Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.

  1. #1

    Exclamation The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.

    This is from early this year.

    It has only gotten worse.

    This is the corner I'm speaking of, being backed into.

    The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.

    Kurt Schlichter

    Posted: Feb 06, 2017 12:01 AM

    They hate you.

    Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you. They want you enslaved and obedient, if not dead. Once you get that, everything that is happening now will make sense. And you will understand what you need to be ready to do.

    You are normal, and therefore a heretic. You refuse to bow to their idols, to subscribe to their twisted catechisms, to praise their false gods. This is unforgivable. You must burn.

    Crazy talk? Just ask them. Go ahead. Go on social media. Find a leftist – it’s easy. Just say something positive about America or Jesus and they’ll come swarming like locusts. Engage them and very quickly they will drop their masks and tell you what they really think. I know. I keep a rapidly expanding file of Twitter leftist death wish screenshots.

    They will tell you that Christians are idiots and vets are scum.

    That normals are subhumans whose role is to labor as serfs to subsidize the progressive elite and its clients.

    That you should die to make way for the New Progressive Man/Woman/Other.

    Understand that when they call Donald Trump “illegitimate,” what they are really saying is that our desire to govern ourselves is illegitimate. Their beef isn’t with him – it’s with us, the normal people who dared rise up and demand their right to participate in the rule of this country and this culture.

    They hate you, because by defying them you have prevented them from living up to the dictates of their false religion. Our rebelliousness has denied them the state of grace they seek, exercising their divine right to dictate every aspect of our puny lives. Their sick faith gives meaning to these secular weirdos, giving them something that fills their empty lives with a messianic fervor to go out and conquer and convert the heathens.

    And the heathens are us.

    Oh, there are different leftist sects. There are the social justice warriors who have manufactured a bizarre mythology and scripture of oppression, privilege, and intersectionality. Instead of robes, they dress up as genitals and kill babies as a blasphemous sacrament. Then there are the pagan weather religion oddballs convinced that the end is near and that we must repent by turning in our SUVs. Of course, the “we” is really “us” – high priests of the global warming cult like Leonardo DiCaprio will still jet around the world with supermodels while we do the ritual sacrificing of our modern comforts. Then there are the ones who simply worship themselves, the elitists who believe that all wisdom and morality has been invested in them merely because they went to the right college, think the right thoughts, and sneer at anyone living between I-5 and I-95.

    But all the leftist sects agree – they have found the revealed truth, and imposing it upon the benighted normals like us is so transcendently important that they are relieved of any moral limitations. They are ISIS, except with hashtags instead of AKs, committed to the establishment of a leftist caliphate.

    You wonder why the left is now justifying violence? Because they think that helps them right now. Today it’s suddenly OK to punch a “Nazi.” But the punchline is that anyone who opposes them is a “Nazi.”

    You wonder why they ignore the rule of law, why they could switch on a dime from screaming at Trump for refusing to preemptively legitimize a Hillary win and then scream that he is illegitimate the moment she lost? Because their only principle is what helps the left win today. That’s why the media gleefully, happily lies every single day about every single thing it reports. Objectivity? When that stopped being a useful thing, it stopped being a thing at all.

    They are fanatics, and by not surrendering, by not kneeling, and by not obeying, you have committed an unpardonable sin. You have defied the Left, and you must be broken. They will take your job, slander your name, even beat or kill you – whatever it takes to break you and terrify others by making you an example. Your defiance cannot stand; they cannot allow this whole Trump/GOP majority thing to get out of control. They must crush this rebellion of the normal, and absolutely nothing is off the table.

    We’ve seen them burn UC Berkeley and how the police controlled by the leftist state government of California stood by and watched as Americans were beaten by the mob. Why? Because the government of the State of California approves of the violence. Do you think it’s a coincidence that California is doing everything it can to disarm its normals?

    The Left won’t say it out loud – at least not yet – but make no mistake. If violence is what it takes for the Left to prevail, then violence we will have. You saw it, and you were meant to. Berkeley was a message about the price of dissent where leftist hold sway. And they seek to hold sway everywhere

    How to we respond?

    The first step is to end the denial. Open your eyes. See what is happening. Don’t allow yourself to be deluded by false nostalgia for a past period of cultural peace that existed only because, at that time, the Left was winning. They hate you. Look at Twitter. Look at Facebook. Try and tell yourself that leftists are just nice people who disagree with you on a few policy details. Stop fooling yourself.

