getting ones views heard in the mainstream means belonging to the club...we need halls where the neocons can debate their failed theories against capable opponents

in the mean time all we get are commericals, with actors selling their ideas to the american consumer on all the stations all the time with no substantive rebuttals.

once they drum up enough support they proceed to their next event, its really quite elementary for them at this point. the sheep that follow gets fleeced, while the sheep that stays back bleeting attracts the attention of the wolves which proceed to do what wolves do in the brave new world.

by the way homo americanus can not be gotten at borders or barnes and noble… they claim that the publisher pulled the book...amazon has it available still.

Webmaster:

By some error this entry has duplicated itself. As
much as we appreciate Mr. Gottfried’s wisdom we do
not want to see him repeat himself, so please delete
the extra copy

Mr. Gottfried,

I too have wondered why the political left doesn’t ally with the paleocon right, and then it occurrs to me.  The left are not as seriously anti-war as the right.  They are too busy trying to paint the war as a creation of religion and to condemn it only in those terms.  They also like all the things that go along with the state of war at home; bigger government, more control of the unwashed masses for ambitious social engineering, etc.  Their anti-war stance is more a perceived fashion neccessity than it is a feeling with any conviction.  They prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of the pattern that gets us into war in the first place.

Sam Francis once told me that these fantasies of a Left-Right coalition to stop the neocons never work as the Left simply wants the Right to adopt liberal positions on everything else. So if Lew Rockwell comes out for affirmative action or Justin Raimondo starts scapegoating whites for the problems of blacks then you will see them get some good press.

The Right is a lot more flexible in these alliances. Counterpunch can defend the attempted lynching of the Duke lacrosse players and Cindy Sheehan can march with racist lunatics like Jesse Jackson, but that will not stop their articles from appearing on certain paleo sites.

Many neocons seem to have a lot in common with lefties such as Hitchens, Rushdie, Blair etc. And then there is the whole thing about neocons and Leon Trotsky. And a fair few were falling over themselves to praise Hillary when she tried to trash Obama for saying he might actually talk to countries like Iran and Cuba.

Paul, you might find enlightening to check the ethnic
groups to which the members of the Left belong.

Because any descendants of those who arrived as refugees
from World War II or its aftermath, or who had relatives
caught in it might feel an instinctive repugnace to
consort with the descendant of “American Firsters” They
may be willing to join the neocons, the saber rattling
Right, or the Left, but not those who they think of as
Nazi sympathizers.

Same as Irish descendants can get real nasty on the
Brithis (as you can see from Patrick Foy).

It is something that time eventually will cure.

– That there are only two political positions;
– that Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal are terms not obsolete, not absurd, not jejune, not ossified; and instead are essential to understanding, correspond to reality, and so very helpful;
– that political positions are to be grafted onto a line running from left to right;
– that because one’s position, so grafted, is said to be closer to another’s, one then could find an Honorable Friend there (The opposite may be true: To speak metaphorically, a horse we find beautiful and a chimp ugly. Though the chip is certainly the closest to our species, he appears to be all the same a caricature of ourselves );
– that the television media’s refusing to acknowledge other positions than just “Left/Right” ought be endorsed, or at least acquiesced in;
– that if one is Right or Left, all of one’s opponents are to be defamed as the opposite;
– That “every boy and every girl born into the world alive/Is either a little Liberal or a little Conservative”;

are stupid ideas. 

Even genuine conservatives (as opposed the faux) can be divided into

a. The Blancs:  Royalist Cavaliers, Non-Juror Tories, Jacobites, Legitimists, the Blancs d’Espagne, Carlists; De Maistre, Charles I Stuart, Charles X Bourbon, Waugh.  The recent webpage on Kirk has two eloquent supporters of this position.

b.  the Blues:  Justus Moeser, High Tories, Burke in his later “Old Whig” phase, Lord Salisbury, Kirk, Scruton, the later Eliot

c . the Noirs:  Traditionally, the Catholic middle classes, they later in coalition with Protestants.  For convenience’s sake, in this group are the Aristoteleans, various Neo-Thomist groupings, and Leo XIII Catholics. Here belongs Christdemokratie; its International’s use of “orange” need be avoided, for reasons obvious to the English-speaking.

d. and perhaps on the outer orbit of the conservative solar system, the Yellows (“Jaunes”): the non-Marxist and non-Socialist farm-labor movement, found in France in the early 1900s, in the American Populists of the 1890s, and in the Jeffersonians of the 1790s.

