Ex-radical Horowitz: New left is threat to freedom
anymo...@my-dejanews.com
right
The Washington Times
October 19, 1998, Monday, Final Edition Robert Stacy McCain
Not for commercial use.
Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his march
to right Robert Stacy McCain The Washington Times; Part A; CULTURE, ET
CETERA; Pg. A2 October 19, 1998, Monday, Final Edition
David Horowitz spent the 1960s as a radical leftist, urging the overthrow of
the U.S. government. Nowadays, he's a conservative who would be content with
the overthrow of the Clinton administration.
"It's a war for them," Mr. Horowitz said Friday of the administration's
political tactics. "The biggest difference between Watergate and the
current situation is there are no defectors in the Clinton White House and
there's no John Dean - the whistle-blower of the Nixon administration
- to come forward with evidence of obstruction of justice."
In town to promote his new book, "The Politics of Bad Faith," Mr. Horowitz
spoke at a lunch at the Washington offices of the Hudson Institute, a
public-policy think tank based in Indianapolis. Too many conservatives, he
said, fail to distinguish between traditional liberalism and the leftist
views that emerged from the 1960s.
"What we call 'liberals' today are actually a variety of leftist," he said,
citing the "rave reviews" that the New York Times and Los Angeles Times gave
to Karl Marx this year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The
Communist Manifesto."
"That was no accident," Mr. Horowitz said, pointing out that the book review
editor of the Los Angeles Times "in the 1960s was a member of [student
radical leader] Tom Hayden's guerrilla force called the 'Red Family.' "
Mr. Horowitz, now president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in
Los Angeles, acquired his knowledge of the '60s "new left" firsthand as an
editor of Ramparts, a radical journal.
In the San Francisco area during the '60s, he supported the Black Panther
Party - a relationship that ended after one of his employees was killed in a
1974 murder that Mr. Horowitz blamed on the Panthers.
He abandoned radicalism in the 1980s, supporting Ronald Reagan in the 1984
election. With former Ramparts colleague Peter Collier, Mr. Horowitz is editor
of Heterodoxy, a monthly journal critical of "political correctness and other
follies."
As the son of Communist Party members - a so-called "red diaper baby" - Mr.
Horowitz studied the works of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky from an early age.
Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, he said, "those ideas are alive and
well today in America."
"The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr. Horowitz
said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the young
radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
"The most important event of the 1960s was Tom Hayden's organization of a
riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention," he said. "The object was to
destroy Hubert Humphrey's [liberal] wing of the Democratic Party - and it
worked."
Describing the Marxist beliefs of the new left as "an incitement to war
against democracy," Mr. Horowitz said such views are a threat to freedom.
"The leftist project is a totalitarian project. If you follow the left's
logic to its conclusion, it requires total government control," he said,
citing modern ethnic, feminist and gay rights movements as examples.
"Identity politics is just a continuation of European fascism."
But such movements - which Mr. Horowitz described as "kitsch Marxism" - have
proven powerful in the 1990s.
"The reason for the tenacity of the Marxist world view is because it's really
a religion," he said, "a movement of people who think that government can
create the kingdom of heaven on earth."
This religion is most powerful, Mr. Horowitz said, in American universities.
"There are more Marxists in our universities today than ever before," he said.
"The university now defines itself as an agent of social change. . . .
Everything is about power."
Conservatives, he said, should not underestimate the left. "These are very
smart people. They are very ruthless. . . . They're not going to tell you
what their agenda is."
As an example of the left's power, Mr. Horowitz said that when he was
identified by the Wall Street Journal as a leader of an effort to defend
Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge against a libel suit brought by White
House adviser Sidney Blumenthal, "within five days, I was notified that I was
being audited by the IRS."
###end article###
Yeah, they're very smart -- except kennelmanure.
anymouse
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tony G.
Its good to see that moronic red baiting still sells books. I also
find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
Tony G.
loose with:
>Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his march to
>right
>The Washington Times
>October 19, 1998, Monday, Final Edition Robert Stacy McCain
>Not for commercial use.
> Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his march
>to right Robert Stacy McCain The Washington Times; Part A; CULTURE, ET
>CETERA; Pg. A2 October 19, 1998, Monday, Final Edition
>David Horowitz spent the 1960s as a radical leftist, urging the overthrow of
>the U.S. government. Nowadays, he's a conservative who would be content with
>the overthrow of the Clinton administration.
>"It's a war for them," Mr. Horowitz said Friday of the administration's
>political tactics. "The biggest difference between Watergate and the
>current situation is there are no defectors in the Clinton White House and
>there's no John Dean - the whistle-blower of the Nixon administration
>- to come forward with evidence of obstruction of justice."
Hmm, Maybe Clinton hasn't decided to make a John Dean style scape goat
out of somebody.
>In town to promote his new book, "The Politics of Bad Faith," Mr. Horowitz
>spoke at a lunch at the Washington offices of the Hudson Institute, a
>public-policy think tank based in Indianapolis. Too many conservatives, he
>said, fail to distinguish between traditional liberalism and the leftist
>views that emerged from the 1960s.
>"What we call 'liberals' today are actually a variety of leftist," he said,
>citing the "rave reviews" that the New York Times and Los Angeles Times gave
>to Karl Marx this year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The
>Communist Manifesto."
The New York times didn't advocate the Communist Manifesto they said
it was a very relevant book. Anyone interested in history should read
it.
>"That was no accident," Mr. Horowitz said, pointing out that the book review
>editor of the Los Angeles Times "in the 1960s was a member of [student
>radical leader] Tom Hayden's guerrilla force called the 'Red Family.' "
AS David was a "radical" of the 60's also, I guess the only availble
option is becoming a shill for think tanks.
>Mr. Horowitz, now president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in
>Los Angeles, acquired his knowledge of the '60s "new left" firsthand as an
>editor of Ramparts, a radical journal.
>In the San Francisco area during the '60s, he supported the Black Panther
>Party - a relationship that ended after one of his employees was killed in a
>1974 murder that Mr. Horowitz blamed on the Panthers.
From the Black Panther Party to right wing think tanks... not much of
a leap.
>He abandoned radicalism in the 1980s, supporting Ronald Reagan in the 1984
>election. With former Ramparts colleague Peter Collier, Mr. Horowitz is editor
>of Heterodoxy, a monthly journal critical of "political correctness and other
>follies."
