I’m sure our foreigners that call themselves part of the Anglosphere will repeat the line that this is all a false conspiracy with their hand waving.
Lenin and his accolates quoted the title, btw.
I’m sure our foreigners that call themselves part of the Anglosphere will repeat the line that this is all a false conspiracy with their hand waving.
Lenin and his accolates quoted the title, btw.
But even if you think it should be a Republic, neither are true. The US is neither a democracy nor a republic now. It’s just an ordinary banana totalitarian regime.
Now that’s a good video showing messaging and public relations.
Bipartisan is a code word the Left uses when they have successfully bisected the human brain and implanted certain algorithmic behavior patterns to ensure zombie compliance. A lobotomy is where they remove higher brain functions. But bipartisanship is the higher level technique, where the essence of individual judgment is removed, but to all external appearances they are brilliant and genius born still.
How these grand standing personas on their pedestal fall down and shatter.
Great time reading the comments. Purge the Republican party. Also beware of defectors and idealists from the Left, they may not be fully de-conditioned and de-contaminated yet.
The authorizes of the Left and those in the Conservative establishment will be shattered. Whether that is by the Tea Party, Obama’s civilian security force, or the next upcoming Civil War… well, doesn’t really matter much at this small scale yet.
Begin the comment sweep:
Shari Goodman • 6 months ago
About two years ago, our ACT! For America chapter distributed an online petition that sought the removal of the Muslim Student Association from the UCLA campus after they recited their Muslim Brotherhood pledge to “die for Allah” at their national conference held there. Our petition cited sedition as grounds for their removal. Meanwhile Jamie Glazov conducted an interview with me and the campaign to ban the MSA. Within hours of the published interview, Horowitz gave the signal to remove the interview. Additionally, he held a press conference to denounce our petition. By that time we had already gathered over 1000 signatures within a few days and would have gathered many more had we not been asked by our national leadership to stop our petition. Later, the Chancellor of UCLA held his own press conference in support of protected speech and he cited that EVEN Horowitz was in agreement.
The irony is that Horowitz in his effort to protect freedom of speech for those who seek the destruction of our Constitution actively engaged in suppressing ours. No one wanted to wrestle with the mighty David Horowitz and judging by the treatment of Diana West, it is understandable why one would seek to avoid his wrath.
Texas Patriot Jed West • 6 months ago
I think the Radosh/Horowitz rage goes much deeper than any concern about factual discrepancies in Diana West’s book, and is probably rooted in the legacy of their own Leftist past, their own failure to fight ideological totalitarianism, and their own failure to leave completely behind the Leftist philosophy of attacking anyone and anything that is remotely perceived as political opposition. Politics as bloodsport belongs in the annals of Soviet Bolshevism and Stalinism and not in the ranks of Authentic American Conservatism. Unfortunately, Messrs. Radosh’s and Horowitz’s vehement and vitriolic responses to the creative conservative insights and ideas of Diana West are totally inappropriate, totally misplaced, and totally counterproductive in the ongoing global ideological struggle against Totalitarian Suppression and Totalitarian Submission. Attacking for the sake of attacking is for attack dogs. This is a time for sober reflection and reassessment of the past and formulation of new ideas and new strategies for the future. Sticking with the same failed ideas and failed strategies is a sure formula for disaster.
Let’s face it the West did “lose” the ideological war against totalitarian Communism, and we are now “losing” the ideological war against totalitarian Islam, and it is highly likely that the ideological failures of Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz played a large part in both of those disasters. Why pretend? We’ve been out-thought and out-maneuvered with the result that the deindividualizing and dehumanizing philosophies of totalitarian ideology have now become a part of mainstream American thought, and our own hubris and overconfidence has probably been a big part of that.
What is disappointing is that rather than acknowledging their own failures and lending a helping hand to new conservative warriors with new ideas and new strategies for defeating the Big Lie Machines of Totalitarian Communism and Totalitarian Islam, Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz now seem to be lapsing into their own totalitarian past and engaging in a deliberate smear campaign of lies and character assassination reminiscent of the worst sort of ideological abuses of Bolshevism and Stalinism. They should know better, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
But it’s not too late. All is not lost. Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz can still redeem themselves by waking up and realizing that they have made a huge mistake by reacting so harshly and negatively to such a rising and promising star of Authentic American Conservatism. It’s time for Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz to admit their mistakes, put their own ideological baggage behind them, and get on board with winning the essential and ongoing battles against the forces of Intellectual Slavery and Totalitarian Submission, and the first step in that process is to apologize to Ms. West.
