← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 16019 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2004-12-18
2004-12-18 10:09 | User Profile
[url=http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16266]The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World[/url]
By Lawrence Auster FrontPageMagazine.com December 16, 2004
I first became aware of something deeply askew on the antiwar right shortly after it came into being in the spring of 1999, as an intellectual protest movement against the U.S. war on Serbia. I myself was deeply opposed to the war, seeing President Clinton's initiation of the conflict—on March 24, 1999, one month and twelve days after his acquittal by the U.S. Senate—as utterly lacking in moral or legal justification, and as leading to the ruin of Kosovo. While the Kosovo war is not the subject of this article, a summary of it (or at least of my view of it) will provide the background for my ensuing discussion of the antiwar right....
...The antiwar right's turn against America, their indulgence in reckless attacks on the good faith of the American government even when it was combating espionage or containing Communism, suggested to me that at bottom many antiwar critics were not motivated by a love of country or a belief in truth, but by resentment. It was exactly the kind of resentment normally associated with the left, the impotent fury at a traitorous father figure or a supposed "oppressor" whom the supposed "oppressed," seeing himself as powerless and therefore not subject to any responsible restraints, feels justified in striking back at in any way he can. One of the typical forms this resentment took was the notion that the oppressor has no rational basis for doing what he's doing, but is acting out of insane or evil motives....
[url=http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16266]The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World[/url]
2004-12-18 15:18 | User Profile
There are some good observations strewn among the hyperbole here. Auster obviously scores on the Kosovo topics, from the safe distance of five years down the pike.
The main lesson that could be drawn from this piece is that freaks like Raimondo- however correct they may be in attacking neoconservatism- are ultimately a weakness due to their lack of credibility and forays into weirdness. As in, I've had enough of Raimondo's homo-influenced and jarringly feminine pettiness, as well as his flat-out stupid insistence on talking about something he calls "Bizarro World" like some Kirk-infatuated reject from a Star Trek convention.
More of Auster's wisdom- this time, from 2003, giving us the perspective to judge his motivations- is below:
[url]http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8321[/url]
2004-12-19 00:08 | User Profile
Auster's spoken at more than one AmRen confab...comin' home to the Horowitz-Savage fold may be a wise career move for him...
2004-12-19 10:18 | User Profile
It always comes down to the same thing. Shut your mouth or you "hate America". If you must criticize, at least let us pull your teeth beforehand and give you a list of pre-approved talking points - then you'll be a "principled" and "patriotic" critic. Like Alan (How High, Sean, And Where Should I Land?) Colmes.
Jabbing at the "jarringly feminine" Raimondo is remindin' me a whole lot of [I]endorsing Bush to strike a blow for the Pope in Rome[/I]. One week, one month or one year later, you'll be back here crying how the sky is falling thanks to the neokahn lunatics and their goy toy on Pennsylvania Avenue and [I]what can be done about it??[/I]
The last time I looked, Justin hasn't ever used "The other day as I was fellating my leather-daddy, Klaus, I was again struck by the insanity of the War Party's runamuck foreign policy" as a lead graf, so what is the point of this complaint?
2004-12-19 13:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]It always comes down to the same thing. Shut your mouth or you "hate America". If you must criticize, at least let us pull your teeth beforehand and give you a list of pre-approved talking points - then you'll be a "principled" and "patriotic" critic. Like Alan (How High, Sean, And Where Should I Land?) Colmes.
Jabbing at the "jarringly feminine" Raimondo is remindin' me a whole lot of [I]endorsing Bush to strike a blow for the Pope in Rome[/I]. One week, one month or one year later, you'll be back here crying how the sky is falling thanks to the neokahn lunatics and their goy toy on Pennsylvania Avenue and [I]what can be done about it??[/I]
What, have a tantrum about someone's views, pick up the toys and leave in a huff- only to return later like a whipped puppy? Nah, I'll leave that kind of pointless drama to other folks. It seems to happen often enough anyway.
The last time I looked, Justin hasn't ever used "The other day as I was fellating my leather-daddy, Klaus, I was again struck by the insanity of the War Party's runamuck foreign policy" as a lead graf, so what is the point of this complaint?[/QUOTE]
After reading a few of Raimondo's pieces I'm always struck by how- among the precise documentation, in-depth research and incisive commentary- there are always numerous bitchy asides and homo-informed asides. And the guy insists on speaking of "Bizarro World" and using other fruity metaphors to fill out the more flashy segments of his columns. I'm not saying the information he uncovers isn't vital and truthful. It is; the problem is that the source makes himself lack credibility, as in this:
[IMG]http://antiwar.com/justin/raimondo.gif[/IMG]
Besides, I just don't like fags that much, and I tend to view everything they say with a critical eye.
Raimondo's self-created image is, to me, so worthless that I have to wonder whether he is a planted misdirection. It might be possible that he is either being used or is purposefully gathering much of the credible information about Israel and it's U.S. fifth column under his byline in order to discredit the inevitable conclusions the average new reader might reach.
I have read many of Raimondo's columns with an eye towards forwarding it on to acquaintances who might be on the fence about our special friends. But on second thought, I've abstained- because what would the reaction be to the smirking, cig-drooping fag who talks about "Bizarro World" and whose writing at time screeches like the movie-critic fairies on cable entertainment news? Too bad, the messenger is flawed- I just wonder sometimes if it is by design.
2004-12-19 13:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]It always comes down to the same thing. Shut your mouth or you "hate America". If you must criticize, at least let us pull your teeth beforehand and give you a list of pre-approved talking points - then you'll be a "principled" and "patriotic" critic. Like Alan (How High, Sean, And Where Should I Land?) Colmes.
Jabbing at the "jarringly feminine" Raimondo is remindin' me a whole lot of [I]endorsing Bush to strike a blow for the Pope in Rome[/I]. One week, one month or one year later, you'll be back here crying how the sky is falling thanks to the neokahn lunatics and their goy toy on Pennsylvania Avenue and [I]what can be done about it??[/I]
What, have a tantrum about someone's views, pick up the toys and leave in a huff- only to return later like a whipped puppy? Nah, I'll leave that kind of pointless drama to other folks. It seems to happen often enough anyway.
The last time I looked, Justin hasn't ever used "The other day as I was fellating my leather-daddy, Klaus, I was again struck by the insanity of the War Party's runamuck foreign policy" as a lead graf, so what is the point of this complaint?[/QUOTE]
After reading a few of Raimondo's pieces I'm always struck by how- among the precise documentation, in-depth research and incisive commentary- there are always numerous bitchy asides and homo-informed commentary. And the guy insists on speaking of "Bizarro World" and using other fruity metaphors to fill out the more flashy segments of his columns. I'm not saying the information he uncovers isn't vital and truthful. It is; the problem is that the source makes himself lack credibility, as in this:
[IMG]http://antiwar.com/justin/raimondo.gif[/IMG]
Besides, I just don't like fags that much, and I tend to view everything they say with a critical eye.
Raimondo's self-created image is, to me, so worthless that I have to wonder whether he is a planted misdirection. It might be possible that he is either being used or is purposefully gathering much of the credible information about Israel and it's U.S. fifth column under his byline in order to discredit the inevitable conclusions the average new reader might reach.
I have read many of Raimondo's columns with an eye towards forwarding it on to acquaintances who might be on the fence about our special friends. But on second thought, I've abstained- because what would the reaction be to the smirking, cig-drooping fag who talks about "Bizarro World" and whose writing at time screeches like the movie-critic fairies on cable entertainment news? Too bad, the messenger is flawed- I just wonder sometimes if it is by design.
2004-12-19 13:30 | User Profile
We agree at least that Raimondo's tone is shrill, but it's more self-important/self-promoting than [I]queer [/I] per se. I mean, if "Bizarro World" is innately lavender because it's flamboyantly stupid, what are we to make of "ZOG", "Klintoon", "Islamofascist" or "Freedom Fries"?
2004-12-19 16:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]We agree at least that Raimondo's tone is shrill, but it's more self-important/self-promoting than [I]queer [/I] per se. I mean, if "Bizarro World" is innately lavender because it's flamboyantly stupid, what are we to make of "ZOG", "Klintoon", "Islamofascist" or "Freedom Fries"?[/QUOTE]
Point taken.
However, the flamboyant part is the hitch. I think that in Raimondo's case (and another case would be Andrew Sullivan) the outrageous stupidity is at least informed if not outright caused by the innate lavender cast of the character.
It's always been a fairly good rule of thumb: Homo writer, hosehead prose. Look at David Brock. However, I'll impose my own conditions on the rule to make it applicable only to current writers covering culture and politics, since Oscar Wilde and a few others might trip us up...
