, and about some of the fault lines in American conservatism.

I admit I find myself confused by your mish-mash of terms. In one of your latest posts you exclaim

I find myself thinking that I'd rather live in a world of people who err as the Pope does than in a world of War Zealots and Master Planners with big ideas for a New American Century based on "creative destruction" and other Machiavellian schemes

Example -- Neither Michael Ledeen nor John Derbyshire are affiliated with the Project for a New American Century or one of its principle documents, Rebuilding America's Defenses [.pdf format]. Nor do they write regularly (if at all?) for the Weekly Standard (the locus of "neoconservative" thought these days) -- their affiliation is rather with the National Review. But you refer to both Ledeen and Derbyshire in your explication to me of what you mean by "neocon."

Likewise, the term "creative destruction" is properly attributed to Michael Ledeen. Can you tell me how Ledeen refers to the principle of "creative destruction" and where it appears in the proposal of PNAC? -- "War Zealots and Master Planners with big ideas for a New American Century based on "creative destruction" and other Machiavellian schemes" rolls easily enough off the tongue and makes for a good soundbyte . . . until you start to think about the origin of the terms and their relation to each other, and just who is being referred to here.

Likewise, I'm mystified by your present hostility to the Weekly Standard as a neoconservative publication -- are you at all aware that, with respect to torture (a subject you're undoubtedly familiar with), the Standard has, under the editorship of the same "Money and Power Firster" William Kristol, published articles adopting a moral stance more sympathetic with your own?

In May 2005 Reuel Marc Gerecht published Against Rendition: Why the CIA shouldn't outsource interrogations to countries that torture (which I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way); and in One Code To Rule Them All (October 4, 2005), Tom Donnelly and Vance Serchuk charged that

FOOL ME ONCE, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. When it comes to detaining prisoners seized in Iraq, Afghanistan and on the other fronts of the terror war, the Pentagon's "just-trust-us" mentality continues to undercut American strategy. Thankfully, Congress is at last on the verge of doing what the administration clearly cannot: set clear standards for the treatment of detainees.

The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.

I'm not sure whether you had linked to any of these articles while blogging the case against "The Torture Apologists" and "Rubber Hose Right." I know each of us has a blogging 'style', but I think that we might have had a lot better discussion on these issues (which are controversial and inflammmatory enough as they are) if such generalizations could be abandoned in favor of seeking a definition of terms and attribution of views (properly represented) to specific individuals rather than an amorphous group of "neocons."

Last year, I found it refreshing that a number of individuals including Daniel Darling (Detainee abuse redux Winds of Change October 6, 2005) and Fr. Neuhaus could engage in a civil and intelligent discussion on so inflammatory a topic while foregoing this kind of rhetoric.

If you want to know what set me off with your citing of Buchanan, I caught a whiff of these same tactics -- the misrepresentation, the generalization, the caricatures -- in your treatment of William Kristol.

Perhaps if the 'McCain-Lieberman ticket' were a reality and Kristol had actually joined their campaign, I would readily share your concern (and would probably have some questions for Kristol of my own).

But what I see now in Kristol and a number of other writers (some of them Catholic, like William Bennett), is a concern of what the Connecticut Democrats have chosen to embrace by its ousting of Lieberman -- and the necessity of reaching out across party lines to those like Lieberman who, for whatever their defects or disagreements on a host of other issues, nonetheless recognize the existential threat posed by the global jihad against the West.

To those not remotely interested in this issue or wondering what purpose it has on this blog, thanks for indulging. Another "Pope Benedict Roundup" is in the works and I'll be returning to our usual fair shortly.

Labels: mark shea, neocons

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you.

Such is the state of conservatism, 2006. [Source: The meaning of Connecticut", Pat Buchanan World Net Daily August 10, 2006]:

The key point in Kristol's essay is that "You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political parties you have." Not necessarily, he might have added, with the political parties you desire.

As Kristol observes, we have the Republican Party, led by President Bush, whose "heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter." Despite some legitimate criticisms on what he perceives as a dearth of leadership (Kristol has strong words for Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and has sharply criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in the past),

". . . at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight."

Kristol concludes:

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps. But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one.

I can't say I share William Bennet's or William Kristol's personal enthusiasm for the good Senator and will refrain from indulging in speculation on a presidential ticket. At the same time, I think Mark Shea and Pat Buchanan, in their venting against the dreaded neocons, are being more than a little unfair in their portrayal of Mr. Kristol.

In July 2006, Mark Shea professed his indecisiveness or agnosticism on whether "William Kristol and other neocons are warmongers untethered from reality", on account that "I distrust the reliability of the information I'm getting and I just don't know enough yet to make a judgment that's worth any thing."

Yet, in August 2006, Mark quotes approvingly Pat Buchanan's depiction of William Kristol as one willing to sacrifice core moral principles and "give a pass on everything else" to anybody who "beat[s] the drum for permanent war".

Presumably Kristol is included as well in Shea's description of the current political debate as a struggle between the "God first conservatives and the Money and Power First Conservatives":

And it's quite clear that, for the neocons, the only thing that matters is war and the entire prolife movement and social conservative types can drop dead. The Neocons are All About Power and Realpolitik. Conservatives are morphing into the mirror of their postmodern nihilistic Leftist opponents.

Others, however, might recall another side to his political career:

In 1996 he signed his name to The America We Seek: A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern, a joint statement by Catholics, evangelicals and conservatives. In his opposition to human cloning, Kristol has allied himself with Charles Colson, William Bennett, Fr. Neuhaus, James Dobson, George Weigel and other major pro-life religious and conservative voices.

Kristol has demonstrated a personal interest and keen grasp of the issues involved in the recent debate over ESCR (embroyonic stem cell research) and human cloning. In February 12, 2001 he authored an editorial "The Future Is Now" in that infamous neocon propaganda machine otherwise known as The Weekly Standard. Drawing from C.S. Lewis' prophetic The Abolition of Man, Kristol concluded that

"Before this prospect [of genetic human conditioning], before this possibility, every other issue pales not into insignificance, for many other issues are significant, but at least into lesser significance. The challenge of the scientific revolution in genetics and biotechnology, of scientific "progress" loosed from natural, human, or religious moorings, is the challenge we face."

In May 2004, he co-authored another article with Eric Cohen, "The Politics of Bioethics: Playing Defense is Not Enough", The Weekly Standard, Volume 009, Issue 33.

It's because of Kristol's thought on these issues and the overall nature of his writing that I can't help but take umbrage with Pat Buchanan's -- and Mark Shea's -- depiction of him. Frankly, I think the choice of phrase tells us more about a personal animosity toward the elusive neocons and the war in Iraq than it does about Kristol himself.

Lieberman's Pro-Choice Credentials

Shea/Buchanan base their criticism of Lieberman largely on his pro-choice credentials. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ned Lamont's record on the life issues is no more admirable than Lieberman's -- and if you happen to read some of the more liberal blogs, they're characterizing NARAL's support of Lieberman as a scam, calling into question his loyalty to the pro-abortion cause:

• CT-Sen: Lieberman already dropping; NARAL Kos Feb. 21, 2006
• "Lieberman vs. the Day After Pill" Connecticut Bob May 24, 2006
• NARAL... R.I.P.: "Repro groups screwing themselves over Lieberman endorsement" Alternet. July 12, 2006.
• Incidentally, none other than Michael Schiavo turned out to stump for Ned Lamont (Schiavo speaks on Lamont's behalf Stamford Advocate), criticizing Lieberman's opposition to the removal of Terri's feeding tube (Schiavo: Lieberman Wrong About Terri CBSNews.com July 28, 2006).

There is much one could -- and should -- rightly criticize about Lieberman's record on the life issues, but at the same time we should recognize that his "pro-choice" credentials, as touted by Buchanan, aren't as stolid as he makes them out to be. In the end, given as how Republicans haven't exactly offered any contenders with a fighting chance against the Democrats, we are left with the choice of Lieberman or Lamont in Connecticut. Which leads us to the question:

What's wrong with Ned Lamont?

And as one of Mark's commentators ("Ed the Roman") observed,

Everything for Mark to dislike about Lieberman is there in Lamont, except that he's anti-war.

The problem is that based on comments like "we are strongest when we negotiate with our enemies", he's against the entire war, not just the part in Iraq. Lamont isn't necessarily going to stop with a withdrawal from Iraq. He shows no signs of willingness to do anything about Iran's onward march to nuke Haifa.

Spin it as he may, the central plank in Lamont’s platform is for the U.S. to accept complete and utter defeat at the hands of terrorists and insurgents in Iraq — and, by implication, before long, elsewhere too. It does not fool most of the people to say, as Lamont did, that he will bring the troops “home to a hero’s welcome.” In the real world, that is not what awaits those who suffer defeat — however painful their wounds, however great their courage under fire.

The war we are fighting — in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — is nasty and bloody and we are not doing very well. But this is the face of war in the 21st century. We either learn to win such battles or we get used to getting whipped; maybe we even start to like getting whipped. Think of John Murtha almost bragging about the retreats he has favored in the past, from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993 — as though those retreats did not pave the way to 9/11/01.

What’s worse is that Lamont and his supporters believe America deserves defeat. They don’t say it the way Ward Churchill does but you can read it between the lines. They claim it will not be them or the U.S. that is defeated; only Bush and the hated neocons will be vanquished by the forces formerly led by Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That is akin to a passenger on a ship saying that when the vessels sinks, only the captain and crew will drown.