No one wants to put Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz out to pasture. No one wants to crucify them for their past mistakes and past failures. No one wants to blame them for the pitiful state of the American Conservative Movement today. There is still hope for the future, and they may still have a positive role to play in achieving the ideological victories that America desperately needs. It’s not going to be a problem if they want to play ball. Even if they are no longer qualified to lead the ideological vanguard of American Conservatism, they can still contribute their vast knowledge and experience to help young ideological warriors and champions like Diana West, and they can still help us all in achieving the victory in the ongoing ideological war that threatens to wipe the forces of Freedom and Democracy from the face of the earth. Everything depends on Messrs. Radosh and Horowitz being the true American Patriots they say they are and not the Leftist Totalitarians they say they aren’t.
Gentlemen, pick up the phone. Give Diana West a call. Ask for her forgiveness, offer to help her in any way you can, and invite her into the fold with your blessing.
You won’t be sorry.
Feisty Hayseed • 6 months ago −
I read Diane West’s rebuttal (“If Frontpage Will Lie about This…” linked above) and noted WITH HORROR that in Mr. Horowitz’s first communication with Ms. West regarding this matter HE INSULTED HER!
On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, david horowitz wrote:
Our decision to remove the review of American Betrayal was not because
it offered an incorrect opinion that we wanted to suppress. The review
was removed because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an
informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.
DogmaelJones1 • 6 months ago
Mr. Horowitz: Irrespective of the virtues or flaws in Diana West’s book, I am more than chagrined by FrontPage’s removal of Mark Tapson’s review and now by the concerted attacks on her that have ensued since she refused to
dignify Radosh’s “review” by making a career of defending herself and her work on your terms. You have not answered the question of why you chose to play the equivalent of a three-card Monte game with readers’ heads by removing the Tapson review. Its removal is indicative of dishonesty and in fact amounts to a show of no-confidence in Radosh’s review. If you thought so little of Tapson’s
review, why did you run it?
This is aside from the three-card Monte game Mr. Radosh is playing himself in defense of his review.
Now I see there is a major push to smear and discredit West and her book. You complain that she’s called you and your colleagues names. I have not noticed you or your colleagues refraining from name-calling, so you cannot really blame her for being outraged that she would be treated like a high school newspaper writer or a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism. You
insulted her and Mr. Tapson in an email, as well, alleging that Mr. Tapson was
incompetent to review the book, and West incompetent to write it. I am the author of twenty books myself, and am a good judge of competency in fiction and nonfiction. If I were Mr. Tapson, I’d call you out for a knock-down-drag-out. Why are you objecting to West doing the same? Did you really expect her to just sit back and allow her character and intelligence to be publicly given juvenile raspberries?
I think I was hovering between realism and pessimism just like that video, except back in 2007-08. Who got elected as President was the last thing on my mind. I had begun to see something that transcended Presidential and election powers.
I really like the video I saw here.
I suppose many foreigners will be celebrating. Though they may be surprised at what it really means for them.
The Japanese are also facing some election challenges.
While nuclear power provides more military infrastructure and energy for a build up, environmentally it is a problem on an Island nation like Japan. They lack America or Australia’s wide expanse of “nothing” to build stuff on. They don’t really get a choice about it, other than to build the reactors underwater in the ocean or on artificial islands.
Chinese geo political view from an American pov: http://www.therazor.org/?p=7004
I often mentioned to foreigners that certain Americans have more trust for our fellows than Europeans or Australians do for their fellow countrymen.
I also don’t like JJ’s definition of evil. By that logic, the Nazis were only evil and a problem when they started actually doing oven stuff. Before, when they were just being socialists and getting elected and planning a coup de tat of the Weimer Republic, that was “okay”. I don’t think one can entirely detach the consequences from the planning stages here. Being elected is democracy. Chancellor Hitler was thus, just playing the same game everyone else was playing. No problems there. That’s what people back then thought. And that’s what JJ’s logic affirms and justifies. But there was something fundamentally different about Hitler’s faction playing politics and the rest of the Weimar Republic’s factions playing politics. If you can’t even make corrections to judgment when you already know what happened in the historical past, I don’t think any future judgments of anyone else’s evil goals or what not, is going to hold much water. The future is much more nebulous and ambiguous than the past, even with historical rewriting based on Utopian ethics going on. It’s easy to say that people should have recognized the Nazis for being evil or crazy back when, because it is obvious to us now. But that’s not how humans work. Even now the US government is very vague and ambiguous about Al Qaeda vs Islam vs Islamic extremism (muslim brotherhood). So they can easily use JJ’s logic to say that since all of Islamic extremism hasn’t done anything bad to the US and is not at war with the US, just “some” factions like AQ… then only AQ is evil and the rest are just “doing business as usual”.
Moving to the next topic….
The fundamental principle behind the American experiment is of individual freedom, and free will does not exist without the ability of the individual to judge, by himself, for himself, what is or is not true.
Thus We Don’t Have to Do Anything of the sort when it comes to recognizing “evil” or “good” or whatever it is people say we should “recognize” about what we see as “evil”. That is an individual decision, that is not up to strangers, priests, governors, or anyone’s pet totalitarian government to make for other people.
If a person chooses to attempt to understand the viewpoint of their enemies, that is their choice to make. And the consequences, good or bad, will be for them to suffer. People in general or anyone else here, have no business talking about what choice people besides themselves should be making as part of some automatic exercise. This business, and that business, two different things. It is not the business of strangers to dictate the consciences of other people. Yet people feel free to do so all the time, and yet continue to speak of valuing freedom. Mutual annihilating contradictions are unseen.
There are no requirements, epistemologically or ethically, for a person to understand their enemies’ motivations. Putting morality on the table here in order to constrain people’s free will, isn’t going to convince anybody of anything. All it does is force people to obey, to do as they are told. And if they are told to do good, they do it. And if they are told to do evil, they’ll do that too. The idea that forcing people to obey by some rule, allows for personal virtue, individual ethics, and character strength to grow, is an untrue idea.-A comment I wrote in 2011
Before, when they were just being socialists and getting elected and planning a coup de tat of the Weimer Republic, that was “okay”.
Then I wrote that, I was directly thinking of the Obama Regime. In an effort to sound mainstream and reasonable, instead of crazy and easily picked up by the government goon squad (NSA scanners), I tried to only write about the primary topics at hand. But I was thinking of the Left in the US always.
The Leftist alliance in America isn’t doing normal things via their elections and planning. They weren’t normal in the past and it isn’t going to be normal from now on either. People now understand what those references are to, when it comes to totalitarian references and contexts.
The rather unfortunate stilted nature of my writing back then, was also an attempt to distance myself from my own emotions and strip away signs and clues that might otherwise be picked up. Without that cleansing, I might have started to rant in uncontrollable themes on Leftist totalitarianism. Given that this wasn’t the norm (yet) on blogs, I would have been filtered as an “outlier”. Now a days it is safer, though not really safe, since everyone and their monkey is talking about crazy stuff in the US.
One of the ancient lessons I learned from martial arts and Japanese culture is that the nail that sticks out is hammered down. Don’t be the guy in the crowd the mob can pick out, cause you’ll be stampeded first.
The gun article deals with fundamental self defense as it relates to evil, and I just wanted to write about some nostalgic past events.
Allow me, please, to add a second, related question: Does evil exist?
The answer to this question represents a fundamental dividing line between conservatives and socialists (for that is what the contemporary Democratic Party has sadly become). Socialists believe that human beings are inherently racist, sexist, and a variety of other ists, but are perfectible. This utopian perfection can be reached if only there is sufficient (absolute or near absolute) governmental power and the right kinds of taxes, redistribution of wealth, laws and regulations to make people behave in appropriate ways, to perfect them for their own good, a good they are unable to recognize or seek unaided. These laws and regulations will be composed and enforced by a small class of elite socialists who are already, by virtue of their education, sophistication, beliefs and highly attuned sense of social justice (generally best understood as whichever social and economic policies elite socialists prefer at the moment), perfected.
