← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 8859 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-08-08
2003-08-08 09:46 | User Profile
**August 07, 2003 The Neocons Launch A Coulterkampf
By Sam Francis
Far be it from me to leap to the defense of an author whose latest book has been on the New York Times bestseller list for five weeks and whose next book has already fetched her the tidy sum of $3 million.
Nevertheless, given the viciousness of the attacks on conservative columnist Ann Coulter by her neo-conservative "allies," it seems there's a tale to be told here.
I confess at once I haven't read Miss Coulter's book, a volume with the fetching title of Treason and, from all reports, the thesis that liberals commit itâââ‰â¬Âtreason, that is. For obvious reasons, liberals don't care for the book, but what may be more puzzling, to some at least, is why neoconservatives don't either.
But if you understand what neoconservatism isâââ‰â¬Âa brand of liberalism that likes to masquerade as a phony conservatism, mainly so it can wheedle influence in the Republican Partyâââ‰â¬Âthe puzzle is solved. What's especially interesting about the neo-con onslaught against Miss Coulter is that it's virtually indistinguishable from the liberal one.
Thus, the Wall Street Journal op-ed page last month unleashed the sarcastic reflections of neocon Dorothy Rabinowitz on Miss Coulter and her book. The burden of the attack was that Miss Coulter praises the late Joe McCarthy as someone who was willing to call the spade of liberal treason by its proper name. Then there was a review by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post Book Review, followed a week later by yet another broadside from neo-con Arnold Beichman in the Washington Times.
Miss Applebaum, an editorial writer for the Washington Post, is a liberal, one supposes, but it's hard to tell the difference between her sneers and those of the other two. "Even the company of Maoist insurgents would be more intellectually invigorating than that of Ann Coulter," Miss Applebaum avers. "More to the point, whatever side this woman is on, I don't want to be on it."
Miss Applebaum at least shows signs of having read the book, which is more than Mr. Beichman did. "I have tried to read Miss Coulter's book and failed," he admits and then gets nasty. And what all these savants dislike about it is not just Miss Coulter's inclination to say nice things about McCarthy but also her claim on page one that "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason."
Well, as I noted, I haven't read the book (although, unlike Mr. Beichman, I bet I could), and it may be that Miss Coulter kind of O.D.'s on the hyperbole. I know the problem myself.
Nevertheless, if she's seriously arguing that liberalism is inherently prone to treason, she's right.
Indeed, neither Miss Coulter nor I am the first to say so. Decades ago Whittaker Chambers expressed much the same insight, one that explains why liberals of his time were so cuddly with Alger Hiss and almost as mean to Chambers as neo-conservatives today are toward Miss Coulter.
Perceiving that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "was only superficially a reform movement" and really "was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and, above all, the power relationships within the nation," Chambers also grasped that both the liberals who pushed the New Deal revolution and the communists who piggybacked on it shared a common goal, even if they differed on methods.
"At the basic point of the revolution," he wrote, "the two kinds of revolutionists were at one; and they shared many other views and hopes. For men who could not see that what they firmly believed was liberalism added up to socialism could scarcely be expected to see what added up to Communism."
The ultimate loyalty of liberalism is not to the concrete realities of human lifeâââ‰â¬Âone's people, nation, religion, community and familyâââ‰â¬Âbut to the Great Abstractions: Equality, Peace, Tolerance, Freedom (sometimes), Progress, Diversity.
When your own country doesn't measure up to them, loyalty to it isâââ‰â¬Âwellâââ‰â¬Ânegotiable.
I don't know if Miss Coulter quotes Chambers, but she should. Like other real conservatives of his day, he saw that liberals and communists are essentially on the same wave length, the same page, and that explains a good deal about the long record of liberal treachery, from Roosevelt at Yalta to the last insipid cuddle with communism at the end of the Cold War.
Real conservatives have always understood this ugly truth about liberalism, even when too polite to mention it out loud.