    Understand that this must get much worse before it can get better. We may wish to stop the cultural/political struggle, but they can’t stop. Their religion tells them we are greedy, racist, sexist, homophobe morons who hate science and love Hitler. How could they tolerate us? How could they ever allow us power?

    They can’t. Their sick ideology and false theology requires that we be enslaved or exterminated – we can’t be tolerated, and we certainly can’t be allowed to hold the reins of power. I hoped that my novel People’s Republic, about what lies at the bottom of this blood-soaked slippery slope, would be rendered moot by the GOP’s victory in November. I was wrong. The Left has redoubled its efforts.

    So the only outcome is that one side wins and the other loses. There’s no truce to be had, no possibility of a tie. And the frightening thing is that the Left is so foolish, so stuck in its bubble that it has no understanding that it can only push so far before the people with all the guns and all the training push back. That’s the problem with kids who were raised on participation trophies and who never got into a fistfight – they don’t consider the possibility that they will lose, and lose hard.

    We must ensure they do. Understand your enemy. Understand that the Left will exploit your principles and morals to make you disarm yourself – figuratively and literally. Don’t play their game; don’t fall for their manufactured outrages. Never concede their lies, never take their side against the people defending your liberty. Most of all, accept the truth that if we let them win we will spend the rest of our lives on our backs with a giant Birkenstock pressed into our collective face.

    They hate us. And however they come at us, we need to be prepared to fight.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2


    I feel so hated...

    This is the essence of tragedy,
    To have meant well and made woe, and watch Fate,
    All stone, approach

  4. #3


    Don’t play their game; don’t fall for their manufactured outrages.
    And Town Hall is not playing the same game, and manufacturing the same outrage?

    Town Hall is part of the same propaganda machine that pointed their cameras not at us, but at the KKK, and falsely claimed that was libertarianism. Now they point their cameras at AntiFa, and falsely claim that is liberalism. It's a divide and conquer strategy, and Town Hall proved they were a part of it when they did what they did to Ron Paul.

    A whole army of trolls are paid to roam the internet and incite. But talk to people on the street for a while, and you find that people are still people. The internet started out as a way for people to connect, but it has been turned into a tool for manufacturing division. And Town Hall is just another cog in that tool.

    When the Powers that Be work this hard at rousing the rabble, it pays to ask why. And 'They like martial law' is one obvious answer. Yes, we should be prepared in case they succeed. But I'm damned if I'll help them succeed.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 09-27-2017 at 11:18 AM.

    Make Americans Cucks Again!

  5. #4


    Take the cash formerly spent on NFL crap and use the money to buy ammunition.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  6. #5


    Next up, Jonah Goldberg.
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #6


    Very insightful. But the "right" hates you too. What do we do about that?

  8. #7


    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Very insightful. But the "right" hates you too. What do we do about that?
    This. The government gains nothing from reason and civility, and the 'Deep State' is out to stamp those things out. So, how can we possibly defeat them without using reason and civility?

    There's a reason the Deep State is targeting reason and civility. Those are our strongest weapons.

    Make Americans Cucks Again!

  9. #8


    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Next up, Jonah Goldberg.
    Bill Goldberg's less smart, funny, and manly adopted cousin working for NatRev?
    This is the essence of tragedy,
    To have meant well and made woe, and watch Fate,
    All stone, approach

  10. #9


    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And Town Hall is not playing the same game, and manufacturing the same outrage?

    Town Hall is part of the same propaganda machine that pointed their cameras not at us, but at the KKK, and falsely claimed that was libertarianism. Now they point their cameras at AntiFa, and falsely claim that is liberalism. It's a divide and conquer strategy, and Town Hall proved they were a part of it when they did what they did to Ron Paul.

    A whole army of trolls are paid to roam the internet and incite. But talk to people on the street for a while, and you find that people are still people. The internet started out as a way for people to connect, but it has been turned into a tool for manufacturing division. And Town Hall is just another cog in that tool.

    When the Powers that Be work this hard at rousing the rabble, it pays to ask why. And 'They like martial law' is one obvious answer. Yes, we should be prepared in case they succeed. But I'm damned if I'll help them succeed.
    Believe me brother, I understand what you're saying.

    I think they have succeeded.

    That was my "ah hah" moment.

  11. #10
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar

    Blog Entries
    Join Date
    Nov 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Take the cash formerly spent on NFL crap and use the money to buy ammunition.
    Doing that today!
    Citizen of Arizona

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  12. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Believe me brother, I understand what you're saying.