I saw Mr. Horriwitz on book talk insisting that liberalism was like a
religion and named off tenants of such a religion as being
environmentalism, gay rights and every other neo-con obsessions,
Political Correctness indeed.
>As the son of Communist Party members - a so-called "red diaper baby" - Mr.
>Horowitz studied the works of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky from an early age.
>Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, he said, "those ideas are alive and
>well today in America."
Just as the collapse of unfetered capitalism has happened it still has
many adherents.
>"The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr. Horowitz
>said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the young
>radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
>"The most important event of the 1960s was Tom Hayden's organization of a
>riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention," he said. "The object was to
>destroy Hubert Humphrey's [liberal] wing of the Democratic Party - and it
>worked."
It had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam? And I thought
revisinism was only things that commie lefties did.
>Describing the Marxist beliefs of the new left as "an incitement to war
>against democracy," Mr. Horowitz said such views are a threat to freedom.
>"The leftist project is a totalitarian project. If you follow the left's
>logic to its conclusion, it requires total government control," he said,
>citing modern ethnic, feminist and gay rights movements as examples.
>"Identity politics is just a continuation of European fascism."
I wonder as to Dave's opinion of the Christian Coalition.
>But such movements - which Mr. Horowitz described as "kitsch Marxism" - have
>proven powerful in the 1990s.
>"The reason for the tenacity of the Marxist world view is because it's really
>a religion," he said, "a movement of people who think that government can
>create the kingdom of heaven on earth."
I would wonder as to Dave's opinion of the CC.
>This religion is most powerful, Mr. Horowitz said, in American universities.
Oh here it is again... religion. And so-called conservatives accuse
liberals of destroying language.
>"There are more Marxists in our universities today than ever before," he said.
>"The university now defines itself as an agent of social change. . . .
>Everything is about power."
Ah yes marxists in the universitys? I'm sure Dave could do a study
and find out the exact number for us.
>Conservatives, he said, should not underestimate the left. "These are very
>smart people. They are very ruthless. . . . They're not going to tell you
>what their agenda is."
But Dave's figured it out anyways.
>As an example of the left's power, Mr. Horowitz said that when he was
>identified by the Wall Street Journal as a leader of an effort to defend
>Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge against a libel suit brought by White
>House adviser Sidney Blumenthal, "within five days, I was notified that I was
>being audited by the IRS."
Clintons a member of the left? I'm sure it has nothing to do with
partisan politics of the members of the two business partys.
Gail Weasel
>
> Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his march to
> right
>
Gosh, it's been at least twenty years since Horowitz
became a right-wing nut after having been a left-wing
nut.
He's been railing against the 60s for two decades now.
Isn't it time he got a real job?
> "The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr. Horowitz
> said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the young
> radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
He hated liberals then, and he hates liberals now.
What a wacko.
Gail
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
Salisar
I can't blame you for being worried.
Richard W. Bates
God save me from people who want to save me!
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
Salisar
light of day. Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
Richard W. Bates
God save me from people who want to save me!
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
Gail Weasel wrote in message <362DE0...@jps.net>...
Where_Was_George ?
>Tony G. wrote in message <362d6f0...@news.fatnet.net>...
>>
>>Its good to see that moronic red baiting still sells books. I also
>>find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
>>wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
>>to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
>It's really pissy to have your agenda exposed to the light of day, isn't it?
>I can't blame you for being worried.
Are you claiming that FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Carter supported
Communism and the overthrow of the US military ?
What a deluded idiot you are.
Carter imposed a wheat embargo on Russia to pressure them into leaving
Afghanistan.
Reagan ended the embargo and actually increased the amount of wheat
sold to the Soviets.
Reagan sold weapons to Iran, our sworn enemy, and then to protect the
oil companies, allowed foreign registered vessels to fly the American
flag and put American lives in danger by ordering the Navy to escort
them through the Persian Gulf.
Reagan also armed Iraq, with whom we went to war with.
Bush began the practice of technology waivers to Red China and helped
improve their technology to the point that they could successfully
launch American satellites.
>Richard W. Bates
>God save me from people who want to save me!
>http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
--
The House Banking Committee has received three or four of the
250 boxes of documents involved in Whitewater, Leach says.
``I thought [Whitewater] was a one- to three-week issue,'' Leach
says, and the whole affair would be aired and Clinton would put any
embarrassment behind him.
``We are continuing to gather material, and with each passing
week our case becomes more fortified,'' he says. The evidence makes
a strong case, he alleges, that the Clintons benefited from
Whitewater in contrast to their statements.
[The Christian Science Monitor 5/18/94]
Gail Weasel
>
> This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
> light of day.
Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
> responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
> merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
> merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
>
Okay.
The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
for 20 years.
Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
respond, though.
> Richard W. Bates
> God save me from people who want to save me!
> http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
> Gail Weasel wrote in message <362DE0...@jps.net>...
> >anymo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his march
> to
> >> right
> >>
> >
> >Gosh, it's been at least twenty years since Horowitz
> >became a right-wing nut after having been a left-wing
> >nut.
> >
> >He's been railing against the 60s for two decades now.
> >
> >Isn't it time he got a real job?
> >
> >
> >> "The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr.
> Horowitz
> >> said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the young
> >> radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
> >
> >
> >He hated liberals then, and he hates liberals now.
> >
> >What a wacko.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Gail
> >--
> >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
TCarr13397
>Carter imposed a wheat embargo on Russia to pressure them into leaving
>Afghanistan.
>
He also had us boycott the 1980 olympics
Tell us when the USSR left afghanistan George?
>Reagan ended the embargo and actually increased the amount of wheat
>sold to the Soviets.
>
He also encouuraged congress to increase the military budgets. I know that
it was just a "coincidence" that the USSR collasped under his administration
>Reagan sold weapons to Iran, our sworn enemy,
Funny.. I dont recall that claim substantiated in Mr Walsh's report?
>and then to protect the
>oil companies, allowed foreign registered vessels to fly the American
>flag and put American lives in danger by ordering the Navy to escort
>them through the Persian Gulf.
As the current President has our troops doing "peackeeping missions, Bush
had "desert strom, etc...
>Reagan also armed Iraq, with whom we went to war with.
Perhaps you would have preferred to have US troops do "peacekeeping in that
region at that time?
T. Carr
Gail Weasel
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:06:11 -0700, Gail Weasel <gai...@jps.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Salisar wrote:
> >>
> >> This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
> >> light of day.