Neoconservatives don't understand it, and that's why they're so hard to distinguish from liberalsâââ‰â¬Âand why they apparently feel a typically liberal compulsion to trash any real conservative who dares call liberalism the treason it is.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
[Sam Francis [email him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection of his columns, America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The Disintegration Of American Culture, is now available from Americans For Immigration Control. Click here for Sam Francis' website.]
url: [url=http://www.vdare.com/francis/coulterkampf.htm]http://www.vdare.com/francis/coulterkampf.htm[/url] **
2003-08-08 17:24 | User Profile
Thus, the Wall Street Journal op-ed page last month unleashed the sarcastic reflections of neocon Dorothy Rabinowitz ** on Miss Coulter and her book. The burden of the attack was that Miss Coulter praises the late Joe McCarthy as someone who was willing to call the spade of liberal treason by its proper name. Then there was a review by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post Book Review, followed a week later by yet another broadside from neo-con Arnold Beichman in the Washington Times.**
Please be so good as to mention the rampaging Eskimos in the China Shop, O uncannily canny one.
2003-08-08 20:27 | User Profile
If you understand what neoconservatism is "a brand of liberalism that likes to masquerade as a phony conservatism, mainly so it can wheedle influence in the Republican Partyââ¬Â the puzzle is solved.
Applebaum....Rabinowitz....Beichman....hmmm. My understanding of neoconservatism is a bit blunter, I guess.
By the way, Sam's being a tad disingenuous. Even the most rabid neo will draw the line on McCarthy, and always will. Remember that, before the Communist witch hunts, McCarthy had already earned the emnity of America's power Jews.
[color=blue]> **In 1949 he had dared champion the cause of German prisoners of war held in connection with the alleged "Malmédy massacre." In truth, what had happened near the Belgian town of Malmédy in December 1944 was unclear at the time, part of what U.S. General Thomas T. Handy, who in 1949 was the commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe, called "a confused, mobile, and desperate combat action." It is known now that a number of American soldiers who had surrendered there to the Germans were shortly thereafter killed in cross fire when their captors, who were marching them to a rear area, were engaged by other U.S. units. When their bodies were found by U.S. forces afterward with their hands tied behind their backs, however, it appeared that they might have been deliberately killed.
After the war, Germans who had taken part in the fighting at Malmédy were turned over to U.S. Army Colonel A.H. Rosenfeld and his Jewish underlings for "interrogation." The prisoners were arbitrarily reduced to civilian status so that they would not be protected by the Geneva Convention, and brutal torture was used to extract confessions. When 18-year-old prisoner Arvid Freimuth hanged himself after repeated beatings rather than sign a "confession," the prosecutors were permitted to use as "evidence" the unsigned statement which they themselves had contrived.
McCarthy dared to speak against this officially sanctioned lynching, when almost no one else had the courage to do so. By fearlessly championing the underdogs, the defeated and vilified Germans, and speaking out against the actual atrocities committed by self-righteous aliens in American uniform, the Senator demonstrated the rare moral courage that later propelled him into the forefront of the struggle against Communism.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Raymond Baldwin, Republican of Connecticut, was assigned to investigate the charges of torture, but whitewashed them instead. On July 26, 1949, Senator McCarthy withdrew in disgust from the hearings and announced in a speech on the Senate floor that two members of the Committee, Senator Baldwin and Senator Estes Kefauver, Democrat of Tennessee, had law partners among the Army interrogators they were supposedly investigating. This was in several ways a preview of things to come.
The Jews showed instant hostility toward anyone who interfered with their campaign of vengeance against the conquered Germans, and so they began turning their big guns in the media against McCarthy: a December 1949 poll of news correspondents covering the United States Senate already had reporters branding McCarthy "the worst Senator"--a high honor indeed.
[url=http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/114/mccarthy.html]http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/11...4/mccarthy.html[/url]** [/color]
If that NATVAN url bothers you, relax. I had known this bit of history but could only find it discussed on the Web, in some depth, on the NATVAN site. Most of the Talmudically-correct hatchet jobs on McCarthy conveniently begin in 1950, and in Wheeling, WV.