2004-12-19 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]We agree at least that Raimondo's tone is shrill, but it's more self-important/self-promoting than [I]queer [/I] per se. I mean, if "Bizarro World" is innately lavender because it's flamboyantly stupid, what are we to make of "ZOG", "Klintoon", "Islamofascist" or "Freedom Fries"?[/QUOTE]
It looks to me that if it dosen't croaks like a frog il ragno dosent like him (or her)
2004-12-19 19:02 | User Profile
Outside of "la rana" being Spanish for "il ragno" (in case anybody was wondering if Ponce was accusing me of, um, [I]Raimondoality[/I]), I must confess I haven't a clue as to what this man is trying to say here.
Not since the days of Shopping Cart George and his ripple-fueled soliloquys has there been an ODer so consistently inscrutable.
2004-12-19 19:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]After reading a few of Raimondo's pieces I'm always struck by how- among the precise documentation, in-depth research and incisive commentary- there are always numerous bitchy asides and homo-informed commentary. [/QUOTE]
That's well put.
He really is a great political analyst, and I don't doubt that in his own way he tries to tell the truth as best he sees it. And he sees it pretty clearly, IMHO.
But he just can't help throwing an occasional hissy fit.
Fags. What are you gonna do?
His status as an Arse Bandit is probably of tactical benefit at this point, though. It's like Shahak. Sheeple can read anti-Semitic stuff from him that they would automatically turn off had it came from a gentile like David Duke just because Shahak's a Jew himself. Same for Raimondo. As a Hershey Highwayman (and a half-breed Jew) his PeeCee friend-or-foe radar is broadcasting all the right signals and the sheeple can read through an entire article without having their conditioned doublethink reaction tripped. So for right now I'd say he's doing much more good than harm.
We'll deal with his sodomy when the time is right.
Walter
2004-12-19 21:37 | User Profile
Hahahahahaha Il ragno, there is nothing like one as you to bring me to life, but all that I can say is
"The truth is not what is but what you perseive as being",,, Ponce
I am what I am and not what you think I am,,,,,,a knock of from Popeye. :thumbsup:
2004-12-21 22:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Hahahahahaha Il ragno, there is nothing like one as you to bring me to life, but all that I can say is
"The truth is not what is but what you perseive as being",,, Ponce
I am what I am and not what you think I am,,,,,,a knock of from Popeye. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
Ok. I can't stand it anymore. I don't expect to you to spell well. I don't expect you to put together a coherent sentence. Short of a Flowers for Algernon moment, that's not going to happen.
But for the love of God...Ponce, you CANNOT USE A STRING OF COMMAS AS AN ELLIPSIS IN ENGLISH!
Instead of writing:
"what you think I am,,,,,,,a knock off"
could you PLEASE write this instead?
"what you think I am...a knock off"
Notice that I'm not asking for correct grammar, or spelling, or syntax, or conjugation of verbs. I'm not even asking you to limit yourself to three periods. I understand that sometimes only 5 or 6 (or 9, or 10...) consecutive punctuation marks can fully convey the subtlety and depth of the thoughts that flit through your mind in between sentence fragments.
But please - don't make the baby Jesus cry. Use periods, not commas. Thanks.
2004-12-21 23:24 | User Profile
Boy oh boy, you guys sure hate my "commas" but why?
Anyway, I found out that the reason that the Jews have been making nice nice with the people in Northern Iraq is that that's where the major oil fields are at.
What the Jews are planning is to make friends with one of the three inhabitant in order to armed them and have them fight the other two and that way control all oil in that region.
Any bets................... <-----periods instead of commas, I hope your baby Jesus is smiling now.
Ellipsis<------ a new word for me, thanks.
2004-12-22 14:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] I am what I am and not what you think I am,,,,,,a knock of from Popeye. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE] The phrase was/is: "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam."
2004-12-22 20:55 | User Profile
Bent? What about the Christian-bombing Jew, Richard Holbrooke, advocating confronting Russia-- even with military force-- if they don't cease trying to influence the "democratic" movement taking place in the Ukraine?? Read Pat Buchanan's excellent commentary on Holbrooke's insanity. Or perhaps insanity is not the right word. Perhaps it is merely the ingrained idea that Jewish interests trump everything, even the end of the world. Hell, they conspired and killed God, do you think they give a damn about inflaming the world-- even with nuclear conflagration-- when it comes to themselves? But really, don't we all know this has less to do with Yushchenko than with Khodorkovksy and fellow thieving tribesmen under investigation?!!