I find Andrew Bacevich hard to characterize as well. I hear he is a devout Catholic. Maybe he just has to lay low since he is in academia. His contribution to the “What is Left? What is Right?” issue of American Conservative was one of the best.

i want to declare the week of sept 10th as zionfascist week…

I agree that the “Left” is really not anti-war, but
anti-American. Note their lack of interest in Clinton’s
intervention in the Balkans, for instance.

Leftists are different then Liberals of course. Leftists
have a twisted sort of neo-Marxist view of America as
Imperialist Numero Uno, having never got over their
infatuation with the Soviet Union, and their bias toward
the Soviet Union interpretation of the Cold War and
American History. Howard Zinn’s books for instance,
are really Soviet era textbooks on American History.
Chompsky, the tired old Left-over “New” Leftist also
interprets history as American aggression.

So of course, they are completely bewildered when
paleos assert that America is isolationist and protectionists.

One problem that Gottfried doesn’t mention is the
problem of Jewish domination of the Leftist causes, and
the cognitive dissonance that results when ethnic
identity conflicts with rigid ideology. Chompsky is
the biggest example of this conflict, if you read him,
he’s critical of Israel, but it’s not Jewish ethnocentrism
or Zionism that is the problem, it’s that Israel is
merely manipulated by America, and a mere
puppet in American imperialist plans to dominate the
Mideast.

Of course, most paleos of the conservative or libertarian’
stripe would argue that it’s the other way around. What
with the original blueprint for the Iraq Invasion coming
out of the Israeli intelligence.

Bacevich’s book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War is the best that I read in 2006.  I highly recommend it to anyone who opposes the US path of world domination by force.

Mr. Gottfried might want to take a look at Schoeman’s
new article and the responses to it for a reason why
many on the Left refuse to acknowledge the Right’s
oppostion to the war.

As far as they are concerned the Old Right is too much
riddled by Nazi apoligists, Holocaust deniers, and
rabid anti-semites. Not to mention Confedarate Lost
Cause nostalgics.  So, they react to it as Dracula to
the cross.

Stalin is the skeleton in the closet for many a liberal,
but Hitler is the one in too many palecon’s closet.

Adriana sed: “Stalin is the skeleton in the closet for many a liberal,
but Hitler is the one in too many palecon’s closet.”

You’ve got to be crazy, equating the likes of Robert Taft and
Russell Kirk with “holocaust deniers, Nazi apologists,
and rapid anti-semites.”

Like your buddy, you’re really quick to assume the
“Leftist” point of view on the legacy of American
non-interventionism and opposition to

The modern “Left” is neo-Marxist (for instance Zinn and
Chompsky), and therefore sees ANYONE who
supports national sovereignty, WASP social values and
cultural identity as “fascist”. According to the LEFT,
everyone who disagrees with Marx and Lenin’s theory
of Imperialism is a “fascist”. Consequently, never the
twain shall meet. Isolationism---the “bad word” for
noninterventionism and opposition to internationalism--
is just not possible given the neo-Marxist interpretaton of
history.

What’s more realistic is that “libertarianism"---ie
19th Century Laissez Faire economic theory and aethistic
economic determinism (a la Ayn Rand and company) has
derailed the Right into proving that Marxist Leninism
was right: when investment goes outside of the USA,
our soldiers follow. For instance,

As for the Jews, there are “Big Jews” and “Little Jews”
and it’s the Big Jew’s money that is the problem. The
“power” of AIPAC is it’s network on international
financiers and wealthy investors who fund the Zionist
cause. BTW, most of AIPAC’s money goes to the Democrats,
I understand from OpenSecrets. Most Jews are liberals,
leftists and Democrats.

@Joe Populist

Thanks for providing me and Mr. Gottfried with an
example.

Tell me, Mr. Gottfried, what happens when a Liberal
or leftist of good will runs across someone like
Joe Populist?