The other reason that neocons will never embrace the Tailgunner is, of course, he had been gunning for them...or their direct progenitors. Famed Stalin-denouncer David Horowitz, typing one of his many spittle-stained jeremiads against the "Commie Left" on the Front Page site, refused to print [let alone answer] a letter I'd sent his GO POSTAL! reader-mail page that asked how a man whose own father was hounded out of work by the Redhunters of the 50s could turn around and do the same thing to Noam Chomsky, Jesse Jackson, and all the other easy targets of opportunity he enjoys lobbing spitballs at. If you're right about Chomsky, I asked, then wasn't McCarthy right to persecute your father? If you're correct, David, then wasn't your father a traitor who deserved what he got?
I wasn't surprised that the letter got roundfiled to oblivion. If the neokahns had an answer for that one, they wouldn't need O'Reilly & Coulter to shout down dissenters on their behalf. But back when he was writing RADICAL SON and was eager to make his bones as a conservative, Horowitz had no problem agreeing in principle:
[color=purple]> **Newspapers reported on American spy rings working to steal atomic secrets for the Soviet state. When people read these stories, they inevitably thought of progressives like us. And so did we ourselves. Even if we never encountered a Soviet agent or engaged in a single illegal act, each of us knew that our commitment to socialism implied the obligation to commit treason too.
My parents and their comrades were indeed conspirators, as anyone could see who cared to look. Their secret names and secret organizations, the elaborate network of front organizations they created to camouflage their agendas, their practice of infiltrating and subverting liberal organizations, and the disingenuousness with which they presented themselves as "progressives" all added up to a suspicious case. And in their hearts they were indeed loyal to the Soviet state.
from "RADICAL SON" ** [/color]
But now that David H & his kosher kadre have what they want - a foothold in the corridors of power - he no longer sees any expediency in trashing his own parents as a bargaining chip. Now the neo resentment for Tailgunner Joe can re-emerge in its natural state. But, oh, back when it was Clinton's America!
[color=red]> **There have been plenty of confessional volumes by ex-Communists: even before Whittaker Chambers, a bevy of Communist Party defectors not only wrote books but testified before congressional committees and sent several of their ex-comrades to jail. But not until Horowitz has any of these professional stool pigeons turned in their parents.
These two loyal CP members he characterizes as "permanent conspirators in a revolutionary drama," and "agents of a secret service," virtual pod people whose sinister activities deserved the repression that was visited on them. At the height of the anti-Communist witch-hunt, his parents, both public school teachers, were hauled before the administration on charges of subversive, with the result that his father was fired and lost his pension, and his mother was forced into retirement. In his account of this crisis in the Horowitz household, he writes: "My father was not a Party leader, and merely lost his job. This is an exceedingly strange sentiment coming from the son of a man who has been fired for his political beliefs, but he soon graduates from the merely strange to the downright bizarre: in a stunning show of just how badly ideology can distort the human personality, Horowitz justifies the persecution of his parents by asking "what more could they have expected?" After all, he writes, they "wanted to overthrow existing institutions." In other words, they deserved it.
In a passage that can only be described as profoundly weird, he writes that his parents and their comrades ought to thank their lucky stars that "they were neither executed nor tortured and spent hardly any time in jail." What is really grotesque about this very public display of hatred and anger directed at his parents is that he prefaces his denunciations of them with declarations of his undying love.
[url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j063099.html]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j063099.html[/url]** [/color]
2003-08-08 23:12 | User Profile
Rabbi Moishe Cohen Goldbergsteinwitzfeldnikrosenbloom: "D-oh! Don't those gentiles know that the only people they are allowed to praise are people who are Jew-Approved[tm]? The very nerve -- in a non-Jewish country -- of a gentile, praising someone that we Jews disapprove of! No wonder G-d did not choose gentiles!"
Itz Coming...soon... :)