> >
> >
> > Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
> >> responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
> >> merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
> >> merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
> >>
> >
> >Okay.
> >
> >The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
> >for 20 years.
> >
> >Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
> >respond, though.
> >
> >
> illuminating, especially concerning the leftist "the ends justify any
> means" approach to life and politics. Read it, and then speak,
> instead of just engaging in traditional left wing ad hominem
> "discussion".
>
You misunderstand me. I don't think most people are nuts.
I think Gingrich and Lott are quite sane. I think D'Amato
is sane.
I think, however, that Horowitz's is nuts. Everything,
and I mean, everything to him is about the 60s.
Doesn't this strike you as a bit strange?
He has a whole institute in Berkeley dedicated to
hating the 60s!
I have also met him personally, and he talks about
the 60s at cocktail parties.
There are kooks on the left, too. Representative
Trafficant comes to mind.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
freed...@my-dejanews.com
kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.) wrote:
>
> Its good to see that moronic red baiting still sells books. I also
> find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
> wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
> to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
freedom is at:
http://www.angelfire.com/va/nsnews/news.html
William D. Klein
wrote:
>Salisar wrote:
>>
>> This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
>> light of day.
>
>
> Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
>> responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
>> merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
>> merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
>>
>
>Okay.
>
>The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
>for 20 years.
>
>Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
>respond, though.
>
>
Have you read his "Radical Son"? I thought not. It's very
illuminating, especially concerning the leftist "the ends justify any
means" approach to life and politics. Read it, and then speak,
instead of just engaging in traditional left wing ad hominem
"discussion".
-- wdk
Where_Was_George ?
>>(Where_Was_George ?)
>
>>Carter imposed a wheat embargo on Russia to pressure them into leaving
>>Afghanistan.
>
> He also had us boycott the 1980 olympics
> Tell us when the USSR left afghanistan George?
"Rep. John B. Anderson (R) of Illinois approves the cancellation of
the sale of the Soviet Union of 17 million tons of wheat and corn.
Sen. Robert Dole (R) of Kansas backs of boycott of the 1980 summer
Olympic Games in Moscow. None of the rest of the President's sanctions
win unqualified cheers from those vying for his job, but they do get
grudging support -- or at least no opposition..."
"Republican Ronald Reagan, through an aide, calls the Carter approach
"cosmetic."..."
"The near-unanimous opposition to witholding American grain from the
Soviets is commonly justified on grounds of an unacceptable burden
imposed on US farmers and taxpayer. "It would hurt us more than them,"
claims an aide of Republican George Bush.
"Arch-conservative Congressman Crane even sees the grain embargo as
fattening Soviet military might: "Every ruble spent on grain is one
less to be spent on arms." ..."
"Senator Dole urges trying to sell more grain to the mainland
Chinese..."
"The Olympics issue is perhaps even more politically touchy. While
only Senator Dole comes out flatly for American withdrawal from the
Moscow games -- a stance tougher than that taken by the Carter
administration -- several candidates cannot even be coaxed into taking
a position. The administration has confined itself to urging that the
Olympics be moved out of moscow and raising the threat of a US
boycott. Two other challengers, former governors Reagan and Connally,
also recommended a site change but draw the line at a boycott..."
"All the presidential contenders support, or at least do not oppose,
Mr. Carter's halt in export to the Soviet Union of high-technology
equipment and resumption of military aid to Afghanistan's neighbor
Pakistan..."
[The Christian Science Monitor 1/18/80]
You should know better than to try and change the subject.
>>Reagan ended the embargo and actually increased the amount of wheat
>>sold to the Soviets.
> He also encouuraged congress to increase the military budgets. I know that
>it was just a "coincidence" that the USSR collasped under his administration
"The administration's plan to cut some $30 billion from defense
spending in fiscal years 1983 and 1984 to balance the federal budget
means that a number of military programs dear to the hearts of
Pentagon chiefs will suffer delay, cutback, or actual elimination, say
sources here..."
[The Christian Science Monitor 9/3/81]
It has been established that Carter increased the military budget each
year by 5%.
And yes, it was a coincidence since it is a fact that the CIA wasn't
aware that the Soviet Union was economically unsound.
>>Reagan sold weapons to Iran, our sworn enemy,
> Funny.. I dont recall that claim substantiated in Mr Walsh's report?
"Insisting that his knowledge of United States arms sales to Iran was
only ``sporadic, fragmentary, and materially incomplete,'' Secretary
of State George Shultz told a congressional panel yesterday that he
was bypassed even by one of his own subordinates.
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary
Shultz said that US Ambassador to Lebanon John Kelly discussed the
arms-for-hostages negotiations with White House officials, but that
Shultz learned of the communications only last weekend.
``I am, to put it mildly, shocked to learn this after the event from
an an ambassador,'' Shultz said. The secretary yesterday ordered Mr.
Kelly back to Washington ``to be available'' for questioning by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional committees..."
[The Christian Science Monitor 12/9/86]
>>and then to protect the
>>oil companies, allowed foreign registered vessels to fly the American
>>flag and put American lives in danger by ordering the Navy to escort
>>them through the Persian Gulf.
>
> As the current President has our troops doing "peackeeping missions, Bush
>had "desert strom, etc...
Don't forget that Bush sent troops to Somalia after he lost the
election.
Reagan used the Navy to protect the oil tankers against the weapons he
sold to Iran.
>>Reagan also armed Iraq, with whom we went to war with.
> Perhaps you would have preferred to have US troops do "peacekeeping in that
>region at that time?
Troops were sent anyway, but after they were armed by Reagan and/or
Bush.
> T. Carr
Mary E Knadler
<sal...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to
the
>light of day. Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
>responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas
have
>merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their
own
>merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
>
>God save me from people who want to save me!
>http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
>
>Gail Weasel wrote in message <362DE0...@jps.net>...
>>anymo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Ex-radical: New left is threat to freedom; Horowitz reflects on his
march
>to
>>> right
>>>
>>
>>Gosh, it's been at least twenty years since Horowitz
>>became a right-wing nut after having been a left-wing
>>nut.
>>
>>He's been railing against the 60s for two decades now.
>>
>>Isn't it time he got a real job?
>>
>>
>>> "The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr.
>Horowitz
>>> said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the
young
>>> radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
>>
>>
>>He hated liberals then, and he hates liberals now.
