LibAnon makes several good points on my saying liberals will switch to pro-missile defense for Israel:
NOT SPAM
I found the Stormfront version of your post, and you were a lot clearer there. I now see that I was right the first time. You’re saying that the American left will about-face on Star Wars because missile defense is now good for Israel.
Either way, I disagree with your analysis. You seem to think Left and Right are distinct movements. They are not. They are distinctions WITHIN movements. Every political movement — Zionism, liberalism, communism, even Nazism — has both left and right wings. When a movement achieves its objectives, one of those wings is purged. It never fails. That is how political movements work.
It is to the credit of idealists that they tend to misunderstand this, but even if they’re wrong for admirable reasons, they’re still wrong. Jews who remain on the Left today are good examples. They all grew up denouncing racism and fascism. So now that Israel has become the world capital of racism and fascism, they condemn Israel. This is very naive. The more worldly-wise among them, like David Horowitz, know that the difference between Left and Right is a matter of tactics, not principles. So like chameleons, they know how to change color when the environment changes. Idealists who cannot do this end up fighting for their enemies, and are finally thanked by being destroyed.
Comment by LibAnon
In the 1970s, relative to Communism, the left and right WERE different. Yet I published a book exactly thirty years ago denouncing both, please note the title:
A Plague on Both Your Houses
I complained there that conservatives will vote for ANY military expenditure. Liberals voted against all military expenditures that might hurt the USSR. This was so long ago that George Will made some sense then. He described the pro-Defense, Henry Jackson Democrats as “keeping American armed forces strong enough to defend Israel.” They are now neo-conservatives.
It would help a bit if you and Joe would note what I said, though I am the last to have a right to that complaint. I said the liberals like Kennedy would be reversing themselves when they go from decades of denouncing missile defense to supporting it now that Israel is threatened. Conservatives will not be reversing themselves because they have always voted for ANY military expenditures.
This is a small historical change I expect to see. I thought I would mention it. It is NOT a declaration that TODAY there is difference between left and right.
Conservative spoksesmen, especially at National Review, now unanimously agree that those who founded NR were WRONG. They agree that liberals were the only true faith until 1970. But obviously this represents a change of personnel.
In the 1960s, there were actually pro-segregation articles in NR, one by Ernst Van Den Haag of the New School for Social Research in New York (Yes, I knew him, too). Now the conservatives leave more slime on the floor when it comes to race than liberals do.
#1 by LibAnon on 07/05/2006 - 11:11 pm
NOT SPAM
“In the 1970s, relative to Communism, the left and right WERE different.”
It’s probably arrogant of me to disagree with you on this, since you were there and I wasn’t, but what the heck. I’ll disagree anyway. If I’m wrong, you’ll set me straight and I’ll learn something.
To put it briefly, I see much more continuity between the “old” National Review and the “new” National Review than you do. SOMETHING’s different, obviously, given all of the screaming today between the paleocons and the neocons. But I don’t see it as a simple “change of personnel”, as you put it, that resulted in the takeover of conservatism by liberalism. Instead, I see neoconservatism as the direct continuation of the Cold War apparatus that, having achieved its aims, purged its old right wing and acquired a new one.
The case of Ernest van den Haag actually helps to illustrate this point. Like most of the others who formulated the intellectual and cultural basis of the Cold War, he was ethnically Jewish and started political life as a communist. Other examples of this breed include Sidney Hook (Haag’s mentor), Irving Kristol (still with us and now the godfather of the neocons), Horace Kallen (inventor of multiculturalism), Arthur Koestler (who did stints both as a Communist and a Jabotinsky Zionist) and Albert Wohlstetter (Trotskyite and mentor of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz). There were many, many others. These people were the intellectual architects of the Cold War. They were also, in many cases, the personal mentors of the architects of today’s “war on terror”. In the case of the more long-lived ones, such as Irving Kristol, they are the very same individuals. (That Haag was apparently sound on the race issue is nothing new; many neocons oppose Mexican immigration, contribute to American Renaissance, VDARE, etc. David Horowitz has even published some of Jared Taylor’s stuff, and Taylor has published Horowitz’s. Jews have no problem with white separatism as long as they get to be white and “anti-Semites” do not.)
Why did all these Jewish leftists oppose the Soviet Union? It was NOT for the same reason you did: i.e., because it was evil. These people opposed Soviet Union because it was anti-Trotsky and, after 1948, anti-Zionist. Today, having eliminated the last white anti-Zionist bastion on Earth, they’ve now set out to conquer the world’s non-white anti-Zionists. To help them, they’ve recruited a new, gentile right wing that justifiably hates Islamic rule just as much as their previous right-wing allies justifiably hated Soviet communism. But once the Islamic world is handed over to the tender mercies of the Jewish oligarchs, just as the Soviet Union was, expect Bill O’Reilly (or, more likely, his descendants) to be purged from “conservatism” as well.
#2 by Al Parker on 07/06/2006 - 12:02 am
Bob, I just learned that Argentina is 85% white (mainly Spanish and Italian). Why do I only hear about Argentina when it comes to soccer games? I thought white countries were successful and brown countries unsuccessful, or this an exception? Or, is this Jared Diamond guy right about the latitude thing? Argentina is way down there.
#3 by Pain on 07/06/2006 - 3:11 pm
Libanon: Excellent comment here. The list of names is priceless.
Bob: There is one government and the people have but one movement. The government packages itself under two different brand names called Left and Right. The two packages are marketed to the people in order to split the people into two feuding factions. However, if one listens carefully he will hear that the consumers of both packages are saying the same things and are accusing the other brand name of the same sins. This means the people are coming together. The government hears this and fears this and that is why it is stepping up its market promotion of its two brand names.