Israel/Jew-firster Fox News has gotten the orders, they are now diverting some of their attention away from the UN oil for food program "scandal" (the UN passes resolutions against Israel so the UN needs to be discredited) to start an anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda campaign. But couldn't we have predicted all this when Putin decided to stop the thieving Jewish oligarchs from stealing Russian blind? When the Yukos thief Khodokovsky was arrested the US/West cried "Russia is returning to totalitarianism." Now that a second thieving Jew oligrach, Mikhial Finestein (or a similar name) is being investigated, the Bush Admin, Fox News, and all the Jew-controlled media is all but saying "Russia has returned to totalitarianism; democracy has been turned back." Funny, but the arrest and seizure of a flagrant thief or two and the Western media says democracy has been turned back in Russia, irrrespective of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Russians are in favor of reigning in oligarch criminals. Is Putin to blame for the fact that all the billionaire criminal thieving oligarchs are money-changers??
2004-12-22 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Boy oh boy, you guys sure hate my "commas" but why?
Anyway, I found out that the reason that the Jews have been making nice nice with the people in Northern Iraq is that that's where the major oil fields are at.
What the Jews are planning is to make friends with one of the three inhabitant in order to armed them and have them fight the other two and that way control all oil in that region.
Any bets................... <-----periods instead of commas, I hope your baby Jesus is smiling now.
[/QUOTE]Ponce, the antithesis of Jewish interests is Christianity, or the baby Jesus. Your ideology-- non-Christian, non-religious, etc.-- is a product of secular humanism, the greatest achievement of Jews or Jewish-inspired iconoclasts. But alas, since I never read you championing the likes of Freud, et al., maybe you are merely an unwitting accomplice?
Why did Arabs and especially Palestinians flock to see "The Passion"? They were curious about a movie, a story, that could drive Jews crazier than a million suicide bombings and pro-Hitler baitings. And don't believe the reasons Jews gave for being apoplectic over "The Passion". It had nothing to do with Medieval Passion plays. It had everything to do with what this story said about what they did and who they are.
2004-12-23 00:16 | User Profile
REASONED DEBATE PLEASE NOT ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS
By: Red Phillips
Recently Lawrence Auster wrote an article for Front Page Magazine entitled "The Antiwar Rightââ¬â¢s Bent View of the World." It has received much comment on internet sites such as Freerepublic.com, lewrockwell.com and Antiwar.com. In fact, Antiwar.com was one of the websites the article skewered. Mr. Auster it seems has hit a nerve. Of course the reaction has been as expected, praise from the pro-war neocons and outrage from the antiwar right.
The problem is not that Mr. Auster is belligerently pro-war. He is not. It is that he has tried playing armchair psychoanalyst and questioned the psychological balance of the antiwar right activist.
For the record, I went to Mr. Austerââ¬â¢s blog and found at least some things to recommend him. He seems genuinely skeptical of intervention, and he is restrictionist on immigration. Likewise, Front Page Magazine has taken a strong stance against political correctness and affirmative action. However, Front Page Magazine proved itself to be on the wrong side of the great debate when it and its editor, David Horowitz, prominently sided with the tyrant Lincoln, in the ongoing Lincoln idolaters vs. Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln) feud. Frontpage has also been unequivocally pro-war.
Mr. Auster is being extremely hypocritical here. He begins by questioning the tendency of the left to frequently impugn the psychological motivation of those on the right. The left asserts that the right is reacting to fear or anger or resentment. Mr. Auster is absolutely correct to question this tactic. This strategy of the left reached its height with the publication of The Authoritarian Personality by Theodore Adorno, et. al. in 1950. This pseudoscientific hatchet job basically asserted that anybody who wasnââ¬â¢t a dyed-in-the-wool leftist was a closeted fascist. Of course the Soviet Union perfected the practice of detaining resistors and critics under the auspices of mental health.
Based on this long and sorry history, this is an incredibly dangerous road to travel down, and Iââ¬â¢m disappointed Mr. Auster has chosen to do so. It is certainly true that individual members of any large group will have some psychological baggage. It is also inevitable that individuals will make observations about others mental health. Propriety dictates, however, that these observations should be kept to oneââ¬â¢s self. It is grossly inappropriate to make blanket, scurrilous psychological accusations about a whole group of people.