So this is a bad day for America, too. There was a time when Americans united against their enemies. But our enemies in this war have been allowed to divide us. Bush may deserve some of the blame for that. But disunity has been the goal of the Lamont/Sharpton/Jackson/Murtha/Soros/Sheehan/Moore/Kos wing of the Democratic party., the wing that triumphed last night in Connecticut.

• See also I. Shawn McElhinney's "Miscellaneous Musings on Joe Lieberman, His Withdrawal From the Democratic Senate Primary, and Possible Wider 2006 Election Ramifications" [audioblog, .mp3 format].
• The Defeatist Party in Full Bloom Oswald Sobrino Catholic Analysis August 9, 2006.
• Symposium: Lieberman's Loss Bill Bennett, Charles Kesler, Larry Sabato more make sense of Connecticut. National Review Online (NRO) August 9, 2006.
• This discussion brought to my mind Jody Bottum's provocative article on The New Fusionism First Things 154 (June/July 2005): 32-26:

  If only as a courtesy to serious figures from the papal biographer George Weigel to the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, we need to consider the possibility that pure political calculation isn’t the only cause for the recent fusion of social conservatives and neoconservatives.

Update! For those arriving at this post by way of Mark Shea's, I've written a response to Mark here. Probably the last in this little exchange.

Labels: mark shea, neocons

In March 2005 Thomas E. Woods, Jr. published a book titled The Church and the Market : A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Lexington Books). A summary of the book is included in one of Wood's columns, Capitalism and Catholicism (LewRockwell.com February 14, 2005).

In light of its chosen subject matter and based on a number of reviews I've read by some credible sources, I saw fit to include it in my website, The Church and the Liberal Tradition, which focuses in part on the interpretation and application of Catholic social doctrine and Catholic approaches to economics.

Writing for the blog 'Catholic Neocon Observer' -- dedicated in theory to "a clinical observation of the spread of the neoconservative [re: predominantly Jewish] virus within the Catholic print and electronic media," but extending in practice to criticism of Catholics who would hardly fit the elusive "neocon" profile -- Thomas Herron (Culture Wars) reads something more into my inclusion of Wood's book.

In his January 2006 post, "Selective Dissent on Catholic Moral Teachings: Economics Department", Herron states:

It appears that Christopher Blosser the web master of The Church and the Liberal Tradition, has made the acquaintance of Dr. Woods and they have become friends which wouldn't be surprising as "the Augustinian-Whig tradition" that Blosser talks about apparently is fairly close to the libertarianism that Thomas Woods

Now apparently Mr. Blosser and Dr. Woods are acquaintances in the New York City Tridentine Mass group and we know that it's good to give your friends a boost in your web site . . .

Also, if I may take a moment to correct Mr. Herron, the term isn't "Augustinian-Whig" but rather "Whig-Thomist" -- which refers to Michael Novak and a few other Catholic scholars who are appreciative of the classical liberal tradition. Given Herron's unfamiliarity with the term and the "Whig-Thomist" / "Augustinian-Thomist" debate, he may want to refer to the very website he has just mentioned, as well as Dr. Tracy Rowland's two-part interview "Benedict XVI, Thomism, and Liberal Culture" (Zenit, May 27, 2005), and my post Aquinas:"First Whig?" - Novak's Catholic Whig Tradition (Religion and Liberty September 21, 2005).

Fuming over Fringewatch and My Alleged "Jewish Neocon" Backers

Mr Herron appears to be particularly upset over a February 2006 collaborative investigation into the background of IHS Press and its founders, John Sharpe and Derek Holland: "IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns" (Against the Grain February 27, 2006). This particular post was a summarization of the investigative series FringeWatch, a blog by Matt Anger devoted to "monitoring the attempted neo-fascist and racist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholicism."

In the course of his "rebuttal" to the investigation "straining out the gnat, but swallowing the camel", Herron refers to Dale Vree's editorial (What is a Neoconservative? And does it Matter? New Oxford Review December 2005), in which Vree mentions an alleged offer of support by a "neocon foundation," musing

Michael Novak (very pro-Israel) founded Crisis . . . and Fr. Neuhaus (also very pro-Israel) founded First Things, both with huge financial support from neocon foundations. So the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests . . . .

Now isn't it amazing that Mr. Blosser has two web sites dealing with exactly these topics [Just War[?] and The Church and the Liberal Tradition], and it isn't amazing that the attacks on Dale Vree and New Oxford Review started in earnest in St. Blog's Parish when he made this revelation? Just wondering, if that Jewish neocon who visited Dale Vree long ago, took the subway out to visit Christopher Blosser in Queens, N.Y.? Mr. Blosser thinks that I'm attacking him and his family for being recent converts to the Catholic Church. Nothing could be further from the truth, I'd just like to know if he has hidden sponsors.