    I think they have succeeded.

    That was my "ah hah" moment.
    Declaring defeat makes it so.

    Be prepared for what happens if they win. But never stop fighting before it's over. And it ain't over.

    Maybe you're just too close to I-95 for comfort. Those bastards have one hell of a long way to go to reach I-35.

    Make Americans Cucks Again!

  13. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Very insightful. But the "right" hates you too. What do we do about that?
    The legendary Chesty Puller once said:

    "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right,
    they're in front of us, they're behind us.
    They can't get away this time."

    Attack in all directions.

  14. #13


    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Declaring defeat makes it so.

    Be prepared for what happens if they win. But never stop fighting before it's over. And it ain't over.
    I don't intend to.

    But I am also not going to fool myself into thinking that "common ground" or "compromise" or "educational outreach" can be achieved.

  15. #14


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I don't intend to.

    But I am also not going to fool myself into thinking that "common ground" or "compromise" or "educational outreach" can be achieved.
    They do have about a gazillion watts behind their brainwashing. But individuals are capable of seeing through the bull. More of them do it every day.

    They did their astroturf trick to us, and we learned. They're doing their astroturf trick to liberals, and they're learning. Some people went through it during both the Ron Paul effort and the Bernie Sanders foolishness, and they're in touch with both sides, and they've seen it from both sides.

    Even as you say education isn't working, it's working. Of course, you'll never see any evidence of it on your television, or on Town Hall either. But it's happening.

    Make Americans Cucks Again!

  16. #15

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  17. #16


    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Deserves a copypasta:

    The Unique Evil of the Left

    Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

    Is it too much to say that since the French Revolution, the left has been the source of virtually all political evils, and continues to be so in our day?

    There can be no doubt that great cruelty and violence can be and have been inflicted in the name of preserving the existing order.

    But when we compare even the worst enormities of the more distant past with the leftist totalitarian revolutions and total wars of the twentieth centuries, they are in general a mere blip. The entire history of the Inquisition, said Joe Sobran, barely rises to the level of what the communists accomplished on a good afternoon.

    The French Revolution, and particularly its radical phase, was the classic manifestation of modern leftism and served as the model for still more radical revolutions around the world more than a century later.

    As that revolution proceeded its aims grew more ambitious, with its most fervent partisans demanding nothing less than the total transformation of society.

    In place of the various customs and settled ways of a France with well over a millennium of history behind it, the radical revolutionaries introduced a “rational” alternative cooked up in their heads, and with all the warmth of an insane asylum.

    Streets named after saints were given new names, and statues of saints were actually guillotined. (These people guillotining statues were the rational ones, you understand.) The calendar itself, rich with religious feasts, was replaced by a more “rational” calendar with 30 days per month, divided into three ten-day weeks, thereby doing away with Sunday. The remaining five days of the year were devoted to secular observances: celebrations of labor, opinion, genius, virtue, and rewards.

    Punishments for deviations from the new dispensation were as severe as we have come to expect from leftism. People were sentenced to death for owning a Rosary, giving shelter to a priest, or indeed refusing to abjure the priesthood.

    We are plenty familiar with the guillotine, but the revolutionaries concocted still other forms of execution as well, like the Drownings at Nantes, designed to humiliate and terrorize their victims.

    Given that the left has sought the complete transformation of society, and given that such wholesale change is bound to come up against the resistance of ordinary people who don’t care for having their routines and patterns of life overturned, we should not be surprised that the instrument of mass terror has been the weapon of choice. The people must be terrified into submission, and so broken and demoralized that resistance comes to seem impossible.

    Likewise, it’s no wonder the left needs the total state. In place of naturally occurring groupings and allegiances, it demands the substitution of artificial constructs. In place of the concrete and specific, the Burkean “little platoons” that emerge organically, it imposes remote and artificial substitutes that emerge from the heads of intellectuals. It prefers the distant central government to the local neighborhood, the school board president over the head of household.

    Thus the creation of the departments, totally subordinate to Paris, during the French Revolution was a classic leftist move. But so were the totalitarian megastates of the twentieth century, which demanded that people’s allegiances be transferred from the smaller associations that had once defined their lives to a brand new central authority that had grown out of nowhere.

    The right (properly understood), meanwhile, according to the great classical liberal Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “stands for free, organically grown forms of life.”

