Posted on 10/16/2002 2:02:15 AM PDT by Askel5
Like any good atheist/agnostic sort (who yet plays the Jew card as convenient), he dismisses the foundation of our liberties and rights (as embodied in the Declaration) as "Politics 101" ... practically irrelevant.
He makes his money and entertains his New Best Friends primarily by ridiculing his former comrades (particularly those still faithful to their very Real convictions, however self-deluded or far from the truth they may be). Tamping down the dust as he shred their personalities, he build his own personal rampart to fame and fortune on the right side of the fence ... along with all the "former Soviets" turned oligarchs and the "former Democrats" turned Republicans who gave us our RINO Congress and Senate for contrast during the Clinton years.
Hobbled by his New Left origins, I suppose, he's unable to do anything but organize stunts or ridicule as a rule rather engage in substantive persuasion. Master of the tactic (if not the objective ... past "Numbers", anyway), he encourages the right to lift only the loser pages from the Leftist handbook and forego the really winner strategies like LITMUS TESTS on the Right to Life and LOCKSTEP ACCORD with the personal convictions on which a person's elected ... which person will then turn around and preface his really critical votes with
|
[to appeal to womyn | that Gore not get good press coverage | that we not sully the Office of the President by actually removing Clinton | Congress cede its balance of power to the Executive Branch in a show of support for the President's moral authority to wage war and order clandestine summary executions | we appear tolerant | we clean up Russia's messes | our Most Favored Friend China not feel we're too upset about the EP-3E thing | we reduce abortions | we trade a little liberty for security | I GET RE-ELECTED ... CAUSE I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO'S GOT THE "PERSONAL CONVICTIONS" PROPER TO REPRESENTATING YOU ... BWHAHAHAHAHAHA ... ] |
It was his rebuttal of Raimondo (which boiled down to: "So what if I was born a Jew, you have no right to impugn my Dad's good name and I think you're just a JEALOUS fag") that prompted this post, actually. In particular, this line:
First to the facts. To begin with I was never technically a "Commie." I was a New Left Marxist, critical of the Communist Party from my very first book, Student, published in 1962.
I figured this post might help fill in the holes of the history he's so adept at slanting as he sucks-up to the right he's now working toward the "middle". As a bonus, it helps explain why he's got nothing substantive to offer BUT stunts, strategies and superficial -- positively catty -- criticisms ... his retort to Raimondo exposing him as a bigger girl than Justin ever thought about being.
I may not agree with Raimondo or particularly like his style but I have a lot more respect for him -- as well as the original communists (if not Horowitz's parents and their peers who somehow overlooked the Bolshevik slaughters with the left's signature ability to "don't stop thinking about tomorrow) -- than men without chests like Horowitz.
He is the champion, the standard-bearer of the moderate liberal now seeking to bring the extreme and the tainted together in a tyranny of the meaningless middle from whose denizens all recognition of -- much less fidelity to -- objective truth has been repeatedly compromised away.
In a word, we may recognize the extreme and moderate Liberal by his bitter fruits; the tainted Catholic may be recognized by his distorted affection for Liberalism and its works.The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism; the moderate Liberal mouths it; the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless, the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence; the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature; but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism.
It may be that you end up countering me on Horowitz (I've no idea what your take is), but that's okay.
When you do, please be sure to address the incongruity of his arguing that Ya Gotta Have Faith.
His hypocrisy is what gets me.
My point was that when one identifies the New Left as described herein, one would no longer be identifying Horowitz, unless one believes that he still adheres to the views he has publically scorned. The New Left is exemplified by the three people Kuehnelt-Leddhin identified, and more current examples such as Noam Chomskey. I would go so far as to suggest that Raimondo, who you brought up, has more in common with the New Left (if you go by currently stated political views) than Horowitz does.
I would like to see Von Keunnelt-Leddihn expand on this idea; Catholicism is too often associated with authoritarianism. Too bad the referenced work is in German.
Nice catch ... thanks for the link.
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.