Conservative Heritage Times

Neoconservative Marco Rubio is an interventionist on steroids.  From his speech yesterday:

I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Our cost of living, the safety of our food , and the value of the things we invent, make and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are directly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here are home.

Yes, let’s spend a trillion dollars nation building in Somalia so that they can have cable TV and everyone of them can buy (from all the aid we give them) a pair of Nike Air Jordans!  With unrealistic objectives like Rubio outlines it will only be a short matter of time before the US collapses from its invade-the-world/invite-the-world debt.

2 Comments »

In reaction to the New York Times story on Obama further expanding the Bush-Cheney power grabs, two pro-war, any war sites have chimed in FAVORING Obama’s actions.

American Power admits, “Personally, I have no problems with the the model of strong executive power (unitary executive theory).”

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs praises Obama in a post entitled, Obama Using Executive Power to Get Around Obstructionist GOP.

Despite their childish bickering, both big-government, pro-interventionist pundits are still singing the same tune.

2 Comments »

According to Reuters, Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon contrary to the hysterical alarmism and catastrophizing of the interventionist Iran hawks.

(Reuters) – The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.

Those conclusions, drawn from extensive interviews with current and former U.S. and European officials with access to intelligence on Iran, contrast starkly with the heated debate surrounding a possible Israeli strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

“They’re keeping the soup warm but they are not cooking it,” a U.S. administration official said.

Reuters has learned that in late 2006 or early 2007, U.S. intelligence intercepted telephone and email communications in which Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a leading figure in Iran’s nuclear program, and other scientists complained that the weaponization program had been stopped.

That led to a bombshell conclusion in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate: American spy agencies had “high confidence” that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.

Current and former U.S. officials say they are confident that Iran has no secret uranium-enrichment site outside the purview of U.N. nuclear inspections.

Read more…

It is not sufficient for Iran hawks to just hand wave this away, which is their habit. They have to counter this conclusion with credible contrary  intel.

7 Comments »

Who do our readers think is the most obnoxious neocon? Kristol the Elder? Kristol the Younger? Pod the Elder? Pod the Lesser? Krauthammer? Someone in the National Review axis? Kagan? Levin? Another? (Suggest me some other names, and I’ll actually make a poll to post.)

And by obnoxious I don’t necessarily mean personally. I mean which one is the most absurdly out there and over the top with their neoconservatism. My vote goes to Robert Kagan, with Levin as a close second.

Kagan is a proud and open advocate of American Imperialism. He reminds me of an Englishman defending the British Empire talking about the white man’s burden. We simply must rule the world for the good of all. Kagan is a cartoon character who lives in a cartoon world. How does this clown have a post in a “mainstream” think thank? He shouldn’t be at the Brookings Institution. He should be at the Marvel Institution. See what I mean:

Here is a post about Mr. Kagan at AmConMag.

It makes reference to this recent paean to American Imperialism.

And to his recent book obnoxiously titled, appropriately, The World America Made. (I’m not making that up.)

You have to hand it to Kagan for his honesty though. Most neocons try to pretty up their naked imperialism, but not Kagan. He flaunts it out there for the world to see.

8 Comments »

There’s the  campaign for GOP nomination and one behind it. There’s the official one which may well nominate Mitt Romney and the campaign to see who can best influence him as Phillip Weiss describes on his website Mondoweiss after Newt Gingirich’s campaign received an emergency lifeline of $5 million from Las Vengas casino baron Sheldon Adelson to keep his campaign going:

“...On what basis can anyone say that Adelson’s game here is Israel when he might as well give his money to Mitt Romney? It would have the same effect. What’s he gain by throwing $5 million away at Gingrich, which can only damage Romney?

The answer in a word is leverage on Romney. The Republican process is now a war over Romney’s policy positions; and the neoconservative fear is that he will be tugged left by Ron Paul’s movement inside the party. So Adelson is applying a counter-weight by giving money to someone who is to Romney’s right on Israel questions. Anything that brings down Ron Paul’s vote will advance neocon policymaking inside the Republican party.