QED

One huge difference between FDR’s supporters and opponents is that none of his opponents proposed going to war on the side of Hitler and the Japanese, while his supporters did advocate and accomplish going to war on the side of Stalin.  Adriana equates opposition to being involved in a global blood-letting of unprecedented proportions with being a Nazi apologist or holocaust denier.  No surprise here - I’ve been called an extremist, a terrorist and a fascist for opposing abortion, Clinton’s war against Yugoslavia and Bush’s war against Iraq.  Some people just get infuriated if you oppose mass murder.

It would seem that recent articles in this site, thank you Taki, would
indicate that Hitler as well as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Churchill, FDR, are
all skeletons in liberals closets.  The paleocons, as Kirt has pointed out
have always been consisten non-interventionalist.  The pejorative isolationist
being a misnomer concocted by FDR’s propaganda core to slander America Firsters,
the true paleocons.  Liberals may be opposed to Hitler in name but their
nutty ideas have never been opposed to his tactics.  Not only are they afraid
to look in the closet but the mirror as well.

Paleocons were opposed to Hitler in their ideas?

That is true. But Hitler did not fight with ideas but
with tanks.

The one who sent tanks was FDR, while paleocons thought
that by saying how much they disapproved of him, he
would stop doing what he was doing.

FDR was the lesser evil, and they are unwilling to
concende it, nor will they concede that when you refuse
to choose the lesser evil you end up choosing the greater

Isolationists then had a case.  But now, knowing what
we know, there is no much point in deprecating Hitler
and deprecating the people who did something to stop
him.

Did they expect a white knigth, a Sir Galahad with
nothing but virtues to appear out of nowhere? Those
are in short supply in this world and you must take
what you can get.

And, how many times do I have to repeat this? FDR did
not go to war on the side of Stalin. He went on the side
of Churchill. Stalin would have been quite happy to
stay neutral or Hitler’s ally if Hitler had not invaded
him. But once Stalin was in, they reckoned that this was
not the time to get picky about allies (there is no
supermarket where you can pick and choose your allies,
you grab what you can get).

In a perfect world there would be pure knights of
impeccable conservative and christian doctrine to carry
the fight against the likes of Hitler. But in a perfect
world there would be no Hitler either.

Kirt sez: “Adriana equates opposition to being involved in a global blood-letting of unprecedented proportions with being a Nazi apologist
or holocaust denier.”

Again, along with her friends, Adriana mouths the
same slurs against the American Old Right and the
Populist Mainstream that we hear in Liberal Academia or
the Marxist Left.

Of course, Adriana in her rush to defend Zionism and
the international financiers that fund the Israeli
Lobby by passing out slurs about holocaust deniers and
supporters of Hitler, ignores my original point.

Never the twain shall meet between the Right and the
Left because the premises of the Left are completely incaptible with the American
tradition of non-interventionism and opposition to
internationalism. Leftists do not agree that America
has an isolationist, non-interventionist tradition, in
fact they believe in Lenin’s theory of Imperialism, and that
American history is one of imperialism and conquest.

Liberals are internationalists in the Woodrow Wilson
mode, and are in their own way incaptible with the Left.

Adriana’s dismissal of the Israel Lobby, and their
role in the conspiracy to incite the US to invade
Iraq borders on lunacy.

Adriana sez: “And, how many times do I have to repeat this? FDR did
not go to war on the side of Stalin. He went on the side
of Churchill. Stalin would have been quite happy to
stay neutral or Hitler’s ally if Hitler had not invaded
him.”

How many times do you wish to deny that FDR went to war on the side of British
Imperialism, and not to save the Jews, or to stop
Hitler. In that regard, FDR was no saint or anti-fascist
either.

Let’s not also give Churchill credit that he he didn’t
deserve. He was not motivated by opposition to fascist,
he WAS a British Imperialist, not morally superior
to any form of Fascism. NOr were either FDR or Churchill
concerned about the blight of the Jews.  Churchill was
as bloody defender of British Empire who couldn’t stand
idea that a Germany would push Britain out of it’s control
of it’s Mideastern colonial system.

BTW, Japan threatened British Imperialism in Asia as
well, and not the United States.

No Adriana, WWII was a war to defend British Empire, and
and not America’s security. As it turns out, Britian
exhausted itself in WWII, and America inherited it’s
role in many ways.

