Posted on 10/15/2011 11:34:22 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama
How much difference is there, really, between the far-Left, the far-Right, and overt white supremacists? How do the public stances of Michael Moore, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke compare? Proponents of both extreme views now think and sound so much alike, they sound like soulmates. Somehow these fringe characters have moved so far around the edges that they have arrived at the same territory, spouting identical positions in copycat rhetoric on such issues as Iraq, the broader War on Terror, and the Jewish state of Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at archive.frontpagemag.com ...
I agree with you on that.
To shamelessly rip off Greg Gutfeld: Enjoy, enjoyers!
To shamelessly rip off Greg Gutfeld: Enjoy, enjoyers!
David Kook was a lifelong Democrat who happened to notice that the Dem primary was crowded and there weren’t any Republicans in that particular US House race.
Somehow he will always be called a “Republican” by the MSM
The truth MUST be told about Ron Paul before his stupidity sinks us in 2012.
While the MSM pretends Robert Byrd never existed....
You are probably right about Buchanan anymore. Some of his observations recently really make me cringe. I just have a hard time as a former member of the Buchanan Brigade 20 years ago putting him in the same camp as that creep Rockwell and Rothbard. He is a lot closer to them now than he used to be, which isn’t a good thing either.
Ron Paul is never going to be a major force within the GOP, he is barely a RINO. He is a liberaltarian at heart and will not change.
exactly right
Is this Lew Rockwell any relation to the Rockwell who made nazi cartoons in the 1960’s?
The problem here is that the term “right” just doesn’t apply in America, and never has.
The terms right-wing and left-wing go all the way back to the French Revolution. Leftists were opponents of the Old Regime and ardent supporters of Voltaire and Rousseau. Rightists were supporters of the Old Regime of Crown and Church.
These distinctions, with considerable evolution, have continued to this day in European politics. The Nazis were a perverted blend of leftist and rightist ideologies, so it isn’t really accurate to call them either one.
The problem is that America has never had a Right that had anything in common with the European Right. Crown and Church, blood and soil just never made it across the Atlantic. Closest we came, IMO, were the secessionists and Jim Crow boys.
In today’s world, the American Right means dedication to the principles of the American Revolution, which was essentially those of the English Whigs. An updated “aristocratic freedom,” with more and more people over time counted among the aristocrats who had a right to freedom.
There was no equivalent of this ideology in the French Revolution, as the Crown had utterly destroyed the French version in the previous two centuries. Therefore “Right” is a term with no meaning in the American context.
American leftists, of course, abandoned anything peculiarly American over 100 years ago and have since been wannabees of European leftism.
I feel the same way. I’ve enjoyed some of Pitchfork Pat’s books. I’m certainly not ashamed to admit that. But he lost me with all of that “American Empire” stuff. He also lost me with his continued employment at PMSNBC when he knows full well what goes on there.
There was also his run for president in 2000, where he had a lib commie activist as his VP.
Not that I’m aware of.
That's not actually true, but it's repeated so often, people just assume it's a fact.
"Left" and "Right" are meaningless. They originally just referred to which side of the House of Commons the Whigs (left) and Tories (right) sat on from the perspective of the Speaker. The Whigs were "liberal" in the classic sense (what we now call Conservative and Libertarian) and the Tories were "conservative" in that they had no intention of losing centuries of British class privilege to a bunch of peasants or a pack of barely literate knuckle dragging colonists in the American wilderness.
Liberal now is what used to be called Fabian Socialist and Conservative what used to be called "Liberal". It's an endless shell game intended to make Socialists (and other Statists) sound like they believe in liberty and people who actually believe in individual liberty sound like they want to go back to the days of yore (Democratic Party supported slavery and National Socialist Workers' Party "Heil Hitler" salutes).
But try explaining all this to someone with a typical modern public school education, or even worse, a Urinalist.
“The problem here is that the term ‘right’ just doesnt apply in America, and never has.”
That is an interesting theory. Check out my disclaimer at #1.
You’re right. I stand corrected. But Buchanan did ask Jimmy Hoffa Jr. and James Traficant to be his VP first.
“Ron Paul is never going to be a major force within the GOP...”
I have every intention of keeping that way. The MSM will think nothing of placing his kooks in the Tea Party to sink the Republican nominee. If that happens, the country is doomed.
LOL. I forgot about that nit wittery. Geez. Pat is really off his meds anymore.
My problem with Buchanan is my feeling, echoed by Buchanan in some of his public speeches, is that if you’re not white and from northern Europe, you’re not a real American. That really turned me off. Sure, a lot of his other statements concerning a variety of subjects really irritated me, but I really resent the idea that only a certain ethnic group represents real Americans. An American is not denoted by being a member of a certain ethnic group, but by adherence to the ideals exemplied in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. Even W. F. Buckley considered Buchanan anti-Semitic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.