>>
>>What a wacko.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Gail
>>--
>>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
>
>
Sometimes the truth hurts so therefore many stay in "denial".
Mary E Knadler
(Where_Was_George ?) writes:
>
>On 21 Oct 1998 09:45:58 PDT, "Salisar" <sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Tony G. wrote in message <362d6f0...@news.fatnet.net>...
>>>
>>>find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
>>>wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
>>>to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
>
isn't it?
>>I can't blame you for being worried.
>
>Are you claiming that FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Carter supported
>Communism and the overthrow of the US military ?
>
>What a deluded idiot you are.
>
>Afghanistan.
>
>sold to the Soviets.
>
>oil companies, allowed foreign registered vessels to fly the American
>flag and put American lives in danger by ordering the Navy to escort
>them through the Persian Gulf.
>
>
>improve their technology to the point that they could successfully
>launch American satellites.
>
>
>>God save me from people who want to save me!
>>http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
>
>The House Banking Committee has received three or four of the
>250 boxes of documents involved in Whitewater, Leach says.
>``I thought [Whitewater] was a one- to three-week issue,'' Leach
>says, and the whole affair would be aired and Clinton would put any
>embarrassment behind him.
>
>``We are continuing to gather material, and with each passing
>week our case becomes more fortified,'' he says. The evidence makes
>a strong case, he alleges, that the Clintons benefited from
>Whitewater in contrast to their statements.
>[The Christian Science Monitor 5/18/94]
>
I believe FDR had a little leaning towards the Soviet Union.
He was the first President to offically "recognize" them. He
also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
Hiss who were "traitors".
But Horowitz is talking about the "new left" like Fonda, Hayden,
Hillary Clinton, McGovern & company. He says they hated the old
leftist of the Democrat party
Tony G.
klei...@maroon.tc.umn.edu@tc.umn.edu (William D. Klein) let loose
with:
>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:06:11 -0700, Gail Weasel <gai...@jps.net>
>wrote:
>>Okay.
>>The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
>>for 20 years.
>>Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
>>respond, though.
>Have you read his "Radical Son"?
No.
>I thought not.
Have you read any Russell, Chomsky, Agee, Vidal...
>It's very
>illuminating, especially concerning the leftist "the ends justify any
>means" approach to life and politics.
Have you read "Will" by G Gordon Liddy?
>Read it, and then speak,
>instead of just engaging in traditional left wing ad hominem
>"discussion".
Oh... the irony.
>-- wdk
Where_Was_George ?
wrote:
>I believe FDR had a little leaning towards the Soviet Union.
Duh, the Soviets were our allies during WWII.
>He was the first President to offically "recognize" them.
Just like Nixon was the first President to visit Red China ?
> He
>also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
>Hiss who were "traitors".
His was convicted of perjury that occurred as a result of the
investigation into him, during the McCarthy era.
But don't you consider selling arms to Iran, our sworn enemy that
invaded our embassy in Tehran to be treasonous ?
>But Horowitz is talking about the "new left" like Fonda, Hayden,
Don't forget the Eisenhower administration and the Dulles brothers,
one of whom was a banking agent for the Nazi party.
>Hillary Clinton,
Hillary was raised as a Goldwater Republican.
> McGovern & company.
McGovern fought in World War II. Reagan made training movies.
> He says they hated the old leftist of the Democrat party.
So in other words, it's just his assertion that we have to go by ?
Tony G.
loose with:
>Tony G. wrote in message <362d6f0...@news.fatnet.net>...
>>Its good to see that moronic red baiting still sells books. I also
>>find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
>>wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
>>to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
>It's really pissy to have your agenda exposed to the light of day, isn't it?
>I can't blame you for being worried.
About as worried that the libertarians or the John Birch society will
take over the USA. Who is to blame when you fall for the same tired
and silly red baiting idiocy? You. Commies on campus, leftism as a
religion...
A bit of Horowitz's logic from original post.
>
"The leftist project is a totalitarian project. If you follow the
left's logic to its conclusion, it requires total government control,"
he said, citing modern ethnic, feminist and gay rights movements as
examples. "Identity politics is just a continuation of European
fascism."
>
If you find even a bone of common sense in that bit of stupidity then
you are beyond hope and will for any propaganda geared for the dim
bulbs of the right. People wanting equal rights is akin to "European
Fascism" I would be interested in how you can rationalize that
statement of Horowitz's.
The thing I don't get is, whats my agenda?
gdy52150
(Where_Was_George ?) wrote:
>On 22 Oct 1998 02:31:34 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I believe FDR had a little leaning towards the Soviet Union.
>
>Duh, the Soviets were our allies during WWII.
>
>>He was the first President to offically "recognize" them.
>
>Just like Nixon was the first President to visit Red China ?
>
>> He
>>also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
>>Hiss who were "traitors".
>
>
>His was convicted of perjury that occurred as a result of the
>investigation into him, during the McCarthy era.
>
>But don't you consider selling arms to Iran, our sworn enemy that
>invaded our embassy in Tehran to be treasonous ?
>
>
>>But Horowitz is talking about the "new left" like Fonda, Hayden,
>
>Don't forget the Eisenhower administration and the Dulles brothers,
>one of whom was a banking agent for the Nazi party.
>
>>Hillary Clinton,
>
>Hillary was raised as a Goldwater Republican.
>
>> McGovern & company.
>
>McGovern fought in World War II. Reagan made training movies.
>
Reagan and the republiCONs are supported by a bunch of Nazi war
criminals. The so called ethic groups of the republiCON party is
nothing more than fronts for Nazi war criminals. The fact they are war
criminals is known to the republicons. Bush even went so far as to
meet with and praise one of em while he was being tried for war
crimes.
>> He says they hated the old leftist of the Democrat party.
>
>So in other words, it's just his assertion that we have to go by ?
>
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
GDY Weasel
======================================================
gdy52150
wrote:
>In <362e1f50...@news.swbell.net> wherewa...@my.dejan-news.com
>(Where_Was_George ?) writes:
>>
>>On 21 Oct 1998 09:45:58 PDT, "Salisar" <sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Tony G. wrote in message <362d6f0...@news.fatnet.net>...
>>>>
>>>>Its good to see that moronic red baiting still sells books. I also
>>>>find it odd that anyone could take seriously a person who swings so
>>>>wildly from one extreem to another. I would lend little credibility
>>>>to a John Bircher of the 60's becoming a liberal.