Notice that Paul is working that leverage. He made nice to Romney lately, defending him yesterday on the Bain Capital criticism, and pretty much promising not to run as a third party candidate. Last night Al Sharpton expressed fear that Ron Paul would get to determine a President Romney Supreme Court pick.

In other words, the game now is how much influence Ron Paul will have.

A second aspect of the leverage game is Adelson being coy with his millions. Romney wants those millions for his campaign against Obama. But by giving a smallish-for-Adelson contribution to Gingrich (he had promised $20 million back in December, Politico tells us), Adelson is holding out. He knows that he who holds out longest has the most leverage. He may play this game with Romney for a while….

Continue Reading »

3 Comments »

If you think you can keep your head from exploding, check out Americaneocon today. He’s blaming Obama for Iraq’s spiral into sectarian chaos. In response to yet another suicide bombing of Shia pilgrims, he snarks: “Hey, great job Barack Hussein. That precipitous withdrawal is working exactly as planned.”

Whoa. He’s got some heavy, jaw-dropping obliviousness going on here. We’re supposed to believe the instability in Iraq isn’t George W. Bush’s fault. It’s not the Neocons’ fault. And Americaneocon and the countless other laptop bombardiers who cheered on the Iraq invasion are equally blameless.

No. Because Obama is sticking to Bush’s timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, it’s Obama’s fault that Iraq is fracturing along sectarian faultlines – something the omniscient Neocons dismissed prior to the invasion.

My head hurts.

3 Comments »

Over at The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord (see Dan Phillips’ post below) is whooping it up because Ron Paul didn’t win the Iowa caucus. In Lord’s view, Iowa Republicans stood up for conservatism – which to him, means perpetual war:

The Ron Paul Non-Cons have tonight been effectively marginalized.

Whatever else comes out of this Iowa Caucus night, one thing is clear: conservatives — Reagan conservatives — triumphed.

The combined vote of Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and even the moderate Mitt Romney swamped Ron Paul’s controversial and decidedly non-conservative foreign policy.

As this is written, either Santorum or Romney are first, the other second. Between them that’s about 50% of the vote to Ron Paul’s 25% or so.

Which clearly means that no matter how Congressman Paul — a good and decent man with a wildly left-wing foreign policy — spins the results, his ideas have taken a thorough beating. His candidacy and his controversial foreign policy views have effectively been sent packing.

As well they should. There is nothing remotely historically conservative about Paul’s views.

Congressman Paul is partly to blame for this perception. He effectively endorsed this view at the Sioux City debate on December 15. The moderator accused Paul of “running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran” because he, unlike Santorum and Bachmann, had ruled out a pre-emptive war. This was Paul’s great chance to make mincemeant of the notion that conservatism equals war, and leftism, peace, but he let it slip away. Continue Reading »

23 Comments »

Yes.

That’s what Jonathan Chait concludes in the latest New York Magazine:

The most fevered opponents of civil rights in the fifties and sixties — and, for that matter, the most fervent defenders of slavery a century before — also usually made their case in in process terms rather than racist ones. They stood for the rights of the individual, or the rights of the states, against the federal Goliath. I am sure Paul’s motives derive from ideological fervor rather than a conscious desire to oppress minorities. But the relationship between the abstract principles of his worldview and the ugly racism with which it has so frequently been expressed is hardly coincidental.

And he’s right.

If you accept the term “racism” as a legitimate term of discourse, then you MUST conclude that libertarianism, or any other ideology or tradition that does not advocate revolution, is “racist.”

The reason is that the term is communist jargon. Leon Trotsky coined the word to disparage those who resisted communism’s assault on tradition. According to Trotsky, those who saw race and heritage as real were the messiahs of “backwardness.” So adopting Marxist jargon requires the adoption of the Marxist theory that underlies it.

Similarly, a Scientologist who convinced you to forget old-fashioned notions of “sin” and “forgiveness” and instead adopt his jargon, in which a newcomer to the cult advances from “Preclear” to “Clear” to “Operating Thetan,” would have made a convert out of you. By using the words that Scientology invented to justify itself, you buy into its worldview.

