Comments on: Nazis in the Ivory Tower – by Steven Plaut

By: sternlight

sternlight — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:34:58 +0000

Antisemitism wasn't just an aberration. It was official policy. Many Ivy league colleges had a Jewish quota as recently as the 1950's, until it was exposed by a front-page article in the New York Times. To my own alma mater, MIT's credit, it was one of the few top New England colleges and universities without such a quota system by then.

Let's not forget that much of American opper class society was virulently anti-Semitic during this period; there were many hotels, resorts, and country clubs with a "no Jews, Blacks, or Dogs" policy. This persists to this day in certain upper-class clubs even in such "enlightened" major cities such as Los Angeles, where one mayor was denied the traditional honorary membership in the Jonathan Club because he was black. The other major elite club, the California Club, had a no Jewish members policy until relatively recently. Jews had, in fact, to start their own country clubs in order to play tennis and golf, and socialize. I, myself, as a senior executive of a major oil company, would have been automatically accepted as a member of those two key Los Angeles clubs, but was not because I was Jewish.

Despite a veneer of liberalism,antisemitism is still alive and well in America's upper classes to this day; this is no long-dead historical artifact. And it has nothi8ng to do with Israel.

By: sensible

sensible — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:43:53 +0000

Breathtaking imagination, that comment of yours. I'm overwhelmed.

As for the answer to your question: just look in the mirror, and ask it. Then come back and post your response; I'd genuinely like to know.

Thanks for your vital contribution. I'm sure we're all the richer for it.

By: 080

080 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:37:01 +0000

All of the above is true but one must remember the climate of opinion. About 80% of the American people were opposed to our entry into WWII. Those were the days that Father Coughlin held forth on the air waves. His constituencies were largely Irish and German, two ethnic groups that had their own reasons to oppose the Jews. It would be very interesting to track the ethnicity of all these presidents of universities. Remember that Charles Lindbergh was challenged to identify the forces that were drawing us into war. He named three: The Roosevelt Administration, the British, and the Jews. With the benefit of hindsight I can only say Good for Them.

By: diginess

diginess — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:23:05 +0000

I honestly don't think Jewish people are in much danger in America today. When I think of skinheads, I think black people are in more danger from them by far than Jewish.
It is true that there are real dangers of totalitarianism today. We should pay close attention to the expansion of powers of the presidency. Also, elect people to congress who like to cut costs. Watch out for the slow degradation of individual rights to information by the media industry. Protect government whistle blowers.

By: Eric Roth

Eric Roth — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:00:26 +0000

Detailed, depressing, and illuminating. I'm afraid that the “oldest hatred” remains far too strong in far too many places – including too many U.S. campuses.

It's worth reflecting on the popularity of fascism on the “best” American college campuses in the 1930s. Eugenics certainly played a role. The desire for peace at any costs was another.

By: clark81

clark81 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:50:12 +0000

Riiiiiiight.

By: kshapero

kshapero — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:47:30 +0000

My friend I pray that you will be wrong.

By: kshapero

kshapero — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:46:34 +0000

True enough, this is the dilemma that all good people face. But in the final analysis Eliade was just another ethno-centric bigot.It always came back to Christianity(which I have no quarrel with). He was just the country preacher with a lot of smarts and degrees. I was duped the whole time. Read his books now and you can see for yourself.

By: clark81

clark81 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:32:21 +0000

And the classic mistake of unhinged idealogues is to make fealty to the “right” beliefs the measure of a man. Do we then dismiss every thinker who has ever backed the “wrong” end of a political dispute? How then should we evaluate Jefferson, Washington, Madison – slaveholders all? How about Martin Luther? Is his thought reducible solely to anti-Semitism? You speak against imagined totalitarianism with the ruthless simplicity of purpose of a totalitarian mind.

By: clark81

clark81 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:24:22 +0000

What you describe is merely the basic underlying principle of conservative thought: a society's traditions and institutions are the aggregate sum of its wisdom, and the considered and selfless submission to eternal principles and the acceptance of one's place in the organic tapestry of the life of a people is to be preferred to the selfish, restless and reckless pursuit of individual 'freedom' and autonomy. Real conservatism has always had a “collectivist” bent because its fundamental tenets are fidelity and fealty to tradition and the subordination of personal goals and desires to the concept of divine order.

By: clark81

clark81 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:07:42 +0000

Congratulations, you're an unhinged sociopath. How does it feel to be an impotent loser?

By: Steven L

Steven L — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:20:57 +0000

The claim that massive anti-semitism cannot take place in the US is a farce and the left and liberal American Jews will live to regret it and be among the victims just like it was in Europe.