Besides, my influence over St. Blog's parish is largely exaggerated. Criticism of Dale Vree "started in earnest" quite some time ago, and (if I recall) chiefly as a result of Vree's sniping at Amy Welborn, Mark Shea, Scott Hahn, Dave Morrison, et al, each of whom have their own reasons for taking issue with New Oxford Review.

If Mr. Herron is truly curious about my own criticism, he can read all about it in Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review (Against the Grain February 10, 2006); and my subsequent criticism of Vree's interpretation of just war reasoning, Toward a Proper Understanding of the Catholic Just War Tradition (May 18, 2006).

The title of Herron's post, "straining out the gnat, but swallowing the camel", refers (again) to my willingness to include Dr. Wood's The Church and the Market, and the fact that I have scrupulously removed books published by IHS Press from my website. Herron asks:

In view of Christopher Blosser's stated scrupulosity with recommending books on his web site from questionable sources, how does he explain an outright attack on the popes which clearly state that they should not be listened to because they don't understand the "science" of economics?"

When I was informed of "Catholic Neocon Observer" (and its various allegations about me), I weighed the tedious chore of responding against the likely possibility that, in so doing, I would risk providing Thomas Herron with the online audience he so desperately craves. However, seeing as how Bill Cork has felt compelled to respond to far more serious charges ("From the Fringe ..." Built on a Rock May 20, 2006), I decided now was as good an opportunity as any to get it over with.

Inasmuch as my alleged friendship with Dr. Thomas Woods and financial backing by "Jewish neocons" have caused Mr. Herron no small amount of concern, it is my hope that this post will relieve him of his worries.

Related Posts

• A response to Thomas J. Herron (Culture Wars) September 13, 2005.

Labels: extremism, neocons

In September 2001, John Sharpe and Derek Holland founded IHS Press, its stated mission "to bring back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church" -- which the publishers hope will be "a welcome and refreshing change for any socially-conscious reader who, in a search for a humane solution to modern social problems, is looking for a break from worn-out theories."

In December 2005, IHS Press, under the imprint "Light and Darkness," published the two-part anthology Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again. Featuring "20 months of extensive research" and the contributions of a broad range of authors (a "who's who" of those who opposed the Iraq war), including "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan (The American Conservative), Joseph Sobran, Deacon Keith Fournier (former editor of TCRNews.com), Paul Likoudis (The Wanderer), William T. Cavanaugh, Ph.D. (author of Torture and Eucharist), Scott Ritter (former chief UN weapons inspector for UNSCOM), journalist Robert Fisk, Professor Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo (antiwar.com), Mark & Louise Zwick (Houston Catholic Worker) and E. Michael Jones (Culture Wars) -- with endorsements by everyone from Dale Vree (New Oxford Review) to Howard Zinn (historian, Boston University) to Bishop Williamson (SSPX). . . . in the publisher's words, "a hard-hitting, no-holds-barred examination of the immorality, the injustice, the illegality, and the insanity of America’s aggression against Iraq."

In December 2005, Matthew Anger (who some might recognize as a frequent contributor to the Seattle Catholic) launched a blog called Fringe Watch, its primary aim "a study on the Third Positionist neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles," but extending its investigation into such controversial figures as Bishop Williamson (SSPX), Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) . . . and IHS Press founders John Sharpe and Derek Holland. The relevant posts from his blog are as follows:

• The Real Con Job: John Sharpe's "Anti-War" Series Dec. 29, 2005
• John Sharpe's Legion of St. Louis Dec. 30, 2005
• John Sharpe's Ties to Holland and Fiore Dec. 31, 2005
• More on Derek Holland and IHS Press January 20, 2006
• IHS/Legion Extremism Confirmed February 17, 2006
• The Political Soldier Part I (a study of Holland's pseudo-spiritual 1984 manifesto popular in neo-fascist circles) and The Political Soldier Part II:, the second work published in 1989 as Thoughts on Sacrifice and Struggle.

It also appears that the co-founder of IHS Press is none other than Derek Holland (presently going by the name of Deric O'Huallachain), a former International Third Position (ITP) leader with a sympathy for anti-American Arab governments, having traveled to Libya in 1988 (a field trip organized by Ayran Nations Australia leader Robert Pash).

According to Wikipedia's biography:

Holland's last public appearance was at a Swedish nationalist convention in 2002 (hosted by Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom, the youth wing of the National Democrats). Since that time the ITP appears to have gravitated towards the European National Front, and Holland has retired from active involvement in politics, though his Political Soldier writings are still circulated amongst radical nationalists.

Holland has received considerable treatment in works on European extremist nationalism, including Fascism: A History by Roger Eatwell (1997) and Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2002). Holland’s writings on the Political Soldier are also featured in Fascism: A Reader published by Oxford University Press (1995).