How, then, do we carry on a debate with these people? Simple: We do not play with the loaded dice they offer. They are the ones advocating government control over every aspect of our lives to ensure “fairness” and “equality.” We remind ourselves of Mel Bradford’s warning that “The only equality which abstract rights, insisted upon outside the context of politics, are likely to provide is the equality of universal slavery,” and then remind our opponents of the historical record of those regimes that attempted to impose abstract equality on its victims, I mean, citizens.

That’s why we have to laugh at Andrew Sullivan, Donald Douglas, and Great Satan’s Girlfriend when they claim equality and world liberation as “conservative” goals. They’re all big-government supremacists, no matter what they call themselves.

Human nature and history stand with us, not them. Let’s not forget that.

13 Comments »

As Iraq slides into chaos and civil war, thanks to the destabilizing Bush invasion, spokesghouls for the war industry are itching for yet another romp through the Middle Eastern minefield. In a letter published in The Weekly Standard (of course!), Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, Douglas J. Feith, Robert Kagan, and, of course, William Kristol, demand Obama use his imperial authority to launch a new war we can’t afford in a region of the world where we shouldn’t be messing.

In other words, the same gaggle of draft dodgers and war speculators that lied us into Iraq want us to mire ourselves in Syria. America needs to lay off that Kristol Meth.

4 Comments »

Yes, it’s possible to feel compassion, even a sneaking admiration, for a man who was once accurately described as “lying, self-serving, fat-assed, chain-smoking, drunken, opportunistic [and] cynical.” Christopher Hitchens was all those things, but also a gifted writer, polemicist, and story teller, and now he is gone, following an excruciating battle with esophageal cancer. You’d have to be pretty hard-hearted not to be touched by what he endured.

But questions remain. What does Hitchens’ legacy tell us about ourselves and our time? That legacy, of course, is that of articulate and militant promotion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look at how that legacy is celebrated by supposedly antagonistic camps in the political blogosphere. Over at The Other McCain, Hitchens is recognized as an “atheist [who] abandoned the Left for conservatism.” Meanwhile, at Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs, Hitchens is mourned with this farewell: “One of the real heroes of rational humanism and critical thinking has left us, and we’ll all be poorer for his leaving. I’ll miss you, Christopher.”

Despite the ferocity of his prose, Hitch has in death transubstantiated into a revered figure of unity. Those who once were far off have been brought near by his life’s work, and especially by his advocacy of war, the great unifier.

Problem is, Hitchens never “abandoned the Left for conservatism”; he remained a self-described Trotskyite. The Neocon Wars he supported were conceived and implemented as grand Trotskyite projects to promote big government and globalism. Yes, he despised Islam, but he despised all religion. Hitchens also had nothing but the leftist’s contempt for traditional culture, especially the South, for daring to defend its beloved symbols.

Now why, in the middle of a euology, would some trouble-maker elbow his way to the podium to demand time for a rebuttal? Because if we continue to spread the misconception that support for war, any war, somehow defines conservatism, we will end up abandoning genuine conservatism and its love of liberty for a bizarre ideology that promotes and glorifies war’s chief sponsor and beneficiary, which is authoritarian government. These days, the policies of open borders, perpetual war, and the scuttling of the Bill of Rights in the name of national security are sold in the name of “conservatism.”

Can we mourn the man while repudiating his projects? We must do both.

13 Comments »

Jeffrey Lord still has his panties in a wad over the Monroe Doctrine, and Jim Antle replied. Roger Kaplan, who posts infrequently, chimed in with an attempt to clarify. While Kaplan makes some important points, I also think he attempts some deliberate misdirection. Read his post for context. Below is my reply.

Mr. Kaplan, there is some truth here, but I am afraid some misdirection also.

First, the First Gulf War may have been an exercise in international border enforcement, but it wasn’t our fight. Nowhere is it written in stone by the Hand of God that the US must lead or participate in such ventures. We went to war because the Bush I Administration, with the slobbering acquiescence of Republicans and Democrats alike, took it upon this country to play global enforcer, something I see nowhere in the job description of the US government called the Constitution. Likewise with “get-the-varmints” warfare. Don’t see that in the job description either.

