Posted under Uncategorized
… is what Neocons mean by “freedom.” What else to conclude from the latest online creepiness from Americaneocon:
List of French Citizens Who Collaborated With the Nazis During WWII to Be Published Online
At London’s Telegraph, via Theo Spark.
One day, we’ll also see a list of Americans who collaborated with global jihad in the post-9/11 era.
This is nothing new from the chickenhawks. Tough guy Michael Reagan once giggled about the prospect of executing anti-war activist Mark Dice:
“You call them traitors–that’s what they are–and you shoot ‘em dead. I’ll pay for the bullet. How about you take Mark Dice out, and put him in the middle of the firing range? Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, and let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”
And who can forget David Horowitz’ blanket condemnation of all who failed to support the Neocon Wars?
“Protesters against America’s war on terror are not peaceniks, they are America-haters and saboteurs, and they should be treated as such.”
If you’re puzzled that so-called “conservatives” could sound so anti-American and totalitarian, just remember the Trotskyite foundations of Neoconservatism.
RedPhillips on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:01 pm #
The war fever and intolerance of dissent that arose on the “right” after 9/11 and early in the war was horrendous. It has eased up some as things haven’t gone as planned, but the behavior of some at the time is still inexcusable.
RedPhillips on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:10 pm #
And don’t forget little Ben Shapiro who wanted us all prosecuted for sedition.
http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2006/02/15/should_we_prosecute_sedition
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 Jun 2010 at 8:26 pm #
Red Phillips,
Yes, we’ve veered toward the tyranny of Lincoln and Wilson, who REALLY hammered war protestors!
Fortunately, the Neocon Wars have lost their early gleam, and the regime knows it can’t prosecute dissent.
Weaver on 01 Jul 2010 at 6:24 am #
Yea, these people aren’t conservative – they just manipulate conservatives (useful target audience…)
It’s ironic how they give camp fire horrors of Hitler’s ability to manipulate the masses when the same techniques are clearly being used in the above by the neocons. All sides used propaganda during WWII of course, but it’s immoral regardless.
I guess the neocon would reply that power decides morality (moral relativism)…
Captainchaos on 01 Jul 2010 at 8:20 am #
From Rudolf Hess’ final statement before judgement was pronounced against him at Nuremberg (he faced death):
“I had the privilege of working for many years of my life under the greatest son my nation has brought forth in its thousand-year history. Even if I could, I would not wish to expunge this time from my life.
I am happy to know that I have done my duty toward my people, my duty as a German, as a National Socialist, as a loyal follower of my Führer. I regret nothing!
No matter what people may do, one day I shall stand before the judgment seat of God Eternal. I will answer to Him, and I know that He will absolve me.”
Hess on his motivation for becoming a National Socialist (from a private letter):
“I have witnessed the horror of death in all its forms, been hammered for days under heavy bombardment, slept in a dugout in which lay half of a Frenchman’s dead body. I have hungered and suffered, as indeed have all frontline soldiers. And is all this to be in vain, the suffering of the good people at home all for nothing? I have learned from you what you women have had to live through! No, if all this has been in vain, I would still today regret that I did not put a bullet through my brain on the day the monstrous armistice conditions and their acceptance were published [referring to the Versailles treaty]. I did not do it at the time solely in the hope that in one way or another I might still be able to do something to reverse fate.”
What kind of Leader, we must ask ourselves, could merit such a man as Hess swearing an oath of loyalty to which he would honor all the days of his life?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 01 Jul 2010 at 1:59 pm #
Weaver,
Yes, these people clearly worship power, especially state power. That is their religion and standard of morality. Anything the US or Israel does is right.
RonL on 01 Jul 2010 at 6:28 pm #
Are you saying that Americans who shill for the Jihadists the same as French Collaborators? It seems unfair to the French, who at least were occupied.
Are you calling those who call for neutrality or non-intervention the same? Becuase that’s not fair to the Americans involved.
But aside from playing the grievence card and victimhood card as you sell out the West, what would you call those who defend Jihadists?
I don’t like neocons here because they keep importing Muslims. It’s just funny that you call the Trotskyites, while refusing to condemn those supporting Islamic Revolutions. Is your loyalty to America and/or the West, or is your guiding principle hatred of neoconservatives?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 01 Jul 2010 at 7:11 pm #
RonL said, “Are you saying that Americans who shill for the Jihadists [are] the same as French Collaborators?”
No, Americaneocon said that.
RonL – “But aside from playing the grievence card and victimhood card as you sell out the West, what would you call those who defend Jihadists?”
How am I selling out the West? And those who DEFEND jihadists are pro-jihadist. Americaneocon was implying that anyone who opposed the Neocon Wars of Global Liberation were on the jihadists’ side — which is pure nonsense.
RonL – “It’s just funny that you call the Trotskyites, while refusing to condemn those supporting Islamic Revolutions.”
I don’t support EITHER of those radical groups.
RonL – “Is your loyalty to America and/or the West, or is your guiding principle hatred of neoconservatives?”
Since my loyalty is to my people and traditional culture, I oppose the Neocons’ globalist revolution.
RonL on 02 Jul 2010 at 2:38 am #
“No, Americaneocon said that.”
fair enough. However, I do remember that a bunch of non-neoconservatives wrote the following in Article 3, Section of the US Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
It would seem to me that collaboration is a form of treason.
“Since my loyalty is to my people and traditional culture, I oppose the Neocons’ globalist revolution.”
I presume that you would oppose attempts to create a global Islamic Caliphate.
“If you’re puzzled that so-called “conservatives” could sound so anti-American and totalitarian, just remember the Trotskyite foundations of Neoconservatism.”
You do realize, that many of the anti-war groups are anything but patriotic Americans? I’m not saying that you fall into this group, just that groups like Code Pink and ANSWER are our enemies too. Cindy Sheehan seems to have broken from her, ahem, friend, Lew Rockwell. She is now an open socialist.
And Speaking of Rockwell he shows himself utterly ignorant of history in his defense of the last Caliphate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/32475.html
In so far as the Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikwan) from which Al Qaeda (actually Al Qaeda’s parent orgs MAK and Egyptian Islamic Jihad) sprang, was founded to undo the Kemalist overthrough the Ottoman Caliphate, Rockwell supports at least one of Al Qaeda’s goals.
Would that count as adherence to our enemies, aid and comfort, or being a useful idiot out of idealism unrestrained by fact? I, personally, think the last.
Barry on 04 Jul 2010 at 6:18 am #
I find it odd that so many of the “war-protesters” on the left became silent upon Bush’s departure leaving only principled conservatives and libertarians to voice any opposition. The liberals protested only insofar as it provided political advantage.