Howe pointed to the new “kamikaze radicalism, …white Malcolmism,” that he saw emerging. This New Left, he noted, castigated everything American, and thought that any talk “about Communist totalitarianism were simply…a bogey to frighten infants.”
And watching this play out in today’s political landscape, has a much more nefarious blend of ingredients. The infiltration into the “traditional liberal” landscape by the weeds of Ayers & his even more malignant wife…infuses not just a “respectability” element to their fraud, but an inherent shield by the useful idiots who parrot the reflexive “McCarthyite” slurs against anyone who points out the truth.
It is remarkable in its similarity to the overuse of the “race” card, even in the most ridiculous of equations…because it stops the legitimacy of the observation dead in its tracks.
In each instance, the whistleblower who is armed with truth…is put on trial, summarily adjudicated and then hanged not by disproving the truth of the allegation, but by merely making the allegation.
And if you believe our education system has been infiltrated and that is a horrifying prospect, then our information stream and its complicity in advancing this treason must render mulitple nightmares.
This group according to Howe, was neo-Stalinist, authoritarian at its core, espoused black nationalism and racism, favored guerrilla warfare, and rejected the intellectual heritage of the West and a commitment to democracy. They had a “vicarious indulgence in violence,” Howe wrote, and even when merely theoretical, was still “all the more irresponsible
Now, back to the seminal point at hand. “This group” is now an amalgam of individual cells, acting independently, autonomously and yet in concert to undermine and dominate traditional liberal ideals. They do not seek to “engage” in dialogue, they seek to destroy and strangle dissent. They do not seek to bring peace, but to incite violence. They do not seek to speak with enemies such as Chavez and Castro without preconditions, they seek to embrace enemies without preconditions.
America and Israel are the targets and it is important to embrace the revolution at hand, but not to wave a red flag in front of the bull, until the picadors have raised their lances at the ready.
I believe that traditional liberals are to willing to avert their gaze at the team assembled, not in a fleeting moment, but over a lifetime by Senator Obama. I believe traditional liberals are too willing to remain in ignorant bliss, with preference for the cool waters of soothing words instead of the scalding rhetoric that inspired them.
Neo-Stalinism combined with black nationalism…doesn’t that pretty much define James M. Cone’s liberation theopolitics? In point of fact, doesn’t that pretty much define Jeremiah Wright, Moss, Pfleger…and also help to understand THEIR fealty to Farrakhan?
Doesn’t that describe Frank Marshall Davis? Wouldn’t we be wise to put Michael Klonsky and Carl Davidson into this bag of horrors? Where Neo-Stalinism (or in Klonsky’s case…Maoism) meets black nationalism and blends into a cocktail designed to produce class and racial warfare, first to dominate traditional liberalism then to create the revolution.
The first part is nearly complete. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton…along with Bill Clinton…have been eaten alive. The “first black President” of yesterday, is painted as a racist today. The soft hearted and gentle Vice Presidential candidate Lieberman of yesterday…is a vicious, blood thirsty monster today. The soft “social democracy” of Hillary yesterday…is corporate pandering and war machine infused today.
And the information stream did not stand idly by as witnesses, they were co-conspirators in delivering the steaming pile of lies.
Yet, still…Senator Obama is held aloft, …there is no “evidence” that he orchestrated or even participated …certainly none that he embraced this bubbling cauldron of leftist agitprop. That is, if you ignore the influence of “Frank”, ignore Ayers and his wife of no soul, ignore 20 years with Wright and Cone’s hatefest, ignore Pfleger, ignore Klonsky, ignore Odinga, ignore Rashid Khalidi, ignore Khalid al Mansour, ignore his father’s writings, ignore Edward Said, ignore Sam Graham-Felsen, ignore “discomfort” with the “wrong kind of patriotism”, ignore the “spread the wealth”, ignore Robert Malley, ignore Samantha Power, ignore Brzezinsky, ignore McPeak, ignore the radical professors at college, ignore …essentially the whole of his life and the whole of his foreign policy team. And Lugar and Jones do not give me greater comfort as a staunch supporter of Israel, they give me less. If he had added James Baker or Pat Buchanan, I would have felt precisely the same.
These associations don’t provide “guilt” by and through them alone, but they do provide a worldview with which he appears to be quite comfortable. I am not.
He admits to being “inspired and guided” by some names on this list. I am not.
What is probably most telling, most revealing…is the manner in which he responds to the particulars of these associations. He spends a minute condemning the pre-meditated attempted murder of innocent men in uniform at Ft. Dix…and several weeks whitewashing the past of the would be murderer.
He divorces himself from the ACTS (when he was a child, or that he didn’t know about, or that he didn’t approve)…but he has never even requested a trial separation, or even separate beds…from the belief system that produced them. Not once. Ever. In his entire life.