Second, I agree that people throw around the word neoconservative too casually. Many hyper-interventionists (John Bolton for example) are not neoconservatives proper. They are a type of bellicose, militaristic nationalist, and are less motivated by spreading democracy than they are by stomping out perceived (and always alarmingly exaggerated) threats.

I also agree that there is a difference between the “first generation” of neoconservatives, Irving Kristol for example, and “second generation” neoconservatives, Kristol the Younger for example. The second generation is more fixated on foreign policy as you indicate and more grandiose and less cautious with their rhetoric and plans. But it is clear that the seeds of neoconservative thought that grew into the Jacobin radicalism of “second generation” neoconservatism were there from the beginning.

But while I agree that we need to be more careful with the use of neoconservative, confining the term only to those with a direct lineage to the originals is precision with the intent to mislead. Rumsfeld and Cheney may be more Bolton like, but Wolfowitz not a neoconservative? Come on now.

In most cases the term neoconservative is not meant to indicate only people with a direct lineage, but the ideas they promulgated. Kristol the Elder didn’t write a book called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea for nothing. Unfortunately, neoconservatives ideas suffuse the whole “conservative” interventionist paradigm making it very hard to sort out.

I think most “conservative” interventionists are primarily concerned with what they see as our national interests and suppressing imagined threats, and less concerned with democratization projects, but the tension still exists as was illustrated here in the AmSpec blog regarding Egypt and Libya. But these bellicose nationalists have a very hard time disentangling themselves from neocon ideas and rhetoric especially when pressed on national interest questions. They quickly resort to classic neocon formulations of US as necessary enforcer of world order and bringer of light complete with all or nothing Jacobin–like good guys vs. bad guys scenarios.

There are a few illiberal interventionists who recognize neoconservatism as the post-Enlightenment liberal ideological dogma that it is and still maintain their interventionism (Ron L who comments here at times is one), but they are few and far between. In my experience neoconservative presumptions suffuse the thought processes of the average run-of-the-mill “conservative” interventionist to the point where it is very hard to make distinctions.

For example, Newt Gingrich’s (is he or is he not a neoconservative?) latest book is on the necessity of American Exceptionalism. (It is interesting that he felt the need to write that as his campaign book instead of something on the economy.) Romney (is he or isn’t he a neoconservative?) babbles incessantly about American Exceptionalism and sings pitch perfect from the neocon hymnal. American Exceptionalism, as it is (mis)understood by “conservatives” today, is an entirely neocon infused idea. Both the militant nationalists and the neocons share the presumption that American has a special role to fill in the world and since there are no more naked Imperialists (let’s invade country x so we can pump their oil) this is always prefaced on a notion of America as benign hegemon. It is conceivably possible to be a militant nationalist without having pretensions of being responsible for the whole world. A militant nationalist might conceivably be concerned only about his own “sphere.” So the world hegemon thing is a neocon baby whether you like it or not.

3 Comments »

So says the pro-war Americaneocon. This Bizarro-world definition of conservatism would have us accept that anyone who fails to sacrifice American lives and fortunes for a foreign power isn’t really conservative. And keep in mind that we’re talking about a foreign power that has not hesitated to betray American security to promote its own interests.

After that mind-bending assertion, Americaneocon lobs this quote from Commentary at those who now question DC’s slavish support for the Likud Party:

Far from respecting Israel’s sovereignty, Paul is willing to watch with complacence as its very existence is called into question without the U.S. feeling obligated to lift a finger. His “respect” for Israel is little different from the sentiments voiced by an earlier generation of isolationists — the “America First” group — whose admiration of Nazi Germany and indifference to the fate of the Jews restrained the country’s initial response to both Hitler and the Holocaust.

Where to begin? First, it’s ridiculous to say that those who wanted to keep America out of war in the 30s and 40s did so to promote Nazism. And when the US did go to war, it was because of Pearl Harbor, not because it wanted to stop the Holocaust. In fact, American political and military leaders weren’t even aware of Hitler’s crimes until nearly a year after America went to war.

Americaneocon’s post sounds like a desperate attempt to stem the growing tide rising against DC’s policy of perpetual war. Smearing us as “Nazis” is a tired leftist tactic that only reveals how frightened the war party and its mouthpieces have become.