From the moment that IHS Press was established in 2001, people expressed concern, but were reassured (as was this writer) that Holland had put his extremism "behind him." Apparently that didn't stop him from being guest speaker at the February 2002 racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden. In March of that year the German neo-nazi Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) featured his essay, "Theory and Strategy: The Path of the Political Soldier." An overnight transition from political radicalism to religious orthodoxy seems improbable. And his activities in Ireland have covered as recently as 2005 in the Brandsma Review.

Roberto Fiore, Holland's close collaborator, was a member of the political wing of the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei which claimed responsibility for the 1980 Bologna bomb attack which claimed 85 lives. In 1997 Fiore came out of hiding in the UK to head the openly fascist Forza Nuova party in Italy.

What is the link to Neo-Conned? Fiore, as part of the ITP, helped set up the St. George Educational Trust which is the UK counterpart to, and collaborator with, Sharpe's pseudo-Catholic Legion of St. Louis. [More on this later on -- CB]

Having blogged previously on the disturbing presence of anti-semitism in "radical traditionalist" circles -- Dubious Sources in Catholic Family News May 17, 2003; Anti-semitism: Another Obstacle to SSPX Reconciliation Against the Grain Dec. 28, 2003; Pope Benedict XVI, the SSPX and Impediments to Reunion Sept. 10, 2005 -- I took an immediate interest in Matt Anger's investigation. (And lest you suspect Anger of possessing "neocon" affinities like myself, do read his Anti-War Conservatives vs. Subversives: A Clarification Fringe Watch Jan. 20, 2005).

Where is all this heading? -- Back in January I had touched on John Sharpe's dubious connections in my introduction to Matt Anger's blog. I was at the time greatly disturbed by these revelations concerning IHS Press, on account that various bloggers and websites I knew(TCRNews.com, for instance) were vigorously promoting the Neoconned series.

Likewise, I myself had promoted IHS Press on my website The Church and the Liberal Tradition (focusing on Catholic social doctrine and the debate between "Whig-Thomists" and "Augustianian Thomists"), and listed one of their books, Dr. Amintore Fanfani's Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism.

Others, however, were somewhat dismissive of Matt Angers' investigation. One commentator protests:

. . . As for Sharpe's views on "the Jews," which I knew nothing of until reading Matt's piece, that is separate. We at our end believe we can praise one work while deploring the rest. We do the same with First Things all the time, which we consider theologically very substantive though politically compromised (again, from our point of view; no offense intended to anyone here).

Another friend urged me to write John Sharpe and IHS Press regarding these allegations, and I agreed it would be the best idea to confront them directly. On February 8, 2006, I emailed the publishers at IHS Press, by way of their own website as well as their Neoconned promotional page, inquiring about the present connections of John Sharpe to the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press' co-founder Derek Holland's relationship to the International Third Position (as described in the article Faith-based fascists bridging the waters, Searchlight March 2004). (Recieiving no response, I wrote them again on Februrary 21st).

On February 21, 2006 I received the following response from IHS Press:

I write on behalf of IHS Press as the editor. You should contact the Legion of St. Louis for information on their status or activities. IHS Press is not connected to the Legion of St. Louis.

As an aside, as for the books you mention, I have not read Ford's so could not comment on its quality one way or the other, but the Michael Hoffman book you refer to is an excellent and balanced treatment of an obviously difficult question. His treatment is not unlike the treatment of the question by orthodox Catholics of the 1800s and 1900s. No doubt you've read it, since you seem to take exception to it. On the off chance that you haven't read it, I recommend you do so, both for the possibility that it will make a more favorable impression upon you than you seem to have of it currently, and for you to have your facts assembled if you do intend to further criticize it.

As for the 'political affiliations and views' of Mr. O'Huallachain, our co-editor and co-publisher, I suggest you provide some specific questions which I would be happy to forward to him. Regarding lectures or interviews he may have given, these are matters for him to discuss and are of no concern to the Press. We don't make it our business to "authorize" or otherwise get involved in the private or non-IHS Press-related activities of our staff, provided of course that these activities do not contravene either Catholic doctrine and morality or the law, which I am quite certain -- in this case -- they do not.

We are greatful to hear of your promotion of Fanfai's great book. We'd be pleased if that promotion could continue. If you enjoyed the editors' introduction to that volume you might reflect upon it as an illustration of the orthodoxy of the Press's editors. As an additional aside regarding whatever your questions might be about the editors' 'views or political affiliations,' you may rest assured that our views are expressed in what we publish and, more specifically, what we have written as introductory material to what we publish.

We'd be happy to answer any further or more specific questions.