>>
>>>It's really pissy to have your agenda exposed to the light of day,
>isn't it?
>>>I can't blame you for being worried.
>>
>I believe FDR had a little leaning towards the Soviet Union.
>He was the first President to offically "recognize" them. He
>also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
>Hiss who were "traitors".
>
Hiss was not guilty. Maybe you should read Abuse of Power where tricky
dick brags about leaking disinformation to the press to convict Hiss.
>But Horowitz is talking about the "new left" like Fonda, Hayden,
>Hillary Clinton, McGovern & company. He says they hated the old
>leftist of the Democrat party
Ken Wessels
of anti-war protest. People who chose to protest were jumped by pro-war
types and beaten, they were arrested for disorderly conduct or failure to
disperse, or just plan had night sticks swung on them. The theory of
disliking liberals seemed to be limited to those with contacts to National
SDS.
In retrospect, disliking liberals back then sems like a good idea now.
They were not just un-revolutionary, they were supporting the Viet Nam
war. They cared about "the ghetto" but not things like National Health
Care. They chose to ignore the seriousness of the race riots to our
national safety, and instead saw those riots as "call for concern".
>> "The new left hated liberals; we were Marxist revolutionaries," Mr. Horowitz
>> said, and it was by destroying traditional liberalism that the young
>> radicals seized control of the Democratic Party.
>
>
>He hated liberals then, and he hates liberals now.
>
>What a wacko.
>
>
>
>
>Gail
>--
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
--
More stuff @ http://members.aol.com/MltplSanta/index.html
My own site @ http://members.aol.com/cydonia102/private/ken.html
elil...@my-dejanews.com
ridiculed the views about the continuing influence of Marxism expressed by
David Horowitz in a Washington Times article. Hey, Tony: When you've written
as many great books as Horowitz -- "Radical Son," "The Politics of Bad Faith"
and all the stuff he's co-authored with Peter Collier -- maybe people will
care about your snide little comments. Meanwhile, just trot on back to the
foolish enclave where people dig Marxism, which Horowitz accurately describes
as "a philosophy for losers." If you don't like freedom and the rule of law,
perhaps you would do us all a favor by immigrating to such socialist utopias
as North Korea and Cuba, so the rest of us can enjoy the rights established
by the Founding Fathers. -- RSM
Tony G.
with:
>In article <362d6fe...@news.fatnet.net>, kur...@fatnet.net (Tony G.)
>ridiculed the views about the continuing influence of Marxism expressed by
>David Horowitz in a Washington Times article. Hey, Tony: When you've written
>as many great books as Horowitz -- "Radical Son," "The Politics of Bad Faith"
>and all the stuff he's co-authored with Peter Collier -- maybe people will
>care about your snide little comments. Meanwhile, just trot on back to the
>foolish enclave where people dig Marxism, which Horowitz accurately describes
>as "a philosophy for losers." If you don't like freedom and the rule of law,
>perhaps you would do us all a favor by immigrating to such socialist utopias
>as North Korea and Cuba, so the rest of us can enjoy the rights established
>by the Founding Fathers. -- RSM
Like I said before, its good to see that childish and moronic red
baiting is still in fashion on the right.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
> Salisar wrote:
> >
> > This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
> > light of day.
>
> Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
> > responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
> > merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
> > merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
> >
>
>
> The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
> for 20 years.
Huh? You have no clue what he wrote, do you?
> Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
> respond, though.
Uh huh. Another ignorant non-reader of Horowitz trying to
defend the indefensible.
Read the book before you make yourself look more foolish!
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
> On 22 Oct 1998 02:31:34 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
> wrote:
> > He
> >also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
> >Hiss who were "traitors".
>
> investigation into him, during the McCarthy era.
Yes, because Hiss was a Commie spy who worked for stalin under
the code-name ALES, who lied to Congress about it.
For 40 years, the left defended him.
And then Soviet Union fell, and we found out Hiss was a spy
and a traitor for sure, when the files were opened.
The left? Still cling to the lie that he might
be innocent. Fools and self-deluded liars.
Patrick J. McGuinness
>
> On 21 Oct 1998 22:00:50 GMT, tcarr...@aol.com (TCarr13397) wrote:
>
> >>(Where_Was_George ?)
> >
> >>Afghanistan.
>
> >
> > Tell us when the USSR left afghanistan George?
>
> "Rep. John B. Anderson (R) of Illinois approves the cancellation of
> the sale of the Soviet Union of 17 million tons of wheat and corn.
> Sen. Robert Dole (R) of Kansas backs of boycott of the 1980 summer
> Olympic Games in Moscow. None of the rest of the President's sanctions
> win unqualified cheers from those vying for his job, but they do get
> grudging support -- or at least no opposition..."
>
> "Republican Ronald Reagan, through an aide, calls the Carter approach
> "cosmetic."..."
Sounds like Reagan was right. A few stingers did more good than the
embargo
in getting the Soviets whipped.
Patrick J. McGuinness
> >also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
> >Hiss who were "traitors".
> >
>
> dick brags about leaking disinformation to the press to convict Hiss.
WHAT A MAROON!
Hiss was a Commie Spy, worked under code-name ALES.
It has now been proven, since the KGB files were opened
from the 40s. (The Venona files.)
In a previous post, I mentioned there were still leftist
fools and self-deluded liars who claim he is innocent. Found one!
------------
"Another piece of evidence came to light in 1996 when the CIA and
National Security Agency
made public several thousand documents of decoded cables
exchanged between Moscow and
its American agents from 1939 to 1957. These materials were
part of a secret intelligence
project called "Venona." A single document, dated March 30,
1945, referred to an agent
code-named "Ales," a State Department official who had flown
from the Yalta Conference to
Moscow. An anonymous footnote, dated more than 20 years
later, suggested "Ales" was
"probably Alger Hiss." Hiss, one of only four men who had
flown from Yalta to Moscow, issued a
statement denying he was "Ales." He went to Moscow merely to
see the subway system, he
said. "
--
--------------------
Declassified KGB Files: A Dose of Reality
By C. Grady Drago
Setting history straight is sometimes a difficult task, just as hearing
the truth can be. However, when it comes from the horses mouth,
it is hard to ignore or to openly deny.
With the fall of the USSR, the KGB began declassifying the secrete files
containing the USSRs subversive activities. These records
also contain the names of individual spies, and details how moneys were
channeled by the Soviet Communist Party into the U. S.