Adriana sez: “@Joe Populist Thanks for providing me and Mr. Gottfried with an
example. Tell me, Mr. Gottfried, what happens when a Liberal
or leftist of good will runs across someone like
Joe Populist?”

The same thing as when they run into the likes of
Gottfried---Gottfried’s support of traditional values
like relgion, family, community are merely mindless
defense of the ruling classes and American imperialism.
There is NO common ground between the Left and the
paleo or Old Right, they can’t comprehend America as
an isolationist, non-interventionist nation.

Liberals on the other hand, have their own problems with
the left, and in their own way are as distant from the
Left as the Left is from Russell Kirk style
conservativism.

Like YOU, the Left believes America Firsters were
apologists for Hitler and anti-semitic. Why are
you here in the first place, since you seem to
agree with all the premises of the Marxist Leninist
Left? And modern neo-Marxist academia?

it would seem to me that britain and the u.s ...with their sponsoring of zionism and unwavering support of communism have as much blood on their hands as any other nation in the 20th century....those murdered last century were sacrificed on the altar of all the bullshit theorists of communism and one world government...and ought to be burning in hell for their crimes against humanity.

I do not believe that America Firsters, the original
ones were apologists for Hitler, but his unwitting
dupes, betrayed by their own idealism and naivete.

By the way, there is a great paralell between those
like you who recite America’s sins when asked to
contemplate Nazi or Mikado misdeeds, and liberals who,
when asked to contemplate Communist misdeeds recited
America’s sins.

As they say in French “les extremes se touchent”. It may
well be a side effect of idealism to Blame America First

Adriana sez:  “I do not believe that America Firsters, the original
ones were apologists for Hitler, but his unwitting
dupes, betrayed by their own idealism and naivete.”

Well that’s what you implied. I’m not sure if there
is much difference between a apologist and dupe, but
anyone who thinks that America wasn’t duped into
a war in Iraq by a conspiracy of paid apologists for
the Zionist cause is dope.

Adriana sez: “By the way, there is a great paralell between those
like you who recite America’s sins when asked to
contemplate Nazi or Mikado misdeeds, and liberals who,
when asked to contemplate Communist misdeeds recited
America’s sins...It may well be a side effect of
idealism to Blame America First”

Nobody but YOU is blaming “America” Adriana...the blame
lies with apologists for the Israeli Lobby and
defenders of internationalism and interventionism---such
as you and your friends.

No one here blames America first?

Does Taki not get sentimental over the victims of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then praises the bushido
code, thus forgetting the victims of the Japanese
occupation? Why is it that those who support the view
can only spare tears for the victms of an American
act?

The ones who blame FDR for joining the side of Churchill
and blame Churchill for provoquing Germany, are they
not blamign America first?

Of course, then the Left picked up on it when it came
time to defend the Soviet Union, but I see that they only
learned it from FDR haters.

Mr. Gottfried

Take a look at the section Articles and read the
responses to the Schoeman article, and the names they
call him and those who support him.

Now, tell me what a Liberal or Leftists, who is wondering
if he or she is not in the wrong camp will think after
reading it.  That the sooner he or she stop consorting
with paleocons the better for his/her sanity?

What is an “Adriana”?

I see no distinction, today, between so-called conservatives (rightists) and liberals (leftists).  It seems that the lot of them are nothing more than pitiable opportunists.  That may have been the case with the American Firsters, since they all went rushing to war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, of course, not knowing that the Japanese had been goaded into this attack by that very liberal, F. D. R.  Opportunism, that’s what this game is all about, and from which we hoi poloi are the victims.

@Sertorious

Adriana is my given name. It comes from Emperor Hadrian,
who got it from the Adriatic sea.

It was a great relief to me, when I found out that I
had been named after a Roman Emperor, that he was one
of the good ones.  Can you imagine going trhough life
called Caligula or Nerona?

Adriana, yes, you are correct, why would anyone curse their children with names like Caligula or Nerona?  Your name is attractive as well as classical.  Thanks for the explanation.

This whole thread is filled with nonsense on all sides.