John Sharpe and the Legion of St. Louis

Mr. Sharpe advises: "You should contact the Legion of St. Louis for information on their status or activities. IHS Press is not connected to the Legion of St. Louis." (He reiterated this point in our subsequent correspondence). Now, while this is "factually" true (there is indeed, no formal connection between the two organizations), it remains the case that the founder of "The Legion of St. Louis" is none other than John Sharpe, as documented by the "founding email" of the organization, reproduced here on The LeFloch Report, and this article in the Dec. 13, 2002 edition of Seattle Catholic.

John Sharpe's Commentary on 9/11

[Note: This particular section has been revised on 3/1/06 in light of additional documentation uncovered from MediaMonitors.net -- CB]

Furthermore, as "editor of the Legion of St. Louis", Mr. Sharpe authored a series of essays on 9/11 for conspiracy website MediaMonitors.net, in which he airs views that would be of concern to most Catholics. In the first essay, "Thou Shall Not Kill Sept. 17, 2001, Sharpe suggests that the United States pretty much brought 9/11 on itself. Citing the work of (suprise!) "the master of secret history, Michal A. Hoffman, II," Sharpe muses that "there remains the possibility that that official story [of 9/11] will be a cover for something else, and that there are individuals who benefit from the results . . . who are other than the hypothetical crazy Arabs," speculating in his second essay (The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001) that the culprits may very well be "The Mossad or the U.S. Govt."

In this third essay, Islam vs. the West: Is This Another Crusade? October 18, 2001, Sharpe charges that:

Commentary on the geopolitical situation of 2001 can be neither complete nor sufficient if it fails to take into account the Jewish Nation. The temporal power that the Jews have achieved since, picking a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both pervasive and relatively unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call this extremism, anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of Nazi fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally Jewish aim.

1. The current and historical mortal enemy of Christian civilization is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt about this fact from an analysis history, both recent, and that which dates from the time of Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful and vigorous one, to the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may in fact be so in this case.

2. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden, assuming he is the guilty party – or whoever is responsible for the attacks of 9-11 – considered the attacks to be an assault on the West, insofar as it is the uniquely Christian West. [. . .]

4. In truth, there is no longer a Christian West to attack. To suggest that the US of A is the last bastion of Christian civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has been a greater Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall Street, the Fed, and Roosevelt’s State and Treasury departments assured that.

The Sept. 11, 2002 - "9/11 Anniversary Edition" of the LSL's Legion News & Views [available here on the restored website of the LSL, or via the Google cache], again indulges in wild conspiracies about 9/11, recommending the conspiracy-theory websites The Abbé de Nantes" and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com -- speculating (from the former) that Bin Laden is "the secret ally of the United States"; (from the latter), that the Zionists, again, were the true perpetrators of the crime.

John Sharpe's endorsement of Judaism's Strange Gods, by Michael Hoffman II

Mr. Sharpe recommends Michael Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods as an "excellent and balanced treatment of an obviously difficult question." Who is Michael Hoffman II?

Michael Hoffman II is a conspiracy-theorist and Holocaust-revisionist, who heads the revisionist website Campaign for Radical Truth in History. He has authored a number of books such as Hate Whitey - The Cinema of Defamation ("tracking Hollywood's psychological war against whites, Christians, Germans and gentiles"); Witches and Rabbis: Legacy of the Reagan White House (the chapter titles alone are a good indication of the content: "Reagan's Kosher Cash Cow; Greatest Presidential Friend of the Israelis; Patron Saint of the Holohoax Lobby," etc.); on revisionisthistory.org, he bemoans the fact that

"The white race --at least in its current degenerate state as manifested in modern America-- is now the golem of the rabbis. Without the unstinting financial and military support of America's white leaders and white voters, the Israeli Zionists would not have one-tenth their power in the world today. The supremacy of whites in America such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsefeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., Justice Antonin Scalia, . . . is synonymous with the rise of Judaic supremacy. I repudiate white supremacy and Judaic supremacy with every ounce of my being."

In subsequent correspondence with Mr. Sharpe I pointed out Michael Hoffmann II's rather dubious connections and asked, whether in light of his other writings as a Holocaust revisionist, Hoffman's Judaism's Strange Gods could honestly be considered to offer a "excellent and balanced" exploration of Judaism. Mr. Sharpe responded:

I am not aware of the books of his that you say indulge "in the worst form of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-esque conspiracy-theorizing", whatever that means exactly. Notwithstanding your own point of view of Mr. Hoffman, his book on Judaism is balanced and enlightening. I suggest you read it before you comment on it one way or another.