Among other things these files reveal are the sabotage of the personal
character of individuals that dared to speak out against the
communist threat to this nations government. This begs the question as
to why some members of the news media and some liberals
were so eager to rush to the attack and condemn individuals that made
allegations of treason?
The Lincoln Heritage Institutes ADDRESS and Lincoln Log will begin
carrying articles in whole or in part that reveal the secretes
contained in these files. In addition, the Institute is beginning its
own research in an attempt to uncover the facts about what occurred
prior to and during the cold war.
Among other things, an article in the Washington Post by Nicholas von
Hoffman points out that recent disclosures prove that Senator
Joe McCarthy was closer to the truth than were his liberal critics. Von
Hoffman also points out that not only Alger Hiss, but many
others that were accused of spying were indeed communist spies. Joseph
Sobran, in a recent editorial in the Washington Times,
queries why intellectuals and liberals so openly supported Joseph Stalin
and his Communist regime as idealists while opposing Hitler?
Both regimes were dictatorial, centralizing all power in the national
government, and as available evidence showed both were
involved in the same types of unspeakable atrocities against mankind?
Again, why, even when evidence was presented, were those making the
charges of treason so enthusiastically vilified? In fact, it is
still going on today. Just a few months ago I watched part of a TV
special (it appeared to be a year or two old) hosted by a prominent
member of the American news media as he railed against Richard Nixon and
condemned all Republicans because they accused and
prosecuted Alger Hiss as a Russian Spy.
Now the orchestrators of the espionage are providing the historic
evidence of their activities by declassifying the evidence of their
acts. The question arises, where are those that so vocally,
energetically, and enthusiastically attacked and ridiculed those making
charges against Hiss and other spies? The attacks and character
assassinations were made in the name of protecting an innocent
individuals reputation against false allegations. Those in the media and
liberals of course destroyed the reputations of many they
attacked, and now that the truth is out, where are they to set the
record straight. What about the families of those that were vilified for
telling the truth?
It appears that these newly opened files are providing the unique
opportunity to see first hand the rest of the story, so to speak, on
historical activities that occurred within the lifetime of existing
generations. While answering some nagging questions, it appears this
new dose of realism, if the files remain open, will be raising questions
the answers to which may be difficult to deal with.
Gail Weasel
>
> Gail Weasel wrote:
> >
> > Salisar wrote:
> > >
> > > This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
> > > light of day.
> >
> > Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
> > > responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
> > > merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
> > > merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
> > >
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
> > for 20 years.
>
> Huh? You have no clue what he wrote, do you?
>
Yes. I've read his books.
> > Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
> > respond, though.
>
> Uh huh. Another ignorant non-reader of Horowitz trying to
> defend the indefensible.
>
I've met the man.
He's a kook.
> Read the book before you make yourself look more foolish!
We weren't talking about his book. We were talking
about his latest column, which is yet again another
diatribe against the 60s.
Gail
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
Pat McGuinness
> Patrick J. McGuinness wrote:
> >
> > Gail Weasel wrote:
> > >
> > > Salisar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is to so typical of a leftist response to a post exposing them to the
> > > > light of day.
> > >
> > > Snickerng ridicule, as if somehow that constitutes
> > > > responsiveness. What are you lefties so afraid of? If your ideas have
> > > > merit, proclaim them loudly and proudly. Let the ideas stand on their own
> > > > merit . . . or fall through lack of same.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > > The 60s were not bad enough to worth crying about 24-7
> > > for 20 years.
> >
> > Huh? You have no clue what he wrote, do you?
> >
>
> Yes. I've read his books.
Which ones?
> > > Once Horowitz comes up with an original idea, I'll
> > > respond, though.
> >
> > Uh huh. Another ignorant non-reader of Horowitz trying to
> > defend the indefensible.
> >
>
> I've met the man.
> He's a kook.
Your comment is narrow-minded, judgemental, and foolish.
> > Read the book before you make yourself look more foolish!
>
> We weren't talking about his book. We were talking
> about his latest column, which is yet again another
> diatribe against the 60s.
No, the threat was discussing his recent book, "Radical Son".
He's been on places like C-SPAN discussing it and the
comment "New left is threat to freedom" came from
the discussions of his recent interviews.
His latest column, printed here for your education, does
not mention the 60s at all. Go ahead, try to find the reference ...
Clinton's amen chorus
African-American support for the president is being
cynically
manipulated by liberals who play to blacks' sense of
victimization.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A revealing aspect of the current White House crisis
is
the racial gap in public opinion polls, which is
almost as
wide as after the O.J. Simpson verdict. When the
world
discovered in January that the president was having
sex
with a young intern, a New York Times poll found
that
81 percent of blacks (compared to 58 percent of
whites)
nonetheless approved of the way the president was
conducting his job. When asked whether the president
shared the moral values of most Americans, fully 77
percent of blacks (twice as many as whites) said
yes.
Nine months later, after the discovery of the
stained
dress and the release of the Starr Report, 63
percent of
blacks still thought the president -- now a proven
liar
and philanderer -- shared the nation's morality.
This
was nearly three times the number of whites (22
percent) who did.
This striking disparity, reflecting a unique
community
support of the president (even feminists are more
ambivalent), has prompted several attempts to
explain
it. According to a widely quoted comment by comedian
Chris Rock, Clinton's African-American support is
inspired by the fact that he is "the first black
president." Explains Rock: "It's very simple. Black
people are used to being persecuted. Hence, they
relate
to Clinton."
The comedian is not alone in these ruminations. In
an
article exploring African-American reactions, New
York Times reporter Kevin Sack quotes NAACP head
Julian Bond saying, "You just can't help but think
that
some of this [investigation of Clinton] is
race-based,"
while Harvard Professor Alvin Poussaint reports that
rumors have been circulating in the
African-American community to the effect that
Clinton "must have had black ancestry."
A full-blown expression of these attitudes is on
display
in the current New Yorker, where Nobel laureate Toni
Morrison writes of the crisis: "African-American men
seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in
the
middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard
the
first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is
our
first black president. Blacker than any actual black
person who could ever be elected in our children's
lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every
trope
of blackness: single-parent household, born poor,
working-class, saxophone-playing,
McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from
Arkansas."