    The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking; a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided they are true values); a balanced view of the nature of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting on the uniqueness of human beings which cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers. The left is the advocate of the opposite principles; it is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, paradises in which everybody is the same, envy is dead, and the enemy is either dead, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviations, stratifications. ... The word “one” is its symbol: one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one ritual, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms, one centralized world state.

    Is Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s description partly out of date? After all, who touts their allegiance to “diversity” more than the left? But the left’s version of diversity amounts to uniformity of an especially insidious kind. No one may hold a dissenting view about the desirability of “diversity” itself, of course, and “diverse” college faculties are chosen not for their diversity of viewpoints but precisely for their dreary sameness: left-liberals of all shapes and sizes. What’s more, by demanding “diversity” and proportional representation in as many institutions as possible, the left aims to make all of America exactly the same.

    Leftists have long been engaged in a bait-and-switch operation. First, they said they wanted nothing but liberty for all. Liberalism was supposed to be neutral between competing worldviews, seeking only an open marketplace of ideas in which rational people could discuss important questions. It did not aim to impose any particular vision of the good.

    That claim was exploded quickly enough when the centrality of government-run education to the left-liberal program became obvious. Progressive education in particular aimed to emancipate children from the superstitions of competing power centers (parents, church, or locality, among others) and transfer their allegiance to the central state.

    Of course, the leftist yearning for equality and uniformity played a role as well. There is the story of the French Minister of Education who, looking at his watch, tells a guest, “At this moment in 5,431 public elementary schools, they are writing an essay on the joys of winter.”

    As Kuehnelt-Leddihn put it:

    Church schools, parochial schools, private schools, personal tutors, none is in keeping with leftist sentiments. The reasons are manifold. Not only is delight in statism involved, but also the idea of uniformity and equality — the idea that social differences in education should be eliminated and all pupils be given a chance to acquire the same knowledge, the same type of information, in the same fashion, and to the same degree. This should enable them to think in identical or at least in similar ways.

    As time has passed, leftists have bothered less and less to pretend to be neutral between competing social visions. This is why conservatives who accuse the left of moral relativism have it so wrong. Far from relativistic, the left is absolutist in its demands of conformity to strict moral codes.

    For example, when it declares “transgender” persons to be the new oppressed class, everyone is expected to stand up and salute. Left-liberals do not argue that support for transgender people may be a good idea for some people but bad for others. That’s what they’d say if they were moral relativists. But they’re not, so they don’t.

    And it is not simply that dissent is not tolerated. Dissent cannot be acknowledged. What happens is not that the offender is debated until a satisfactory resolution is achieved. He is drummed out of polite society without further ado. There can be no opinion apart from what the left has decided.

    Now it’s true: the left can’t remind us often enough of the tolerant, non-judgmental millennials from whom this world of ubiquitous bigotry can learn so much. So am I wrong to say that the left, and particularly the younger left, is intolerant?

    In fact, we are witnessing the least tolerant generation in recent memory. April Kelly-Woessner, a political scientist at Elizabethtown College who has researched the opinions of the millennials, has come up with some revealing findings. If we base how tolerant a person is on how he treats those he disagrees with — an obviously reasonable standard — the millennials fare very poorly.

    Yes, the millennials have great sympathy for the official victim groups whose causes are paraded before them in school and at the movies. That’s no accomplishment since millennials agree with these people. But how do they treat and think about those with whom they disagree? A casual glance at social media, or at leftist outbursts on college campuses, reveals the answer.

    Incidentally, who was the last leftist speaker shouted down by libertarians on a college campus?

    Answer: no one, because that never happens. If it did, you can bet we’d be hearing about it until the end of time.

    On the other hand, leftists who terrorize their ideological opponents are simply being faithful to the mandate of Herbert Marcuse, the 1960s leftist who argued that freedom of speech had to be restricted in the case of anti-progressive movements:

    Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for “the other side,” I maintain that there are issues where either there is no “other side” in any more than a formalistic sense, or where “the other side” is demonstrably “regressive” and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

    Even much of what passes as conservatism today is tainted by leftism. That’s certainly the case with the neoconservatives: can you imagine Edmund Burke, the fountainhead of modern conservatism, supporting the idea of military force to spread human rights around the world?

    Talk to neoconservatives about decentralization, secession, nullification, and you’ll get exactly the same left-wing replies you’d hear on MSNBC.