Truth be told, I have not bothered to read Strange Gods of Judaism. While I am somewhat familiar with the selective-quotation from the Talmud by anti-semites (see the Anti-Defamation League's The Talmud in Anti-Semetic Polemics February 2003, which addresses the spurious charges of Michael Hoffman II and white-supremacist David Duke), the fact that Michael Hoffman II is a celebrated author of, and heavily marketed by, white-nationalist, neo-nazi, "revisionist history" and "New World Order" conspiracy-theory organizations is enough to repel me.

With regards to learning about Judaism as a religious tradition, I have found Hayim Halevy Donin's To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life (Basic Books, 1991) particularly helpful, along with Back To The Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (Simon & Schuster, 1986); I suppose Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History wouldn't hurt, either. And to understand Judaism from a Christian/Catholic perspective, one might read Roy H. Schoeman's Salvation is From The Jews (Ignatius Press, 2004).

Point being: if you want to learn about contemporary Judaism, ask a Jew. Better yet, ask a religious orthodox Jew, not a conspiracy-theorist with a background in "white-separatism" and Holocaust-revisionism.

John Sharpe's Lack of Concern about Derek Holland

That IHS Press' founder should plead ignorance of and willful disregard for the past activities of Derek Holland is extremely troubling for this reason: according to Matthew Anger,

The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella. But a breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust (SGET) set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization (an investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took place in 1997).

But a breakthrough came with the ITP's St. George Educational Trust (SGET) set up in the early 90s as a "Catholic charity" organization (an investigation of the group by the UK Charity Commission took place in 1997).

[For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report", by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001]

It has to be understood that within European "revolutionary nationalism" there are two trends: one, professedly neo-pagan and even anti-Christian; the other, espousing a selective religiosity (not unlike the Klan and "Christian Identity" racialists in the US). But when push comes to shove, all such extremists put aside personal differences to unite in their hatred of Jews, non-whites and the United States. It is the totalitarian tendency which trumps everything else.

The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources. A look at my library shows that the SGET, whose books are sold by the [Legion of St. Louis], has the same mailing address as the ITP’s Legion Books at Forest Place in Hampshire, England.

The SGET/LSL pamphlet Catholic Action: Uses, Abuses and Excuses is written by Derek Holland under the pen name of "Liam Connolly." The article "Why Catholics Are Cowards" by Liam Connolly was published by the LSL and SGET in the booklet Faith and Fear. It first appeared in the Christmas 1998 issue of Candour, an anti-Semitic newsletter run by the ITP (now operating in the UK as "England First").

IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those don't violate either the moral or the civil law, and, to repeat, Mr. O'Huallachain's activities - whether or not you endorse them - don't violate either. Therefore they are of no concern to IHS Press.

In the past several years, IHS Press has received recognition as a mainstream Catholic publisher. In September 11, 2003, Zenit News Service interviewed Mr. Sharpe on the founding of IHS Press and the revival of Catholic social doctrine ("As a complete sociopolitical creed the social doctrine really is a third way that isn't just between the Left and Right -- it rather transcends both Left and Right and rises above them with its own vision of social order"). They have received a fidelity rating of "excellent" by CatholicCulture.com; and in a November 2004 book review for the New Oxford Review, Thomas Storck commended their publication of Chesterton and Belloc, "their efforts to provide American readers with these foundational works cannot be praised too highly."

In addition to its promotion of traditional Catholic works, IHS Press has, through its "Sheffield Hallam University Press" imprint , published several books on economic socialism, including study of the controversial publisher Alfred Richard Orage and Gary Taylor's Socialism and Christianity: The Politics of the Church Socialist League -- a study of late 19th, early 20th century Christian socialism in England which challenges the notion that "socialism is anti-Christian".

Under its "Traditionalist Press" imprint, IHS Press also published the book The Rural Solution: Modern Catholic Voices on Going “Back to the Land”, an anthology which argues "why city-dwelling Catholics should settle and work in the country." The authors of the text are listed as:

Richard Williamson is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Peter Chojnowski is a teacher of religion, philosophy, and social thought at Immaculate Conception Academy. Christopher McCann is an associate of Angelus Press, a Catholic publisher of books about contemporary issues of the Catholic faith. John Marx was a professor of social science and economics at Catholic University of America. Willis Nutting was a frequent contributor to the Catholic journal Integrity.

I should also mention that Richard Williamson also has a history of extremist views that mirror those of Sharpe and Derek Holland (see The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson Fringe Watch January 25, 2006).

While it appears that the publishers' description of Williamson, Chojnowski and McCann could be construed as a willful attempt to conceal their controversial membership in the SSPX, one should also note that, according to Matt Anger, “whether one agrees with the SSPX or not, it is clear that Bishop Williamson has been an extremist and divisive force in Catholic tradition,” and that many within the SSPX remain severely critical of Richard Williamson’s relationship with Sharpe, Holland, and their involvement in neo-fascism.