But then, what else can we expect from Neocons, whose leftist roots are never far from the surface? For a quick introduction to real, that is, historical conservatism as practiced by actual conservatives, as opposed to the alien ideology of big-government Neoconservatism, read this.

2 Comments »

This is news to me. Gottfried is ridiculously prolific. Unfortunately, the book, due out 31 Jan 2012, is not priced for routine retail sale. Here is the book description.

3 Comments »

I despise Newt Gingrich. It’s not just because he’s a serial philanderer, or that his current wife has lunatic eyes and a Star Trek hairdo.

So first Newt has to lure conservative voters, and he attempts to do just that with this retch-inducing ad:

Gee, you’d never suspect that the candidate wooing the white majority with this ad was already working on “immigration reform” [translation: amnesty] that even the immigration lawyers like.

And Newt hasn’t forgotten the Bushian newspeak about perpetual war being a “conservative” value, never mind its proven record of boosting big government, opening the doors to more Third-World immigration, and eroding liberty. Heck, Newt has even found his own Condoleezza Rice.

6 Comments »

We’ve been arguing for some time (see here and here) that there’s no philosophical or practical difference between the “Progressive” and Neocon agendas. Oh, how good it feels to see someone from the left validate that message. Here’s Glenn Greenwald:

As I pointed out just yesterday, many Democrats not only passively acquiesce to Obama’s continuation of core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but enthusiastically cheer it as proof that they, too, can be Tough and Strong (manly virtues demonstrated by how many human beings their leader kills from afar). So here you have Think Progress heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is literally the most radical power a President can seize: the power to target — in total secrecy and with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution: specifically, assassination-by-CIA.

And check out this killer quote from Greenwald’s article, one that every pro-war “conservative” should read and deal with:

It took Ron Paul — whom every Good Progressive will tell you is Completely Crazy and Insane — to point out to the GOP the rather glaring inconsistency between, on the one hand, distrusting government authorities to run health care, but on the other, wanting to empower the President to kill whomever he wants with no transparency or due process.

This is the trap grass-roots, patriotic Southerners have fallen into. They cheer on “the troops,” no matter the mission, and submit to everything DC wants, from the Patriot Act, to illegal searches in airports, yet can’t comprehend why our liberty is slipping away, minute by minute.

3 Comments »

I don’t often post articles from the petulant Leonard Pitts, but his thoughts on how Republicans continue to defend neocon Herman Cain echo mine:

[T]hey scream in pious racial indignation when Cain is asked questions he doesn’t want to answer.

A “high tech lynching,” said blogger Brent Bozell.

“Racially stereotypical,” sniffed Rush Limbaugh.

“I believe the answer is yes,” said Cain himself when asked on Fox if race was the cause of his woes, adding honestly, if hilariously, that he has no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think Cain was some hybrid of Emmett Till and Kunta Kinte. Nobody knows de trouble he’s seen.

Perfect! “Anti-Racism” in the DC Empire is the equivalent of “Socialist Liberation” in the old Soviet Empire, providing idealistic cover for the regime’s oppression at home and intervention abroad. Embracing the approved ideology demonstrates one’s loyalty and nobility. So pervasive is this ideology that Jeffrey Dahmer, who was a homosexual, murderer, necrophiliac, and cannibal, felt obligated to make clear he didn’t murder and eat people because of their race.

The Ultimate Good is easily weaponized for political debate. The Establishment Right accuses those who don’t support their agenda of perpetual war of racism. Any villain who objects to US taxpayers handing over $3 billion a year to wealthy Israel MUST be “anti-Semitic.” And because some Occupy protests have denounced Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, apologists of the Establishment Right gleefully use the same accusation against Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The tragedy of this is that “racism” is a Marxist term, and using it as an accusation legitimizes the evil philosophy that created it.

9 Comments »

Apologists for big government, that’s who.

You expect it from the globalist left, which condemns anyone who questions its totalitarian agenda as “fascist.”

But globalist neocons despise Ron Paul as well. Check out this shrill rant:

Ron Paul is loathsome to me on foreign policy, but even more we learn over and over again that’s he’s anti-Semitic, and even Will Wilkinson attacks him as racist. I just can’t stand people like that. A foreign policy that excoriates U.S. support for Israel turns quickly into a crude copy of neo-communist Jew-bashing eliminationism.

Wait — Ron Paul is “anti-Semitic” just because he opposes sending American taxpayer dollars to a wealthy nation? Dollars, by the way, that we don’t have, and must borrow from the Chinese. Instead of backing up such a lurid and libelous accusation, there’s a link to this unhinged screed from David Horowitz:

For years the Texas crackpot, Ron Paul, has been attacking America and Israel as imperialist powers — the Great Satan and the Little Satan, and calling for America’s retreat from the battle against our totalitarian enemies. At the recent CPAC conference Paul’s Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center’s table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States.

Ah, yes, David Horowitz, that champion of freedom who wanted protesters against the invasion of Iraq rounded up and jailed as traitors.

Horowitz’ statement quoted above just oozes with lies and illogic. For example, Horowitz refers to Ron Paul’s supporters as “Jew-hating storm-troopers.” And how do they supposedly attack Jews? By characterizing the government of Israel’s policies against Palestinians as “Nazi.” Now what kind of Nazi uses the word “Nazi” as an accusation? Wouldn’t real Nazis use the term approvingly?

But that pales in comparison to the other-worldly insanity of the last sentence claiming Israel is America’s “only reliable ally.” What is David Horowitz smoking? Surely he’s aware Israel gave the Soviet Union vital US secrets in exchange for the release of Soviet Jews. What kind of ally is that?

And what kind of “conservative” advocates self-destructive policies that only benefit alien powers?

9 Comments »

I don’t know if Levin’s intemperate rants are part of his shtick or if he really is that unhinged. What is remarkable is the level of anger. He is clearly incensed that any non-interventionist interloper would dare try to encroach on his interventionist movement.

Lew Rockwell discusses the latest rant here.

Update: Levin’s rant is being discussed here.

This may be the article that prompted the new rant.

5 Comments »

Charles Krauthammer’s latest column on MLK is an embarrassing, gushy love letter to the Empire’s official mascot.

Krauthammer swoons that Martin Luther King, Jr., is part of the “greatest cohort of political thinkers ever.” And it gets worse. In Krauthammer’s fevered imagination, MLK is “miraculous,” a “prophet” who possesses a “supremely nuanced, creative, humane soul.”

Really, Charles? A man who hired prostitutes, plagiarized, and consorted with known communists?

Sadly, yes. Krauthammer means it. But let’s not forget his motives, which are to pretty up the Empire’s bloody crusades. He was one of the most vocal supporters of Bush’s illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq. Krauthammer’s latest project is to rally Americans to invade and overthrow Iran, another country that has not threatened us.

You see, to Charles Krauthammer, as well as to lesser-known pro-war, any-war cheerleaders, it’s not militarism, but a “freedom agenda,” taking King’s “civil rights” crusade on the road, so to speak. What cynics (like me!) dismiss and despise as an out-of-control military-industrial complex is portrayed by the Empire’s apologists as a force for global liberation.

King is the face of a dying empire that thinks it can still create a world government under its domination. No wonder the King monument is festooned with quotes from the Great Man himself urging Americans to “develop a world perspective” and “develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole.”

My problem with King and with militarism is that both aim to boost big government at the expense of our liberty. So no wonder the two are in cahoots together.

14 Comments »

Mike Church responded to Levin on Facebook.

Mark Levin responds here.

Then Church responds here.

Mark Levin’s response is further evidence of what a nasty piece of work he is. It lacks nearly any real substance. It is mostly gotcha, guilt by association grandstanding PC rightthink enforcement that would make the Cultural Marxist at the SPLC blush. It is also grandstanding EC (Establishment correct) and CWC (conventional wisdom correct) rightthink enforcement.

I simply can not understand what motivates any red-blooded male to play this role. It’s just icky. You might as well tattoo “No unapproved thought” on your forehead. (I actually can understand what motivates it. What I can’t understand is how any self-respecting man can diminish himself by agreeing to the role.)

4 Comments »