Perhaps one has to be, as I am, a lapsed man of the
left
to react to the loopy anti-white attitudes laced
into
these cadences from our most celebrated and rewarded
national literary figure. Blacker than any actual
black
person who could ever be elected in our children's
lifetimes? Apparently, Colin Powell, the most
popular
presidential hopeful in polls taken only two years
ago,
isn't all that black, having been born into a
two-parent
household and, though poor in origins and familiar
with
discrimination, not known for his unhealthy food
addictions or stereotypical musical tastes.
On the other hand, perhaps the liberal
identification of
blackness with victimization and social dysfunction
isn't so wide of the mark in explaining the sympathy
of
political leftists like Morrison and Bond, or the
support
of the congressional black caucus for the immoralist
from Little Rock. Perhaps it reflects a resonance in
the
black community to the White House's cynical
strategy
of defining presidential deviancy down: "They all do
it."
Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush -- they all lie
and cheat. So why shouldn't our guy? This certainly
seems to be the corrosive logic behind which some
blacks have rallied behind other criminal
politicians,
like corrupt and crack-addicted Washington Mayor
Marion Barry. It could easily account for the
undertones of racial paranoia ("they're out to get
our
guys") that surfaced when African-American
members of the Clinton administration -- Ron Brown,
Mike Espy, Hazel O'Leary -- all came under
investigation for irregularities in office.
Which is precisely the way Toni Morrison frames
Clinton's problem: "When virtually all the
African-American Clinton appointees began, one by
one, to disappear, when the President's body, his
privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of
the
persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and
body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who
knew whereof they spoke?" According to Morrison, the
message from white America is clear, "No matter how
smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you
earn for us, we will put you in your place or put
you out
of the place." Or, as the late Malcolm X, in his
racist
phase, once put it (I paraphrase): No matter how
high
you rise, you're always a nigger to them.
Putting aside the racial paranoia of such attitudes
coming from a black Nobel prize-winner in the era of
Oprah, one might still ask why Clinton should be
"our
guy" from an African-American perspective. Isn't
this
the President Clinton who established his New
Democrat credentials by delivering a verbal slap to
Sistuh Souljah on the eve of his election, and
banishing
Jesse Jackson from the circle of power? Isn't this
the
Clinton who betrayed old friend and political soul
mate
Lani Guinier, after nominating her to be his civil
rights
chief, and then left her to the mercies of her
political
enemies, pretending ignorance of who she was and
what she believed? Isn't this the Clinton whose
vaunted
"dialogue on race" -- the centerpiece of his
strategy for
redressing minority grievances -- ended up drowned
in
his own sex scandal while the final report of his
Race
Commission called merely for more dialogue?
Reviewing the report, liberal columnist Frank Rich
summed up the administration's record on race as
follows: "high ideals, beautiful show, one-night
stand."
Indeed, isn't this the Clinton who brought Jackson
back
into the fold and wrapped himself in the protective
cloak of the black community and its historic
symbols
only when he himself was in terminal trouble, and
only
after he had lost whatever power he once may have
had
to seriously advance its agendas? Surely there have
been few more repellent demonstrations of Clinton's
user ethic than his traipsing off to Africa, with
Jackson
and Maxine Waters in tow, in the heat of the
Lewinsky
scandal after he had been trapped in his lies and
become an international laughingstock, to apologize
for
slavery. Then there was his performance in Martha's
Vineyard debasing the anniversary of Martin Luther
King Jr.'s March on Washington to make yet another
unconvincing confession of regret that he had
"sinned." These are the kinds of gestures that give
tokenism a bad name.
Still, the most prominent voices of black leadership
have joined willingly in these charades. There was
John
Lewis, at the Martin Luther King Jr. anniversary,
solemnly and tearfully forgiving Clinton and urging
the
rest of the country to forgive him as well. It was
terrible, apparently, for the rest of us to be so
judgmental of another human being. This was the same
John Lewis who not so long ago was denouncing Newt
Gingrich and the congressional Republicans as
"Nazis"
merely for attempting to reform a bankrupt and
destructive welfare system.
This is what the melodramas of conspiracy and
witch-hunt are really about. Not racial persecution,
but
political loyalties. The previously cited Times
report
also noted that "many of those interviewed said they
not only subscribed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's
statement that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" had
targeted her husband, but also that they believed
the
conspirators were motivated by a desire to reverse
the
gains made by blacks during the Clinton
administration. One paranoia is linked to another.
Liberals and leftists from Waters to Morrison to
Hillary Clinton have convinced the African-American
community that Republicans are racists and want to
reverse the gains of the civil rights era. This is
the
really Big Lie that keeps blacks in Clinton's corner
and
safely secure on the liberal plantation.
If liberals want instances of political persecution,
they
need go no further than their own character
assassination of Clarence Thomas in an episode of
sexual McCarthyism (to use Alan Dershowitz's inapt
but effectively inflammatory phrase) whose charges
pale in comparison to those leveled against Clinton.
Where are the liberal apologies for this atrocity?
Or consider a more unpalatable thought: the
political
persecution of Gingrich, which cannot be far from
the
speaker's own reflections as he contemplates
hearings
that will determine the president's fate. Liberal
leaders
of the House, hoping to reverse the results of the
Republican victory in the '94 election, leveled 370
phony ethics charges against Gingrich before they
got
one ludicrous claim to stick (and I'm willing to bet
there is not one in a hundred Gingrich-loathing
liberals who read this text that can describe the
specifics of the charge). Yet Gingrich was censured,
fined and politically destroyed outside his
conservative
base by what was little more than a liberal smear
campaign, and yet there is not a single liberal now
defending Clinton and bemoaning the unfairness of
his
prosecution who has offered any second thoughts
about
the outrage.
That is because this outrage, like that against
Thomas,
serves a liberal purpose. In the present
presidential
crisis, Gingrich is the point man for the
"right-wing
conspiracy" that is seeking to bring down a leader
in
order to "reverse" the civil rights gains of
African-Americans. Cease to believe in this
political
mythology and what happens to the president, or to
the
leftist demagogues in the congressional black caucus
who are still wedded to every jot and tittle of the
failed
welfare state? What if Republicans no longer
function
as racial bogey men? What if African-Americans were
to see that Republican policies like educational
choice
and Republican values like personal responsibility
work
to the benefit of their community? What if they were
no longer to vote 90 percent Democratic? What if
they
were to free themselves from the chains of a
one-party
system that feeds them tokens and shamelessly
exploits
their moral capital for its own venal agendas?