Likewise, we should distinguish between those within the SSPX militantly opposed to Rome (like Williamson) and those who are not averse to entering into dialogue with Benedict XVI, with the goal of reconciliation.

IHS Press has also been vigorously marketing the Neo-Conned series, which received positive reviews by Dr. John Hubert TCRNews.com, Catholic "traditionalist" Michael Semin, and, curiously, a group called Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (the latter reviewer has his own distinct criteria for determining the book's quality: "I went back through the book counting the 9/11 references. According to my quick survey, Neoconned Again includes 14 references (in ten essays) that take the official story [of 9/11] for granted; ten that cast doubt upon it indirectly or through innuendo; and three clear statements that the official story of 9/11 is a lie").

Over the past months, John Sharpe has also done promotional spots on left-wing radio (AntiWar.com's "Weekend Interview") and television (Dr Hesham Tillawi's "Current Issues" interview no longer available online but Sharpe's photo is posted). He will be presenting his work on Neo-Conned and Neo-Conned Again: Hypocrisy Lawlessness and the Rape of Iraq an an Arab/Islamic Center on March 31, 2006.

The publishers of the Neo-Conned volumes present themselves in a rather innocuous light:

J. Forrest Sharpe is the publisher and managing director of IHS Press. He is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine and the English Distributist movement. D. Liam O'Huallachain is the editorial director of IHS Press and is a student of Catholic Social Doctrine, the English Distributist Movement, and contemporary alternative political movements. Both have edited and annotated editions of works by 20th-century social thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Fr. Vincent McNabb, Fr. Heinrich Pesch, and Dr. George O'Brien.

At the time of this writing, it also appears that the domain name "http://www.legionofstlouis.com/" expired (on February 6, 2006 to be precise). Perhaps we may take this as a sign that Mr. Sharpe intends to abandon his earlier project and concentrate fully on the advancement of IHS Press. One may hope as much -- but in light of Sharpe's past editorship of the Legion of St. Louis, his co-founder's questionable political activities (which continued even after the founding of IHS Press), and the many controversial connections unnearthed by Matthew Angers' Fringe Watch investigations, serious questions and concerns remain.

Had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis, but had repudiated the opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press "the benefit of the doubt."

But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, his utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and his connection as founder of the Legion of St. Louis prompted the writing of this article.

Given their ideological background and connections, is it a good idea to lend one's support to these publishers by way of promoting their books?

And what of the "neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles"? -- in addition to the left-wing and "paleoconservative" authors who penned works for the Neo-Conned volumes, there were also good Catholics who supported this project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in endorsement.

Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations of its publishers?

Updates (1/28/06)

• Matt Anger brings to my attention a third essay on 9/11, available on the website of the Legion of St. Louis, which claims that "Bin Laden's call to attack the West lacks a supernatural geo-political perspective because it is concerned ONLY with defending the rights, albeit in some cases legitimate, of Muslim states. The media perspective is faulty because it equates the West with the Enlightenment, secularism, and materialism. And the analysis put forward by some Catholic parties is flawed not so much in itself as in what it leaves out of consideration – Judeo-Masonry."

• A Final Conflict NewsEmail dated March 20th, 2001, a nationalist "skinhead" Third Positionist publication, contains a note attributed to "info@legionofstlouis.com" (One observes as well a mutual interest in Michael Hoffman II ("a seminal piece which exposes Judaism's dualistic Kabbalah/Talmud based faith . . . Judaism has NOTHING to do with Christianity or even the Old Testament -- but is essentially occultist"), which of course begs the question: what is a Catholic organization doing fraternizing with this kind of movement?

• The August 25, 2002 edition of Legion News & Views [Google cache] contains a review of an IHS Press book on Chesterton, confirming that that the organization was in existence and functioning at least a year after the founding of the publishing company. Matt Anger notes (Legion of St. Louis Website: Gone But Not Forgotten Fringe Watch Feb. 27, 2006):

  . . . the LSL site was in place in October 2001 and the IHS Press site went up no later than November of that same year, demonstrating that Mr. Sharpe was promoting supposedly Catholic publications via IHS at the same time that he was peddling anti-Semitism and neo-fascism with the LSL; and Derek Holland, veteran British neo-fascist, is a member of the IHS Press board of directors and was openly involved in extremist activities even after IHS Press was founded.

• As of March 1, 2006, the Legion of St. Louis website appears to be "back in business," the domain name renewed on March 1, 2005 -- although the registrant's identity is removed.

• I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum-Novarum) notes that "some who have been zealously promoting this series have sought to take a moral theology approach to justifying these books propagation amongst their readers" -- he responds in On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc. (Aka "Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar" Dept.).

• In studying this topic I am also indepted to Bill Cork's extensive investigation "Antisemitism and the Catholic Right, an investigation of Robert Sungenis.

Labels: extremism, neocons