For starters the left is in no way dependent on Marxist materialism as its guiding light.  In fact it is the modern libertarian movement..a movement for which Ron Paul is the vanguard figure..that is the most materialist movement since the collapse of the authentic “fellow traveler” left in this country. 

In fact the left has always had dissenters from the Marxist line, not the least of which were Bakunin and his “followers” (if one must use such terms to describe authentic anarchists).  In recent years anarchism is the flavor of the month for much of the American left and even previously reliably socialist websites, magazines and causes often trumpet the cause of decentralists and turn over their pages to its major proponents (Kirkpatrick Sale, Bill Kauffman, Gore Vidal, Thomas Naylor, et).

Also it is absolutely false to claim that the left cannot be authentically leftist or non-interventionist.  With all do respect to the Pat Buchanans and Sam Francis’ of the world, leftist like Alex Cockburn have been far more consistent in their anti-imperalist, non-interventionist views and historical interpertations.  The Balkans wars which has been mentioned in this thread was almost universially opposed by the hard left in this country, from Chomsky on down...in fact the original paleocon/old right/left nexus was formed as a result of the isolationist perspectives regarding these matters.  This has been a matter exclusively related to wars with Muslim nations or the Balkans.  Cockburn has editorialized against the UN, Howard Zinn has all but condemned WWII, and the left in general were universially opposed to the Cold War proxy conflicts.  Conversely alot of the figures associated with the “Old Right” were extreme Cold War hawks...who is inconsistent?

Prof. Gottfried is also engaging in fantasy when he claims Gore Vidal has focused attention on gay activism.  This is absurd.  Vidal is arguably the least self-identified openly gay man in history.  In fact he rejects the term, the existance of “homosexual” as a noun and to quote another leftist Ralph Nader, “gonad politics” in general.  It would be far more accurate to suggest certain elemants of the paleos are disturbingly obsessed with the alleged negative impacts of homosexuality, most of which are never given.

On the other hand anyone arguing that the Old Right were foolish to oppose WWII are thinking narrowly.  The Old Right was absolutely right to oppose intervening in a foreign war, between empires and tyrants that were prone to destroy each other.  Taking the side of Stalin, even if only for supposedly “realist” reasons, does not change the fact that Stalin was quite arguably a greater threat to the U.S. and the world in general than Hitler was or ever could have been.  The disgraceful antics of the Old Left and their modern day disciples and propagandists, does not change the reality of Stalinist Russia, or the very real possibility that the Soviet Monster was the greatest benefactor of our enterance into the European War.

If one wished to attack the left or the right there is plent ammunition.  There is no need to lie, distort or feign ignorance in regard to obvious truisms.

@dylanwaco

Thanks for the correction., it is good to have some
realism in the assessment of potential allies, contingent
enemies and troublesome friends.

But, from a historical point of view, I fear that your
view of World War II is a bit simplistic. If the war
had been between STalin and HItler it would have been
wise just to sit it out, and watch.

But when World War II started in 1939 it was STalin who
sat down and watched (actually he and Hitler shared
in another Polish partition, just like Catherine II,
Maria Theresa of Austria, and Frederick of Prussia had
done in the eighteenth century).

By the time Stalin gets in, France has been overrun,
Germany has conquered Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway,
and is forming alliances with Hungary, Romania, and
Bulgaria and had planned to invade England.  To say
at this juncture that the US went to war on the side
of Stalin is to ignore a big area and a large population

Of course, by then they **needed** Stalin. It was a
marriage of convenience, but that led to too much self
deception of what was really going on. In any case
Stalin had one characteristic that made him preferable
to Hitler: he knew when to stop, and he had an isolationist
slavophile outlook, and isolationists, are more prone
to stay put in their lands if only to preserve themselves
from the “corruption” that foreigners bring.

Adriana sez: “No one here blames America first?”

Oh poop. Wrapping yourself in the flag isn’t working
with this crowd. YOU are the traitor---supporting the
goals of Israeli Lobby, and American interventionism in wars
that undermine our domestic security, and economic
policies that undermine our economic security.

The real traitors are the dual citizenship Big Money
Men who fund the Israeli Lobby, and their conspiracy
to incite a war to dominate the Mideast Oil in the
name of “Greater Israel”, and the “flat earth” ideas
espoused by pimps for Wall Street Bankers and the CEO
classes like Tom Friedman.

