Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Askel5
I just noticed the keyword of Horowitz. I think that the author here is talking more about Noam Chomskey and company, not Horowitz (unless you mean the old Horowitz, but even then he was more "Old Left" than "New Left" back then).
12 posted on 10/16/2002 3:42:17 AM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: William McKinley
It's probably no secret I loathe Horowitz, find nothing of substance in his "Progressive Vision for the Party" [direct quote from this year's CPAC that's indelibly imprinted on my brain] and cannot help note the way his fangs are bared only for the likes of Alan Keyes.

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

"Well, I'm personally opposed BUT ... it's more important

[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.

Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany (1886)

21 posted on 10/16/2002 9:12:24 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson