The Descent of the Left
November 24th, 2010 - 2:11 pm
Treacher found the Quote of the Day, from The Nation‘s Mark Ames:
Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
It’s almost enough to make you long for the Journ-O!-List, where you might at least find Spencer Ackerman longing to throw you through a plate-glass window. But spitting? Lame.
Absolutely revolting. An ignorant. Who raises children to turn into adults like that?
Since when does anyone at The Nation complain about Communists?
Good point.
Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
Seeing this printed in the Nation as criticism is like reading Hugh Hefner complaining that a girl has large, perky bosoms.
Seeing this printed as a criticism of libertarians is like reading a complaint that Clint Eastwood has large, perky bosoms.
“Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream,…”
Stunning admission. Will Mark Ames name names and specific subversive events?
Has the Nation or Nation writers ever before admitted that communists were nasty, evil people who were subverting the state. Didn’t they used to side WITH the communists?
Denial of Communist intent was a common Comintern tactic.
Stephen, you misunderstand: when Ames talks about spitting, he means to confer a blessing. You see, to those of us who comprise The Great Unwashed, the spittle of the elite left is almost a holy relic, and something for which we should be eternally grateful.
So don’t be offended – when Ames and rest of the creme de la phlegm spit on us it means they have noticed us. Oh, be still my heart!
Spitting by a man with AIDS can be deadly!
Libertarians, “enemies of the state?” He says that like it’s a bad thing.
Maybe he’d get it if he thought of the State with a capital S.
Mark Ames has in his possession the names of 57 Libertarians who are in the State Department at present.
57 Libertarians in the State department. Why do I think that idea is ridiculous.
As usual Leftist crazies projecting their low thoughts onto others. And Gail, the wholly owned subsidiary of the loony left, otherwise known as the public school system raises children to turn into adults such as this. Although calling them adults is a misnomer.
It’s more like turning children into brats.
The Nation’s Mark Ames wants us to spit on the ACLU?
(Also, shades of Ibsen.
I wish some Lefty scum like Ames would spit on me for a libertarian comment. That is assault, and I’d then be able to pound him to a pulp.
At least, no jury where I am would convict me.
Goldstein Lives!
Slavery is freedom. Libertarianism is Communism.
Hmmmm.
If that fruitcake tried spitting on me he’ll need a doctor to get my shoe out of his colon.
Enemy of the State
I’ll take it.
3 things:
1. This reminds me of the old Spider Robinson line in response to the charges by some critics that Heinlein was a libertarian, “Horrors, no! I’m a serf myself.” ^o^
2. It’s interesting that merely upholding the Bill of Rights and thinking that the Libs shouldn’t trample it as often as they do represents a subversion of the Constitution in the eyes of peeps like Mark Ames.
3. While this particular conservative is not and never has been a liberarian, he would like to take this moment to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! ^_~
This would be funny if not for the fact that most people think that Libertarians are synonymous with anarchy, selfishness. When I try to explain that it’s about keeping government limited and allowing people the CHOICE of how much to help their fellow man, it gets scoffed at. I guess most people are by nature socialists.
they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare
Is that what we stand for? I thought we just wanted the gov’t to leave us alone so we could promote our own damn welfare.
they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare
Is that what we stand for? I thought we just wanted the gov’t to leave us alone so we could promote our own durn welfare.
It’s always better the second time.
It’s always better the second time.
And usually cheaper.
(Better an enemy of the state than an enemy of the people!)
See, now if we had a gov’t agency devoted to cleaning up accidental double-postings, the general welfare would have all promoted and stuff and the comments section wouldn’t have been ruined by libertarians.
You coulda said it twice in the same box. You coulda said it twice in the same box. But will M. Simon tell you that? Noooo –he’s a libertarian –
It just goes to show the left are scum:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2010/11/the-left-are-scum/
They are undermining the cultural intangibles that enabled America to become wealthy:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2010/11/destroying-cultural-intangibles/
Obama should be locked up:
http://lovefreedomtruth.com/2010/11/obamas-tsa-war-crimes/
It’s time to treat the left with the contempt they deserve.
Well, at least they are finally admitting that they are the toadies of the almighty state….
I know the comment has been made before but have you seen Little Spencer Ackerman? The dude (if one could use that word) is like 4 feet tall.
The leftist weasels are so tough behind their computer screens. God help the US of A if we ever had to rely of these guys to defend the nation.
I think Mr. Ames misunderstands the libertarian non-aggression principle. That is libertarians don’t condone the initiation of coercion. Most libertarians I’ve ever met would consider spitting sufficiently coercive to justify whatever steps were necessary for self defense.
Bill Dalasio said: “Most libertarians …would consider spitting sufficiently coercive to justify whatever steps were necessary for self defense.”
I would add, “…, which should be of sufficient violence and vigor that the spitter remain firmly persuaded that the mere contemplation of future expectoration would be the act of a madman.”
Time was, the Left was a bunch of youngish, socialist types animated by a sense of justice, even if it was misconceived. Leftists talked of necessary personal sacrifices for the Cause, all the way up to street fighting, violent revolution, and so forth. Today, the Left is a bunch of aging hippie-refugees desperate for their lost sense of significance, and impressionable kids who don’t know how to use a dictionary. The great majority of them are so childish that they can’t abide the idea of losing a popularity contest (cf. Dancing With The Stars).
Is it a worthwhile expenditure of our time to “dialogue” with such people?
Companeros, er I mean “Citizens” – together we can work towards a collective, er strike that – a “team” effort to raise the living standards of all. But only together. Those who would “go their own way” are by definition seeking to harm their fellow man – are you to stand by impotently while others harm their fellow man by impeding our progress towards a bright future? Those who preach “liberty” are in fact anti-liberty themselves – I declare them counter to our revolutionary goals. That is why, to protect your way of life (rights, freedom, etc), we have to suspend those rights when you travel, or talk, or otherwise try to exercise said rights. They are too precious to actually let you use them, you see.. [and don’t even get started with the guns stuff, why mere possession of such impliments implies a hostility to the state – meaning your fellow man – which is a sign of mental illness, and we cannot have those with mental illness possessing arms, correct?!
You see – it is all very scientific – heads, you lose. Tails – the state wins. now place your bets, suckers.
It is good to recall the beginnings of the New Republic. The magazine was started in large part by a man named Herbert Croly, the author of The Promise of American Life, the book that is widely credited with starting the Progressive Movement. Mr. Croly was raised in a household where both his mother and father were crusading reporters, his mother at a time when that was highly unusual for a woman. Both of his parents were part of a philosophical movement that revolved around a Frenchman that started the entire movement of Social Science, coining the word sociology. While relatively obscure today that Frenchman, Auguste Comte, was highly influential in the 19th century. He was heavily influenced in his social thought by Utopian socialist Henri St. Simon, who coined the word socialism. In essence Mr. Comte believed society should be scientifically organized and run by those who were educated and experts. I am summarizing very simply here.
Comte developed an entire philosophy based on his beliefs called Positivism, and it was in this philosophy in which Herbert Croly was entirely raised. Comte also developed a new religion called the Religion of Humanity, with a hierarchy and rituals based on the Catholic church. It may easily be called the first Secular Humanism religion. Herbert Croly was actually baptized into this church, which existed in New York City at the time.
At it’s heart progressivism is the attempt to have a new republic, exactly as the magazine name implies. One in which the old republic designed by the founders is swept away and the new is put in it’s place. As Croly wrote, “the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth.” To rebalance society progressives believed that the Federal Government must restrict certain individual freedoms and thus have always been hostile to those who would deem themselves libertarians, even when the word itself did not exist.
Early American progressives look like fascist lite, do the research and it will stun you what you have not been taught in school. With the downfall of fascism in Europe following WWII, progressives suddenly became liberals and the New Left emerged from the dust in the early 1960s, embracing more the communist side of the left rather than the fascist side, and calling the sins of the early progressives conservative sins. Perhaps because the progressives were the conservative side of the left, but most certainly were not believers of conserving the Old Republic and its outdated constitution.
Progressives, Fascists and Communists all believe in one central tenet, and that is government scientifically organized to bring social justice, each just goes about the same goal with different means. What each is also hostile to is individual liberty as it throws a cog in the Utopian aspirations.
The progressives have over a hundred year head start on the rest of us, we have a long row to hoe in order to catch up.
To the contrary, this is their moment of triumph, and of American’s annihilation. Communism was founded on opposition to the Constitution, but in the 1960s its devotees discovered that if they redefined “general welfare” as Communism, millions of Americans liked the idea and voted for it. And now millions of Americans have voted year after year for Communism and listened to it being taught in schools and colleges. The Democrat Party and Communist Party are almost indistinguishable.
The vast majority of the American people want Maoist Christmas ornaments, taxes and benefits divided by race and sexuality, and a Green economy. America has been redefined. Its old heroes denigrated and replaced with new. Textbooks that offer a page on the Founding Fathers, but chapters on the “heroes” and “heroines” of ecology, feminism and homosexuality are the new America. And this America is not free. It’s vile. It’s here, now, and triumphant.
Pyrrhus was triumphant as well.
Not really – he ended up packing up and going back home, incapable of defeating Rome.
Ironies abound in this quote, but the one I like best is the spectacle of a died in the wool statist calling libertarians statists. I guess its safe to spit on us libertarians because we will never come round up those who oppose us, try to shut down media that criticize us, or confiscate the property of left wing statist. Geez, look in the mirror dude, and try to find some reality.
The Nation magazine, initially a small intellecutal paper until purchased by Henry Villard(owner of the New York Evening Post) in 1881, at which time it became more mainstream. Villard married Fanny Garrison, daughter of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison and sister to Wendell Phillips Garrison, editor to The Nation from 1865(the founding of the paper) to 1906. Fanny Garrison was a suffragist and one of the founders of The Womens Peace Movement. Their son Oswald Garrison Villard, later took over both papers.
Oswald Garrison Villard was a founder of the American Anti-Imperialist League, and an early member of the America First Committee, which was then and now considered a Fascist front by those in Communist circles. That said however, Villard and his mother was one of the founders of the NAACP and was firmly committed to civil rights. A firm pacifist he opposed entry into WWI, and was forced to sell the New York Evening Post when his views led to falling revenue. He maintained The Nation as a place to air his politics.
He initially supported FDR, leaving behind his belief in laissez-faire economics. By the late 1930s however, he no longer supported FDR because of the Presidents foreign policies that Villard believed would take the country to war once more. This led him to embrace what is called the Old Right, the more conservative end of the political spectrum, those who had by and large, not embraced an omnipotent federal government. Thus his embrace of The America First Committee.
It is here, in the late 1930s and through the war years that left and right, liberal, progressive, socialist and communist, all tend to change from one end to the other. The old liberals such as Villard, become right sided reactionaries, Progressives become liberals and take the mantel of the old founders they had wished to kick aside to form a New Republic. Communists call themselves the real Socialists, and socialists become fellow travelers.
The Nation, as well, no longer resembles the paper it once did. And by the 1960s it embraces those called the New Left and completes it’s transformation into a statist mouthpiece, embracing that which it once rejected.
“Those dangerous libertarians — they want to take over the government, and then leave you alone!”
-Glenn Reynolds
Besides the obvious hypocrisy inherent in what she wrote, how can any one with half a brain buy what’s she’s peddling? The very stance that the State is there to manage the welfare of the American people, as in a nanny-state or planned economy/state is anathema to the Constitution. Not to mention the inherent implication that the state creates the social agenda, not the individual. Typical socialist/communist double-speak. No wonder the socialists favor jihad, they practice taqiyya.
I read the link yesterday via Treacher. I do suggest people go to the link Stephen’s provided and go read the whole thing, including the comments. It really is one of the funniest (or saddest) screeds I’ve seen in a long time, and a good reminder of what happens to your brain on Liberalism. I also suggest you pass it around to every wavering independent you can think of, because many still don’t realize that this is the intellectual core of the Left, and it’s had a meltdown.
These people refudiate themselves.
Ol’ Mark has a … colorful past. Polypharmacy WILL rot your brain! I suspect when he tries to read the Constitution, the paisley borders are really distracting….
So The Nation is where Ames ended up.
He and his buddy Matt Taibbi (now at Rolling Stone) were American expatriates in Russia after the collapse of the USSR. They started a somewhat amusing English free paper titled “The eXile” detailing the decadence of Moscow in free fall. They specialized in purple gonzo prose savaging everything and everyone around them.
Now they write that way about the US too. It’s a pose.
Maybe a pose, or maybe just the result of yet another impotent radical hitting middle age, and realizing when all is said and done, he’s accomplished nothing. Sort of a Willie Lomax of the Left.
If he wants to salvage the remainder of his life, he could do worse than to start with Dalrymple’s essay on Resentment: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/71383/sec_id/71383
Perhaps it is a nuanced point but “they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.” isn’t the same thing as “they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a more perfect union.”
Language always gives the utopian game away.
I suppose Mr. Ames thought spitting would be more manly than hitting someone with his purse.
Mark Ames is indeed typical of the “elitist” liberals who really do NOT understand the Constitution nor do they have any common sense. Educational Certification does not make one an educated person. However, it does seem to certify gross stupidity in some.
Wow.
Mr. Ames, and the vast majority of his commenters, are such losers it’s scary. And pretty darn sore about it. While he dismantles Ms Hanks, he completely misses her point.
The left are losers. And will be losers. Perennial losers
As much as they desire what in their view is a utopian society, their view of this utopian society will never be the view of the majority of their fellow citizens.
The solution, spit the face of their opponets is not just silly, but childish. Which is the view of their antics in the vast majority of this nation.
Democracy really sucks in their view, I suppose. In the democracy of the United States, the disillusionment of the leftists Mr. Ames represents will be perpetual.
The misery of this fact must weigh heavily on him, and his fellows. I don’t wish misery on anyone, and the public showing of their misery doesn’t fill me with glee.
Sucks to be them, and always will.
Who cares what Ames says? As others have pointed out, he’s a washed-up Hunter Thompson wannabe trying to resurrect his career, while raging against the unfairness of the world that gives his hated ex-partner Taibbi a prestigious post at Rolling Stone while Ames sits in a Brooklyn rathole giving where-are-they-now? interviews to reporters who once heard of something called The eXile.
What’s much more disturbing is that The Nation gave him a job. Have _they_ read his portfolio?
Actually it’s worth reading Ames’s Rally to Restore Vanity piece, and likewise the E.A. Hanks article, Dear The Left: A Breakup Letter, which Ames excoriates along with the Stewart/Colbert rally, his main target.
The articles are both surprisingly heartfelt and accurate in their criticisms of the today’s American Left. Which is not to say that Ames and Hanks aren’t bent by the usual liberal bugaboos, but they both know that something has gone terribly wrong with the Left since Obama was elected. However, they don’t know what to do other than howl into the media about it.
In two short years the Obama presidency has already failed when measured by the expectations Obama and his followers set for themselves. Possibly Obama can salvage something in the next two years, but it won’t be what “We are the Ones we have been waiting for” were waiting for. They could scarcely have been dealt a stronger electoral hand against a greatly weakened Republican opponent.
Yet it’s come to failure already. While the Left’s hatred of Republicans, George Bush and Fox News continues unabated, even the Left can’t blame everything on the Right, and now they are blaming each other.
I found comments #29 and #32 very informative. Thanks for those.
They like us!! They really like us!!!
Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that those of the left would not even notice that there was such a thing as a ‘libertarian’- that we are considered worth attacking- er, smearing- is a good thing!