The trouble with this form of attack is that it is usually done by people who arenââ¬â¢t trained in psychology, it is painting with a broad brush, and worst of all, it is not falsifiable. Mr. Auster states "ââ¬Â¦at bottom many antiwar critics were not motivated by a love of country or a belief in truth, but by resentment." That is bad enough, but then he throws gasoline on the fire by adding, "It was exactly the kind of resentment normally associated with the left, the impotent fury at a traitorous father figure or a supposed "oppressor"ââ¬Â¦" This is gutter ball stuff and Mr. Auster knows it. How is someone on the antiwar right supposed to respond to this kind of accusation? "No I donââ¬â¢t resent my father." Of course the obvious response is, "You are in denial." Hence, as I stated above, this is not falsifiable and therefore, not at all useful. It inflames the debate, it doesnââ¬â¢t advance it. It also likely results in counter accusations such as Justin Raimondoââ¬â¢s comments that Mr. Auster is part of the "racialist" right (whatever that means) that appeared on Antiwar.com soon after the publication of Mr. Austerââ¬â¢s article. That response was certainly not helpful either.
Canââ¬â¢t we all just act like adults, here? Since one of Mr. Austerââ¬â¢s primary concerns seems to be the questioning of the Cold War, then if he believes US intervention was necessary during the Cold War to prevent the spread of Communism, then so argue. If Mr. Raimondo and other antiwar rightist believe that Communism was economically unsustainable and would have inevitability collapsed under its own economic dead weight, then so argue. Making accusations about "traitorous fathers" is schoolyard and unproductive. Unless, of course, the product you are seeking is to intimidate people into silence. That is the aim of many on the left. I will give Mr. Auster the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not his motivation.
Mr. Auster has promised to write more on this subject. Please spare us. The enemy of freedom in this country is not the antiwar right. It is the left and the leftist masquerading as mainstream conservatives, some of whom write for Front Page Magazine. Why not direct your attacks at them?
Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!
Red Phillips is a physician from Georgia. He is a new columnist for Ether Zone.
Red Phillips may be contacted at: [email]redphillipsmd@yahoo.com[/email]
Published in the December 21, 2004 issue of Ether Zone Copyright é 1997 - 2004 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
[url]http://www.etherzone.com/2004/phil122104.shtml[/url]
2004-12-23 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Ponce, the antithesis of Jewish interests is Christianity, or the baby Jesus. Your ideology-- non-Christian, non-religious, etc.-- is a product of secular humanism, the greatest achievement of Jews or Jewish-inspired iconoclasts. But alas, since I never read you championing the likes of Freud, et al., maybe you are merely an unwitting accomplice?
Why did Arabs and especially Palestinians flock to see "The Passion"? They were curious about a movie, a story, that could drive Jews crazier than a million suicide bombings and pro-Hitler baitings. And don't believe the reasons Jews gave for being apoplectic over "The Passion". It had nothing to do with Medieval Passion plays. It had everything to do with what this story said about what they did and who they are.[/QUOTE]
Hey Jack? could you please lower your vocabulary so that I am able to understand what the heck you are talking about?
2004-12-23 14:34 | User Profile
Ponce, a child of six could 'decipher' Cassidy's comments. Put down the sangria and try reading it again.
2004-12-23 16:09 | User Profile
Spidah,
Could it indeed be George redux in a natty sombrero? So when do we see you on Colin Quinn, dude? You're quicker and wittier than most of his regulars...
[QUOTE=il ragno]Ponce, a child of six could 'decipher' Cassidy's comments. Put down the sangria and try reading it again.[/QUOTE]
This War isn't America's War. Justin's pillow partners are not at issue here.
[I]Teacher says, "Every time a neo-con bleats: 'Global War on Terrorism' a new devil gets his black, leathery wings..."[/I]
Yuletide felicitations, arachnid. -HC, Jr.
2004-12-23 17:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Ponce, a child of six could 'decipher' Cassidy's comments. Put down the sangria and try reading it again.[/QUOTE]
While I am perfectly aware what he is writing about I always think of those with limited education or knowledge of today's world events and how to tie them together, don't forget that there are many more out there that read what we post than post here.
Besides, there might be a real Ponce out there :thumbsup:
PS: I am a Cuba Libre guy myself but the last one was in 1957, I don't drink, smoke or do drugs.
2004-12-23 17:56 | User Profile
Right back at ya, HC,J.
Anybody whose screen name is a constant reminder to go buy/find/read MOTHER NIGHT (and see the movie too - shockingly, it's great) is a shoo-in to make my annual Good Guys list.