These are the real stakes that keep the political
melodrama alive, and that prevent a
taken-for-granted
political community from fully entering the American
polity and exercising its political power.
SALON | Oct. 12, 1998
Gail Weasel
>
>
> > I've met the man.
>
> > He's a kook.
>
> Your comment is narrow-minded, judgemental, and foolish.
>
It's judgmental and, possibly, narrow-minded, but it's
Horowitz who is the rather foolish one. I think Red-Diaper
Baby would be an excellent major motion picture, though.
> > > Read the book before you make yourself look more foolish!
> >
> > We weren't talking about his book. We were talking
> > about his latest column, which is yet again another
> > diatribe against the 60s.
>
> No, the threat was discussing his recent book, "Radical Son".
> He's been on places like C-SPAN discussing it and the
> comment "New left is threat to freedom" came from
> the discussions of his recent interviews.
>
The article I read talked about the New Left of the 60s
and Horowitz said he lated liberals then and he hates
them now.
He went from the totalatarian left to the totalatarian
right, which to someone like me, who is rather in
the middle, quite amusing.
Jane Roe has gone from the famous plaintiff in the
abortion-rights suit, to a Lesbian, to born again,
and just this week has turned Roman Catholic.
Aren't humans interesting?
My beef is not with Horowitz's political views, but
with his what he chooses to emphasize. It will be
interesting how far he can take this schtick. Will
the voters in the next millenium care about the
excesses of the 60s?
> His latest column, printed here for your education, does
> not mention the 60s at all. Go ahead, try to find the reference ...
>
I guess Horowitz forgot about one of the major successes
of the 60s--the civil rights movement.
The reason Clinton has the support of the African-American
community is because African-Americans are Democrats by
at least that margin.
It's very amusing when some white people try to "interpret"
how black people must think, though.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html
Loren Petrich
>Pat McGuinness wrote:
[Mr. Horowitz...]
>He went from the totalatarian left to the totalatarian
>right, which to someone like me, who is rather in
>the middle, quite amusing.
Michael Lind does a good job on such characters in "Up from
Conservatism", noting that some New Right figures had been ex-Trotskyites.
>My beef is not with Horowitz's political views, but
>with his what he chooses to emphasize. It will be
>interesting how far he can take this schtick. Will
>the voters in the next millenium care about the
>excesses of the 60s?
As Mr. Lind notes, the right wing has been fond of running
against the 1960's for the last couple of decades.
>> His latest column, printed here for your education, does
>> not mention the 60s at all. Go ahead, try to find the reference ...
>I guess Horowitz forgot about one of the major successes
>of the 60s--the civil rights movement.
Right-wingers are embarrassed when anyone brings up, because they
know that they had been on the wrong side there.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Tony G.
let loose with:
>In article <3631D5...@jps.net>, Gail Weasel <gai...@jps.net> wrote:
>>Pat McGuinness wrote:
>[Mr. Horowitz...]
>>He went from the totalatarian left to the totalatarian
>>right, which to someone like me, who is rather in
>>the middle, quite amusing.
> Michael Lind does a good job on such characters in "Up from
>Conservatism", noting that some New Right figures had been ex-Trotskyites.
Its been mentioned a number of times on usenet but Eric Hoffers book
"the true believer" makes a good case that people who swing from one
extreem to another seldom stop off at reason in the middle. Horowitz
would seem to be a good example.
where_wa...@my-dejanews.com
"Patrick J. McGuinness" <p...@udsl.sps.mot.com> wrote:
> Where_Was_George ? wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Oct 1998 02:31:34 GMT, yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler)
> > wrote:
> > > He
> > >also had a number of Marxists in his administrations, some like
> > >Hiss who were "traitors".
> >
> > investigation into him, during the McCarthy era.
>
> Yes, because Hiss was a Commie spy who worked for stalin under
> the code-name ALES, who lied to Congress about it.
>
> For 40 years, the left defended him.
>
> And then Soviet Union fell, and we found out Hiss was a spy
> and a traitor for sure, when the files were opened.
> The left? Still cling to the lie that he might
> be innocent. Fools and self-deluded liars.
You're nuts. I noticed you still haven't provided a cite. I know of the
files you're referring to, but there is no conclusive evidence.
Perhaps that's why you didnt' post it ?
"Hiss thought that his vindication had come in 1992, at age 87, when a Russian
general in charge of Soviet intelligence archives declared that Hiss had never
been a spy, but rather a victim of paranoia and McCarthyism. "
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/11-22-
96/News/Alger_Hiss._JHU_alumnus_and_accused_spy._dies_at_92.html
"The jury is still out on Alger Hiss, a former Roosevelt adviser who was
accused of spying for the Soviets and faced trial twice but served time only
for perjury. He continues to claim his innocence. This year, US intelligence
officials revealed Soviet documents that show an American official code-named
"Ales" spied for the Soviets at least through the 1945 conference at Yalta.
The officials claim Ales is "probably Alger Hiss.""
www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/getasciiarchive?script/96/08/19/081996.intl.intl.7
-- Far right-wing Representative Linda Smith (R-WA) -- currently running for
Senator Patty Murray's (D-WA) seat, admitted in an interview that
Congressional Republicans delay bills in Congress to extract more campaign
contributions from interested donors. According to the Wall Street Journal,
when Smith came to Congress, "she quickly discovered that it was a common
practice for the GOP majority to hold up action on bills while milking
interested contributors for more campaign contributions. ‘I said, "We do
what? Isn't that extortion?" [Wall Street Journal, 6/17/98]
"Do you speak of great love for the Bush family?"
-'Moonies for Bush' campaign slogan--
Where_Was_George?
<p...@udsl.sps.mot.com> wrote:
Reagan increased wheat sales to Russia. The Soviet Union's grain
production dropped due to weather and they needed the wheat.
Armies move on their bellies.
Hungry civilians are dangerous civilians.
Everett
>
> He went from the totalatarian left to the totalatarian right, which
> to someone like me, who is rather in the middle, quite amusing.
Gail is in the middle?? Haw, haw, ha, ha, ha, he, he, ha, ha. In the
middle of what?
Gail Weasel
>
> Gail Weasel wrote:
> >
> > He went from the totalatarian left to the totalatarian right, which
> > to someone like me, who is rather in the middle, quite amusing.
>
> middle of what?
I said rather in the middle. Compared to most people
here, I'm not, I suppose. But I think my views are
similar to most women in the country.
Gail
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3053/index.html