    Now I can imagine the following objection to what I’ve said: whatever we may say about the crimes and horrors of the left, we cannot overlook the totalitarianism of the right, manifested most spectacularly in Nazi Germany.

    But in fact, the Nazis were a leftist party. The German Workers’ Party in Austria, the forerunner of the Nazis, declared in 1904: “We are a liberty-loving nationalistic party that fights energetically against reactionary tendencies as well as feudal, clerical, or capitalistic privileges and all alien influences.”

    When the party became the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or the Nazis, its program included the following:

    The National Socialist German Workers’ Party is not a worker’s party in the narrow sense of the term: It represents the interests of all honestly creative labor. It is a liberty-loving and strictly nationalist party and therefore fights against all reactionary trends, against ecclesiastical, aristocratic, and capitalist privileges and every alien influence, but above all against the overpowering influence of the Jewish-commercial mentality in all domains of public life. ...

    It demands the amalgamation of all regions of Europe inhabited by Germans into a democratic, social-minded German Reich. ...

    It demands plebiscites for all key laws in the Reich, the states and provinces. ...

    It demands the elimination of the rule of Jewish bankers over business life and the creation of national people’s banks with a democratic administration.

    This program, wrote Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “oozes the spirit of leveling leftism: it was democratic; it was anti-Habsburg (it demanded the destruction of the Danube monarchy in favor of the Pan-German program); it was against all unpopular minorities, an attitude that is the magnetism of all leftist ideologies.”

    The leftist obsession with “equality” and leveling means the state must insinuate itself into employment, finance, education, private clubs — pretty much every nook and cranny of civil society. In the name of diversity, every institution is forced to look exactly like every other one.

    The left can’t ever be satisfied because its creed is a permanent revolution in the service of unattainable ends like “equality.” People of different skills and endowments will reap different rewards, which means constant intervention into civil society. Moreover, equality vanishes the moment people begin freely exchanging money for the goods they desire, so again: the state must be involved in everything, at all times.

    Moreover, each generation of liberals undermines and scoffs at what the previous one took for granted. The revolution marches on.

    Leftism is, in short, a recipe for permanent revolution, and of a distinctly anti-libertarian kind. Not just anti-libertarian. Anti-human.

    And yet all the hatred these days is directed at the right.

    To be sure, libertarians are fully at home neither on the left nor the right as traditionally understood. But the idea that both sides are equally dreadful, or amount to comparable threats to liberty, is foolish and destructive nonsense.

  18. #17


    Well crap, here I was thinking my Dem SO loved me the last 10 years. Now I find out she hates me? What am I to do now??

    (color me a bit surprised that AF is fanning the flames of partisanship with a 8 month old opinion piece written by a....)
    Last edited by devil21; 09-27-2017 at 12:03 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks Fishing Boat Rentals

  19. #18


    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Next up, Jonah Goldberg.
    "Liberal Fascism" is a great book. Goldberg's problem is that he never goes after the Republicans for being exactly as fascist and hate you exactly as much as the Democrats.

    If you're looking for a book that has the same message as "Liberal Fascism" but from a more academic and less partisan source, one that even Progressives have to acknowledge, "Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era " by Thomas Leonard and printed by Princeton Press is an excellent source.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  20. #19


    I hate everyone.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  21. #20


    Meh- the "right" hates you just as much.

    Don't attack neoconservatives – it's a 'hate crime'!

    Max Boot starts out his essay on "What the Heck is a 'Neocon?'" – which should have been titled "Who, Me?" – by claiming to find the label affixed to his political persona "mystifying." Yet he winds up writing a mini-manifesto of the Neocon Creed:

    "It is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'ętre – opposition to communism – has disappeared."

    The neocons may have wavered and waffled on domestic policy issues, arguing among themselves over how many cheers to give capitalism (one, or two?), but on the war question they have always spoken with a single hoarse voice, howling for war at the slightest provocation. Not only that, but they positively delight in the prospect of bloodshed, which they perversely find ennobling: it was Max Boot, after all, who bemoaned the lack of casualties in the Afghan campaign and fervently hoped not to be disappointed in the next phase of what his fellow neocons optimistically call World War IV.

    9/11 galvanized the neocons, who immediately jumped at the opportunity to turn the "war on terrorism" into the sort of general conflagration that might fairly be dubbed a new world war. As Boot describes the neocon argument:

    "If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East – a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again."