Adriana sez: “It (Alliance with Stalin) was a marriage of convenience, but that led to too much self deception of what was really going on. In any case
Stalin had one characteristic that made him preferable
to Hitler: he knew when to stop, and he had an isolationist
slavophile outlook...”

Stalin was an isolationist? What the hell was the
Cold War about...NATO, US troops and missiles in Europe?

You are such a freaking liar, you make Fox News look
like...uh...a journalist organization.

There is only one conclusion about who won WWII: Stalin
and Mao. The US gained economic power, the war got us
out of the Depression, and the US dollar became
reserve currency.

But for Heaven’s sake, Adriana, stop this blathering
on about a war to stop Hitler and Facism. It’s utter
bullshit.

Dyan sed: “In fact the left has always had dissenters from the Marxist line, not the least of which were Bakunin and his “followers” (if one must use such terms to describe authentic anarchists).  In recent years anarchism is the flavor of the month for much of the American left and even previously reliably socialist websites, magazines and causes often trumpet the cause of
decentralists...”

Well, you are talking about the utopian
vision of the left. How much of this is actually
believed by the people who spout it is a matter of
opinion.

Anybody who thinks that Gore Vidal and Cockburn and
Company represent the “Left” any more then James
Burnham or Christopher Lasch do, is just plain as silly
as the the modern youngsters who claim that the Soviet Union
wasn’t really “communism”.

JP:  The one who calls Stalin a nationalist with an
isolationist outlook is John Lukacs. Take it up with
him if you feel like it.

Try reading his bool “June 1941: Hitler and STalin” where
he points out that it was Hitler who brought Stalin into
the European theater from which he had cut Russia off.

After you read it, then you can discuss the matter,
as well as discuss how Lukacs believes that the US
mishandled the Cold War.

Adriana sez: “Try reading his bool “June 1941: Hitler and STalin” where
he points out that it was Hitler who brought Stalin into
the European theater from which he had cut Russia off.”

Stalin was busy declaring war on his own people, and
consolidating his own power. Hitler was pretty plain
in outlining his designs on Russian lands in Mein Kampf. 

Debating Stalin’s myopia is the sort of “change the ‘
subject” that people like YOU are always engaging in.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it was in the
interests of the USA to enter the war on the side
of British Imperialism. Nor does it resolve the
embarrassing fact that the major result of WWII was that
Eastern Europe was surrendered to Stalin’s totalitarianism,
and that we replaced Japanese Imperialism with Chinese
Communism.

WWII was ironically, the beginning of the end of the
British Empire, which makes the story all the more sadder.

Adrianna: “After you read it, then you can discuss the matter,
as well as discuss how Lukacs believes that the US
mishandled the Cold War.”

Neither you or he answer the question: if Stalin was such a isolationist, then what was NATO all about, what was 40 years of US military
occupation of Europe all about?

Denying that Stalin was threat after WWII makes one
wonder why we had a cold war with him?

JP, you should read Lukacs where he explains that the
anti-communist fervor in the US managed to misread the
situation and to negotiate correctly with the Soviet
Union.

They vision of an ideological struggle failed to notice
that Russia did not hold other nations than the ones where
the Soviet tanks had gone through, something that in
earlier times would call military conquest, and that
Russia had begun to want to let go those countries that]
it did not think it in its national interest. For example
it evacuated Austria without asking for anything in
return.  This is why Chuchill told one of his assistants
that the assistant would live to see the end of communismon,
which was exactly what happened.

Stalin was no pacifist, by any means, and he undesrtood
“national interest”, but he would not go on crusades
for ideology’s sake. Failure to undestand this made a
mess of the Cold War.

JP, I marvel at the lack of mathemathical precision in
your analysis.  Delivering half of Europe to Stalin was
bad and we must take into account the sufferings he
inflicted. Deliverin **all** of Europe to Hitler was just
dandy and we cannot let sentimental considerations to
enter the equation.

It does not add up.

As for the Japanese, it was not only the chinese, but also
the Filipinos, the Koreans, the Indochinese. Not all of them
fell under communism, you know.

So why is it that delivering more people to brutal tirany is
bettr than delivering less?

uH5gkn U cool ))