Therefore, for the socialist, the only true evil is resistance to the evolved social consciousness of the elite socialist.-Stately article blog post
Notice that “Life” is the first of the three Thomas Jefferson chose to make explicit. This is important in that if there is no unalienable right to life, your life is forfeit to any person, to any government that chooses to take it, for it is such a government’s whims that dictate who is worthy of continued existence. It should also be noted that even if the laws and legal traditions of the state do recognize a right to self defense, if the state denies citizens the most effective means to exercise that right, or so restricts its exercise as to make it impractical in application—as is currently the case in Washington D.C. (NOTE: Chicago and Illinois have been dragged, kicking and screaming, by the courts into recognition of the Second Amendment, though complete recognition is still very much in-process) and California–there is little difference to the individual between that state and one that recognizes no right at all.
If there is no right to self defense, no right to mere survival, your life is forfeit to the whims of those cruel and strong enough to take it. This may not be a concern if you are a young, strong, physically imposing male well schooled and practiced in the martial arts. However, even the strongest may be overcome by force of numbers or trickery (ask Samson about that), and no one is young forever, as Edmond Rostand made plain in Cyrano De Bergerac. If you are not young, strong and physically capable, things are rather different. In this understanding we can find the ultimate women’s issue, for women are quite simply and undeniably in trouble where physical size, strength and aggression are the primary determinants of mere survival.
Some–primarily Democrats–would have us believe that refusing to pay with tax dollars for every woman’s contraception–which is cheap and available at every pharmacy in the nation–constitutes a “war on women.” The real war on women is being imposed by those that continually seek to deny women the most effective means to preserve their very lives.
And if there is no right to self defense—no right that government may grant or rescind–can any other right, inalienable or otherwise, truly be said to matter? It may reasonably be argued that if a right is not inalienable, it is merely a privilege to be granted and rescinded by the state, but do we really want the state to treat our lives with the caring, efficiency and humanity employed by the EPA, the IRS and the TSA, as it body searches three-year old girls with spina bifida in wheelchairs (oh yes: they seized her stuffed animal too), or in the regulation of our privilege to drive?
One of the most important political understandings any free man can have is that government has no conscience; it cares nothing for any individual. No matter how much a given politician claims to care deeply for the welfare of “the people,” “the people” are at best an abstraction, as any one of “the people” may discover when they demand that government recognize and uphold their individual rights. This understanding is the necessary beginning of personal autonomy. Without it, one will always be a vassal of the state, the state the worth of whose vassals is measured always only in their utility to the transient goals of the state.-preceding topic
Those two sections phrases things in a way I might not have, but it is agreeable nonetheless.
Those two sentiments I’ve heard more than once in print online now.
I find that a mixed bag really. I mean, what am I supposed to do now that everyone and their pet donkey has stolen these message lines? If I repeat them, I end up looking like I’m attached to somebody’s band wagon. I hate that.
So I have to find something new and something crazy, that people aren’t willing to say or write out, and also ensure the prophetic announcement comes true… that’s a hard thing to do in this day and age. (it was easier when people were uneducated and you could bamboozle them with some words of wisdom, oh wait that ain’t much different now for ObaMao).
I’ve settled on “mind control” and “American dissolution”. That’s after the 2nd US Civil War too, btw, for the second option. Even if the TP wins the US Civil War or we win it, America will still dissolve due to certain internal and external issues. Israel, Japan, South Korea…. those people are on their own now and forever. Better get working on those giant robot mecha super weapons, btw.
Well, Pax Americana was good as a Golden Age while it lasted. I don’t foresee or predict it lasting beyond this century at least. In some ways, that is a good thing for Americans and foreigners. This co-dependent relationship does not breed national vitality and independence. It was good while it lasted, but America can no longer protect the world. We can’t even protect America from Americans.
It’s nice to know the USA is run by such virtue-ful people.