    Either build an empire on the ruins of Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh, or else suffer another attack by our implacable enemies, who are not just the Bin Ladenites skulking in their caves but all the Muslim peoples of the Middle East (except the Turks). "What is a neoconservative in the year 2003?" asks Boot in the first paragraphs of his screed, and by the end he seems considerably less puzzled:

    "The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as 'neoconservatism,' though a more accurate term might be 'hard Wilsonianism.' Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ('Soft Wilsonians,' a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, 'hard Wilsonians' want to use American might to promote American ideals."

    By dressing up the War Party's militant triumphalism in presidential trappings, Boot hopes to Americanize what is essentially an alien, European tradition, one that owes more to Trotsky than Teddy. "I like to think I've been in touch with reality from day one," avers Boot, "since I've never been a Trotskyite [sic], a Maoist or even a Democrat." Boot's oblivious disdain for history, and his obvious unfamiliarity with the rightist axiom that "ideas have consequences," as Richard Weaver put it, seems odd in an ostensible "conservative" of any sort.

    As many of the original neocons were ex-Trotskyists, or independent left-wing critics of Stalinism – whose Russian colleagues were sent to the gulag, and whose leader met his end on Stalin's orders – their foreign policy monomania is best understood as Trotsky's revenge. The founder of the Red Army had wanted to carry the struggle into Poland, and Germany, after the 1917 Revolution, and this later developed into a comprehensive critique of Stalin's policy of "socialism in one country." Throughout the cold war era, Trotsky's renegade followers called for "rolling back" their old enemies, the Stalinists – but even the implosion of the Soviet empire did not calm their crusading instincts.

    All this is ancient history, Boot and his fellow crusaders complain. Yet "benevolent world hegemony," the fatuous phrase in which William Kristol and Robert Kagan summed up the goal of a neocon post-cold war foreign policy, has a positively Soviet ring to it. The idea that the U.S. government must "export democracy" at gunpoint all around the world is a frankly revolutionary program, profoundly alien to the American conservative ethos that considers hubris a sin and distrusts power in the hands of imperfect men. The idea of democratism in one country – that constitutional republicanism can thrive only in the West, because of cultural and historical factors – is anathema to these militant internationalists. The neoconservative anomaly is that they have succeeded in redefining "conservatism" as Trotskyism turned inside out.

    That the third or fourth generation of rightists seems unaware of or indifferent to their ideological legacy merely underscores the success of the "entrist" infiltration tactic often used by Trotskyists over the years. Trotsky and his followers, in league with Sidney Hook – a major neocon icon – did this in the Socialist Party in the 1930s, and the Trotskyists became infamous for their skill at infiltration. (The most recent example was the discovery of French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's membership in a secretive Trotksyist cell.) Contemporary neoconservative thought bears the marks of its Trotskyist origins in the style of its expression. The essentially leftist utopianism of the neoconservative foreign policy analysts is succinctly summarized by Boot in a single sentence:

    "Many conservatives think, however, that 'realism' presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction."

    The old-fashioned conservative virtues of prudence, restraint, and humility are too "crabbed" for the world-saving all-conquering neocon imagination. Caution would cramp their style. These revolutionaries of the Right would cast all caution aside, and instead move boldly to "promote our values" just as Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao once moved with equal boldness to promote their values: to establish a world order, a state or federation of states, unified by adherence to a common ideology.

    Communism was supposed to have been the only road to world peace: socialist states, we were solemnly assured, would never go to war against each other. When China disproved this by attacking not only Vietnam but also starting a cold war against the Soviet Union, Communist theorists covered over this giant hole in their theoretical edifice by declaring that either China or the Soviets had gone "capitalist."

    Like the commies of yesteryear, the neocons of today proclaim that the triumph of their ideology, "democratic capitalism," will lead to the same universal convergence of interests. But history refutes their panacea: surely the American War of Independence, which pitted a parliamentary monarchy against an emerging republic, is an important historical exception to the rule that democracies "rarely" war on one another.

    Like the "proletarian internationalists" of old, the democratic internationalists of the post-9/11 world declare it is our moral duty to impose our form of government on foreign peoples. Eerily echoing the Communist mouthpieces of a bygone era, the pundits who push this neo-imperialist nonsense explain away inconvenient facts as exceptions that somehow prove the rule. The dead souls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I fear, would take vigorous exception to Boot's suggestion that their immolation is a mere speck on the otherwise brilliant raiment of Democracy.