When enough people realize that there is but one government and no Left and Right, then there will be left only two groups: the government and the people’s movement.
And as Libanon points out, there are but two issues: Judaism (the government) and Race (us).
If it comes down to one billion Whites against forty million Jews, who should win?
#4 by Pain on 07/06/2006 - 3:12 pm
NOT SPAM
Libanon: Excellent comment here. The list of names is priceless.
Bob: There is one government and the people have but one movement. The government packages itself under two different brand names called Left and Right. The two packages are marketed to the people in order to split the people into two feuding factions. However, if one listens carefully he will hear that the consumers of both packages are saying the same things and are accusing the other brand name of the same sins. This means the people are coming together. The government hears this and fears this and that is why it is stepping up its market promotion of its two brand names.
When enough people realize that there is but one government and no Left and Right, then there will be left only two groups: the government and the people’s movement.
And as Libanon points out, there are but two issues: Judaism (the government) and Race (us).
If it comes down to one billion Whites against forty million Jews, who should win?
#5 by mderpelding on 07/07/2006 - 5:12 pm
In my opinion, the most important political differentition is physical.
Not ideas.
From the point of view of us “lowlifes”,
all politics are a “dog and pony” show.
Excuse the aphorism,
All history is about intellectual control.
Whether it’s Catholics.
Zoroastrianists.
Jews.
Geneva-ists.
Marxists.
I have been reading a fascinating history by Roy Medvedev about the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Just like all educated experts, Mr. Medvedev feels he has the answer to humanities problems.
The experts and professors of course subscribe to the
christian derivative belief system that we are all “God’s” children.
In the trenches, we don’t have that luxury.
A funny thing, all intellectual conceits fall by the wayside when your children are invovlved.
A man with a daughter cannot afford to play games.
There are millions of hard working fathers who love their little girls.
And their sons.
Worldwide we are participating in our own mass destruction.
We don’t even wan’t to reproduce ourselves.
We do not even understand our own culture.
What do you think?
#6 by joe rorke on 07/08/2006 - 4:17 pm
not spam. Go mderpelding. You’re thinking. That’s good news. I can thoroughly understand your point of view. So can millions of other people that didn’t tell you so. We care about our kids and our grandkids and our great grandkids, etc. We’re not into rolling over. Or, put another way, we are not the United States Congress.
#7 by Mark on 07/10/2006 - 6:06 pm
“If it comes down to one billion Whites against forty million Jews, who should win?”
I’m afraid the Jews will never afce one billion whites against them. In WW2 we had German Europe, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Romania, much of the middle eastern tribes, and Japan against the Jews and the Jews came out on top because they controlled the gold. It would take a concerted effort by all white nations to defeat the Jews today and the way whites are splintered it would be wiser to put your money on a dead race horse than the white race rising up in one unified venture.
Yes, Bob, I’m being pesimistic but specifically pessimistic.
#8 by LibAnon on 07/11/2006 - 5:29 pm
NOT SPAM
“Yes, Bob, I’m being pessimistic but specifically pessimistic.”
Mark, all you’re saying is that our kingdom isn’t of this world. You’re in good company, because Jesus said the same thing. Where your analysis falls short of Christ’s (no offense intended) is in calling this realization “pessimism”. Did Christ intend his statement to be taken as “pessimistic”?
Nature will oppose any act of creation. Every act of creation in history has required a struggle against stupidity, poverty, disease and death. But that does not mean that we should eliminate these things. That’s impossible. They will always be with us. The idea that we can eliminate such things is what the ancients called Gnosticism, and what Bob calls Wordism. Gnosticism is the mother of all (and I mean ALL) “isms,” and any “ism” is a path to destruction.
In my opinion, the question as to whether conscious, creative human life can survive on this planet was settled two thousand years ago, and it was settled by a sacrifice. All that has been asked of us in return is that we enjoy the gift of being conscious and creative, having faith that doing so will not destroy us. No, being conscious and creative will never make us “Prince of this World.” But creative life is life itself, whereas being “Prince of this World” is just another way of being dead.
Yes, the Jews control the gold. But let’s leave what is Jewish to the Jews. Our own task is to be human, and that means creating things and going to the stars.
#9 by mderpelding on 07/11/2006 - 9:45 pm
A fun thought for the day, and also out of “left field’.
I am assuming that the chinese possess a bit more racial identity than us white people.
I would hope that all rational observers of the current immigration debate would be able to extrapolate the consequences of our current official immagration policies.
In a generation or less this country wil have a hispanic/mestizo government. Think military Juntas or so called “socialist peoples states” with their hands on the nuclear button. Don’t you think that the chinese haven’t allready given this scenario some consideration?
If I were the leader of China, I would have considered this long ago.
In spite of their Maoists cultural revolution, the people of the Han have never been egalitarians.
They have survived a long time.
I hope that I am wrong.
But, if were saddled with the survival of my people, I would work long and hard and try to learn all aspects of my potential enemies economic and social systems , to manipulate them to my advantage.
There is a lot to be learned about internetional trade.
My only thought, in my opinion, is that we start acting in our own intersts, just as our adversaries do.
#10 by Mark on 07/11/2006 - 11:30 pm
“Yes, the Jews control the gold. But let’s leave what is Jewish to the Jews. Our own task is to be human, and that means creating things and going to the stars.”
I’d be glad to leave what’s jewish to the jews IF they halt their ongoing campaign of controlling and destroying the white race. Our own task will be living in grass huts, not going to the stars, if the jewish intent is ever realized.