.

.

© - Home ufficiale - Il Blog di Giacomo Palumbo

domenica 12 dicembre 2010

Whole truth about the American neo-conservatism.


As long as George W. Bush jr. firmly seated (despite everything) to the White House there was no day without a new contribution to the "stupidario" the neocons. The "nerve center", the "center of power," the plot "Judeo-demo-&-pluto-Goofy-Donald Duck" ... Barack Hussein Obama arrived, everything has vanished like snow in the sun. The cabal plotted to subjugate the world is no more, nobody talks about it, and yet the "infamous" Project for a New American Century has long since closed. The real truth, in fact, is that the neoconservatives are not and have never been what they have painted their critics (always fierce) both left and right. The moment is propitious time to look into their political and cultural realities with more coolness, that is not at odds on him ever to those who believe the seriousness not an option.
Newly available is a tool for that purpose, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea (Paradigm, Boulder [Colorado]). Aside from the ridiculous title (and cover the same), it is a great deal of interpretation. The lavish C. Bradley Thompson, of Clemson University in South Carolina, and Yaron Brook, the first is more or less a "leaked" by the neocons, the second is the chairman and chief executive dell'Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. Their work is great because first of all do everything to condense, in what after all are not even very many pages, a galaxy of thought and huge figures, and (self-) definition elusive (as I said, almost too often the authors). Then as it tries to reel off pretty well for a very significant problem, with the claim of branded as pernicious, even anti-American. Aim the book succeeds, but gives the reader a huge harvest of ideas and materials useful to those who cultivate the whole issue from different perspectives, even opposite. Even a book stubbornly hostile, that is, you can make optimal use, provided it is written, as is that of Thompson and Brook, with extreme seriousness.
Moreover, their claim has already responded well, the smart book published in 2006 by Britain's Douglas Murray, Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, published in New York by Encounter, or one of the cornerstones of publishers neocon world, founded in 1997 by Peter Collier, who directed her until 2005, is now led by Roger Kimball, co-editor and co-director with Hilton Kramer, the Big Apple, the elegant neo-conservative journal The New Criterion. Even the good book of Douglas is not required to accept all the statements and conclusions. Moreover, his friend Douglas Murray Kear, since 2007 director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in London, is a man of many peculiarities. In addition to not being ashamed, good (say it with sincerity a non-neocon what the writer of these few notes), to be called neo-cons are not even ashamed to call themselves Zionist. He loves the open debate, particularly because the can handle it with great elegance, and has ideas about jihad being clear. Finally, it is one of those who believes the religious element is not essential to a conservative philosophy.

Now, the question that our parts are mostly experienced at best a footnote, is, in the Anglophone world, especially in the U.S., of great moment, and not now. Passionate comments from a half-century rich, soul debates, fills the pages. As a rule, the United States, the conclusion is the opposite of that which is received by Murray, that the opposite is true, that religion is a fundamental (ie foundation) of the conservative world view, that Christianity is indeed part structure of Western thought and not progressive "anti-progressista". With exceptions, of course, but that still does not appartinee Murray. Indeed, he is not American (even though I work in-hand with the Americans), but British. In Albion, in fact, is more common to find positions like his, at that latitude there is more room for a different conservatism, not religious, sometimes even rational. What the United States is unacceptable on average, is rather more fertile ground in Britain. That is understood that Christopher Hitchens has to share, despite his positions on the subject of religion with conservatism, such as in defense of the West and the fight against international terrorism. For this reason it happens that one of the pillars of conservatism is a British philosopher Antony Flew (1923-2010), however in the end of life gained by the idea of God (see his God exists. As the world's most famous atheist has changed idea, published by my Protestant friends of Alpha & Omega, publisher of Caltanissetta).
Former Anglican practitioner, Murray was shocked, she says, reading from the Koran, which drew general conclusions - unduly - the religion as such. Conclusions short distance, so to speak, those generalizations do not honor, but so much money in the said Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. From its own, however, Murray has a savoir-faire that people like the last mentioned do not even know where he is at home, and a refined intellect, as well as a deep culture. Difficult, in fact, be insensitive to its intellectual appeal. I was not, moreover, never abandoned the idea to get all this from a book-length interview with him, disclosing how, where and when it is, for him, can a genuine and deep conservatism without religion. A book, that is, that will enable him to explain, that is also to explain to himself if he really takes the construct.
Waiting for better times for that project, Murray remains the best person to review a brand new book, Podhoretz Normand: A Biography (Cambridge University Press, New York 2010) by Thomas L. Jeffers. And that Murray has done, with the title's Norman Conquest, on the issue of 22 November peak of neoconservatism weekly, The Weekly Standard, to Washington by William Kristol, son of art as scion of Irving Kristol (1920 to 2009 ), one of the recognized godfather of the neocon movement. The other, of course, is the biographer Podhoretz, a former left-repentant, director for 40 years in the monthly Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, responsible for the conversion to the right of much of American Jewish intellectuals, author of essential books.
Murray reviewed the sublimely biography because it defines one of Jeffers's work a great admirer of Podhortez and, in fact no other than the pages of The Weekly Standard, stigmatizes it. For Murray, Podhortez is a model and an American hero, but says that it does not serve the glory shine all the lackeys to do stuff and a phrase book or surreal scenes pyrotechnics on the edge of ridiculous. Douglas Bravo, a great lesson.
Now retrace this article, put together all the names and qualifications and the issues mentioned, and put your heart at rest. The neocon conspiracy exists and here is this: the passion for truth. Coming from a non-existing arch enemy neocon neocon but then he too was "assaulted by reality" is not just, sincerely speaking.

PS: So, on balance, there really is neoconservatism? Exists today as a phenomenon distinct from the conservative culture tout court of the United States? We are confident that the American people the right to be there to make piddling issues between schools of thought often known only to specialist taxonomists, and yet not be nourished, with good appetite, all that is good common sense reflected in its western often regardless of who wrote it, or badandoci later, after reading what was written to make sense? A turn to sites, magazines and American foundations, to look in the pews of the common good press from them and bought by a huge audience, veering to the "Tea Party" and its surroundings, it seems so ...

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Pubblicità Impresa Edile e Stradale

Pubblicità Impresa Edile e Stradale

Pubblicità