    I note, in passing, the similarity of the rhetorical sleight-of-hand practiced by commies and neocons alike: democratist ideologues, like their communist alter-egos, do not claim their system is inherently pacific, but only in relation to states of a similar orientation. This is supposed to make us forget that democracy, unrestrained by customs and constitutions, morals and the demands of commerce, is the most warlike ideology of them all, as evidenced by the history of the U.S. since the era of Wilson, not to mention the history of Athens, or that of the Roman republic.

    Sometime around the late 1950s, American conservatives picked up a hitch-hiker on the road to power who wound up hijacking their movement. The thuggish style of the left – with its organized smear campaigns, race-baiting, expulsions, and enforced ideological conformity – was imported to the Right via the neconservative influx: the ugly viciousness of, say, David Horowitz, didn't derive from a careful reading of Russell Kirk, but from the intellectual hooliganism of the "New" Left (and its Old Left progenitors). The running dogs of capitalism have merely been transformed into the running dogs of "anti-Americanism."

    Again, Boot doesn't even realize the source of his own bile, as he smears Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative using not only the tactics but also the language of the Left. He moans that some who have rightly tagged him as a neocon "have ulterior motives." Oh, poor baby! He then launches into an extraordinary tirade:

    "Patrick Buchanan, for one, claims that his views represent the true faith of the American right. He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple (or, more accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his version of conservatism – nativist, protectionist, isolationist – attracts few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in Republican presidential primaries and the scant influence of his inaptly named magazine, the American Conservative. Buchananism isn't American conservatism as we understand it today. It's paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when Father Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative broadcaster in America."

    This nonsense about Father Coughlin being a "conservative broadcaster" shows not only Boot's complete ignorance of what Couglin's movement stood for, and its origins as a radical pro-Roosevelt movement of the 1930s, but also his complete acceptance of the traditional liberal view of conservatism in America.

    Coughlin was a man of the Left, who rose to prominence on the strength of a broadcast entitled "Roosevelt or Ruin!" He urged the Democrats to "drive the money-changers out of the temple," not only echoing the President's own rhetoric but declaring that the President's programs didn't go far enough. Lapsing into anti-Semitism and money crankery late in his career, Coughlin hailed the rise of Hitler and was never a conservative in any sense of the term. Coughlin supported the rise of National Socialism and fascism precisely because they were revolutionary doctrines. The Left has been tagging the conservative movement with the "Coughlinite" label ever since the 1950s, but it is certainly odd to hear an alleged conservative give voice to this ancient canard.

    Boot's claim that he was never a "Trotskyite," a Maoist or even a Democrat just shows how the methods and mindset of the Left have been universalized, as he displays expert skill at another favorite tactic of the Left: promoting ethnic divisions. Boot plays the ethnic card in a way that can only leave Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson gasping with admiration:

    "When Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative' – and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen – it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is 'Jewish conservative.' This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism – is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians."

    The insight that the biggest supporters of Israel are Christian fundamentalists of a dispensationalist bent is one made by TAC writer Eric Margolis, as well as myself, and, lest anyone detect an ethnic bias in TAC's targets, what about this outright attack on Christianity by Norman Mailer in a recent issue?:

    "I would say that flag [neo] conservatives are not Christians. They are, at best, militant Christians, which is, of course, a fatal contradiction in terms. They are a very special piece of work, but they are not Christians. The fundament of Christianity is compassion, and it is usually observed by the silence attendant on its absence."

    This victimological explanation for Buchanan's war on the neocons is just a lot of whining, combined with the usual liberal-leftie slurs routinely hurled right-ward. Is it is now forbidden to criticize anyone connected with the present administration if they are Jewish, on pain of being labeled a follower of Father Coughlin, or worse? Imagine the reaction from the same crowd if identical rules had been invoked to deflect criticism of Clinton's African-American appointees, or of black elected officials, most of them Democrats.

    Paleo-conservatism "a poisonous brew"? What could be a more toxic than the mixture of warmongering and sloganeering that our trendy neocons have put on the menu for 2003? Combined with the police state methods rapidly eroding constitutional protections, the smear tactics practiced by the neocons, who routinely describe their political enemies as "fifth columnists" in the service of terrorism, are an implicit threat.

    Jonah Goldberg chimes in, obsequiously declaring that "Boot is, of course, absolutely right," but then deciding that the neocon label is a bad one after all:

    "Anyway, the only place I'd disagree with Boot is his willingness to adopt the label neocon. The term does more damage than good because it allows people to hide their real intent. People who want to denounce the influence of Jews get to use the word 'neocon' when they really mean 'Jewish conservatives' without being held accountable."

    So now we are supposed to forget about all those non-Jewish neocons Boot catalogued, because the mind-reading Jonah can peer into the inner thoughts of his critics, and excavate their real motives. Not only is it forbidden to mention any Jewish names in a critical context, but now the word "neoconservative" is also evidence of a "hate crime." What do Jewish paleos, such as Paul Gottfried, and the late Murray N. Rothbard, mean when they denounce the pernicious influence of the neocons? Only Jonah Goldberg knows….
    "The term [neocon] distorts more than it reveals," says Goldberg, "and should be thrown over the side." Along with the numerous books, doctoral dissertations, and other scholarly and journalistic discussion of the subject, over a period of some twenty years. Throw it over the side, shove it down the Memory Hole – let's restrict the political debate in this country until no one can criticize the drive to war without being accused of treason, anti-Semitism, or both.

    Goldberg rails on incoherently:

    "Doves refer to neocons when they mean 'hawks' – when there's no evidence that all neocons are hawks or Jews."

    No one ever said all neocons are Jews: that's a neocon canard. But I challenge Goldberg to come up with the name of a single prominent neocon who is not a hawk on Iraq. He claims to believe that Boot is "absolutely right," but the theme of Boot's Wall Street Journal piece is that warmongering is the essence of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is not the Jewish Party, it is the vanguard of the War Party, and the two are certainly not synonymous, as many Jews are in the forefront of the antiwar movement.

    "Don't hide behind one word when you mean another," cries Goldberg, but who is he to tell us what we mean? The new grand inquisitors of political correctness, neocon-style, have proscribed an entire list of subjects. Like the compilers of a Newspeak dictionary, in George Orwell's 1984, they are busy getting rid of words, constricting the permitted limits of language to a very narrow spectrum so that it is increasingly impossible to think incorrect thoughts.

    They are, in short, the enemies of freedom, the Thought Police of our time.
    There is no spoon.

  22. #21


    Opposition to Stalin, not to Communism.
    This is the essence of tragedy,
    To have meant well and made woe, and watch Fate,
    All stone, approach

  23. #22


    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Very insightful. But the "right" hates you too. What do we do about that?
    "Everybody is out to get me!" My own failures are somebody else's fault.

  24. #23


    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    "Everybody is out to get me!" My own failures are somebody else's fault.
    You recently made a thread with that very sentiment. LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Obama doesn't pose a threat to the US.

    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3):

  25. #24

  26. #25


    I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Obama doesn't pose a threat to the US.

    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3):

  27. #26


    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Take the cash formerly spent on NFL crap and use the money to buy ammunition., PMs, etc. It looks like some rough times are ahead of us.

  28. #27


    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I hate everyone.

    Me too!

  29. #28


    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  30. #29


    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    (color me a bit surprised that AF is fanning the flames of partisanship with a 8 month old opinion piece written by a....)
    Not nearly as surprised as me.

    For well over ten years I labored under the illusion that, given the chance, the American people would rally around liberty, that when exposed to the lies surrounding government wars, government operations, and presented a veritable Christ like figure, politically, to rally around, they would rise up in righteous anger and throw off the shackles of oppression that have been holding them down for decades.

    I was wrong.

    Ron was wrong.

    Freedom is not popular.

    Now the forces of statism are hyping themselves up into a frenzy to commit, without hyperbole or overstating the case, at the very least, political genocide and quite possibly real, blood in the streets, Pol Pot/Rwanda/Rhodesia type genocide.

    The choice is becoming martyrdom or aligning with the least unpalatable factions.

    But perhaps I'm all wrong and acptulsa is correct, that all of this is just "fake news" veneers promulgated by the always connected, 24/7 hate machines we all carry around in our pockets.

  31. #30


    The left only hates you if you disagree with them.

    What kind of sensible, rational person would disagree with sound & well-thought-out ideas like universal basic income, free healthcare, free college, free internet, and equally distributed wealth?

    You'd have to be some kind of monster.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sanders v. Klein on immigration: The old Left against the adolescent Left
    By Brian4Liberty in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2015, 05:04 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 12:30 PM
  3. Alan Grayson: Hates Children, Hates Seniors, Loves Satan
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 10:20 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 03:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts