David Horowitz and a Guided Tour of the “Ron Paul Revolutionary” Mind


On Thursday, February 11, Glenn Beck exposed Texas Gubernatorial Candidate, Debra Medina, as a 9-11 Truther.

Glenn Beck:

“Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?”

Debra Medina:

“I don’t, I don’t have all the evidence there, Glenn. So I don’t I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I’ve not taken a position on that.”

Hearing that the mental jury of the would-be Governor of Texas was still out, Beck sent Medina packing. Her supporters massed in cyber-mobdom to howl, “Single- issue foul! Neo-con Set-up!” to no avail. Post-interview polls indicate that Texans grasp that Medina’s entertaining 9-11 Myths indicates a lack of reason- a faculty required to govern the second largest state in the Union.

Medina’s political activities include working with Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential Campaign. Her political convictions earned her an interview by high-priest of paranoid Libertarianism, Alex Jones. Medina’s response to Beck and her post-interview retraction were a duplicitous attempt to simultaneously please the Tea Party and the Tea Pauly.

Clashes between Ron Paul Revolutionaries and “we mindless pawns of our NWO masters” have echoed in the virtual halls of NewsReal. Few subjects provoke comparable passion and acrimony. Why? The answer is illustrated by Medina’s dissimulation about her true ideological orientation, the ice berg of which her “Truther Faith” is but the tip. Beneath its exhortation to “return to the Constitutional Republic the Founders intended,” the Ron Paul Revolution is animated by the ideological reflexes that drive Leftist radicals. We push-back against the creed of the Paulists because its consequences hardly differ from those of the Leftist agenda we normally confront.

I assert such a similarity after Providentially finding a profound analysis, a veritable blueprint of the Paulist mind, provided by David Horowitz in Why the Left (and Timothy Burke) Can’t Handle the Truth. Mr. Horowitz designates the two fundamental dispositions of the Leftist mentality – utopianism and a nihilistic ambition to destroy the Capitalist West.

Horowitz explains:

“The left’s “original sin” is utopianism… It is the left’s utopianism that has produced its “anti-Western predispositions”… the belief in an alternate world to replace the one into which he has been born.

Those identifying themselves as Constitutional Republicans, as did Medina, dream of a profoundly transformed America. In this “Constitutional Utopia,” free from the “military-industrial complex,” America would no longer be controlled by greedy corporations and global bankers who plunder the world. Freedom fighters everywhere “would no longer be terrorists since America wouldn’t be an occupier.” We would withdraw to pristine isolationism, a Daniel Boone wilderness with virtually no government involvement in our lives. Of course, initial massive government regulation would be needed to bring about the country’s liberation from the Big Corporations now enslaving us. Once the people are free from the Military-Industrial neo-cons, power would be returned to the small businesses and individuals.

Nihilism is the second element of the Leftist mind-set, it is the bitter hatred for any manifestation of American world intervention. Withdrawal of American military influence is a common theme for the Drs. Paul and sympathizers.

Horowitz points out:

“Today the Left is still divided over its plans for the future, but these plans pale into insignificance in the face of its real passion which is its nihilistic antagonism towards the United States the metropolis at the center of the global capitalist system, and Israel, its imperialist pawn in the Muslim world. The left’s overweening hatred of global capitalism – “globalization” – which is its energizing force, explains how it can make alliances with Islamic fundamentalists who share the same enemy.”

“In the section of Unholy Alliance called The Mind of the Left, I show how this psychological trope distorts and energizes the vision of leftists across the political spectrum…I explain how the left’s religious need for a social redemption overcomes such differences and forges the coalition which includes…Islamofascists as well. This coalition is most obvious and visible in the global crusade of Islamist fundamentalists and secular leftists to produce a second Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle East.”

Mr. Horowitz set out to explain why disparate Leftists put aside conflicting political agendas to unite against the War in Iraq. He could easily extend the boundaries to include those following the Ron Paul Revolution. Dr. Rand Paul spoke of forming a coalition with the Left to “defeat the Military-Industrial Complex,” a move that would eliminate America’s presence in the Middle-East, contributing as effectively as the Left to the Holocaust of which Mr. Horowitz wrote.

  • http://more-iq.blogspot.com Karen
  • cochavi1

    It is not really necessary to hate someone for having idealist yearnings. I don't know Ms Medina, but I find Ron Paul interesting in some ways. As an Israeli citizen, I would actually prefer less, not more, US intervention in the region. I believe it's something of a myth that the US supports Israel whole-heartedly, as I have written in the past. The US is first tied to the oil, then to the idea of supporting Israel because of common values. If Ron Paul does not recognize the value of support for Israel, it's a blind spot. Yet I don't see a difference overall between his neutrality and the 'support all sides' approach of nearly every US president.

    His problem is realism. It's not about 9-11. It is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about 9-11. The news reporting was selective, and the 9-11 Commission – it's members comments speak for themselves. And Bush and Cheney withheld most information from it.

    The problem with many of the Truthers is that they are hate-mongers. They have convicted America and its allies of inherent evil a long time ago. They have nothing to say about Russia, China etc., and almost nothing about a horrible regime like Iran. They will never criticize South Africa under black rule, and are silent about the devastation that a black Marxist brought Zimbabwe.

    I think there are two kinds of 'truthers' – those that seek the truth and those that exploit 9-11 for propaganda. So for instance all the people who believe in 'No Planes' are deranged or have some other agenda. Yet to ask questions such as 'Why did Building 7 fall' and 'why did it fall suspiciously quickly' is not evidence of insanity. If so, then one would also want to know why the media simply ignored the story of Building 7. It was not hit by planes, but apparently by massive debris from one of the Towers. Still, why would its fires be so bad as to make it fall as it did? That is not clear.

    Something did hit the Pentagon, and it was an airplane. Again, those who say it was done by explosives and the accounts of seeing a plane are false are stretching belief. Of course it is fair to ask how Hanjour, who may or may not have been a decent pilot, managed to loop around and then dive and control the massive plane at high speed. You would have to be a good pilot to do that, so to ask if he was capable is certainly fair.

    I have also seen web sites doubting the authenticity of the Naudet Brothers and their friend Hanlon, who was an actor, and knew them previously, then became a fireman and invited them to make a documentary just before 9-11. The Naudets have more or less disappeared from sight. To ask how Jules Naudet was in position to take all these pictures, including the first impact, and survive, is not insane.

    The real problem is that the Truthers are invaded and infested with liars and hate-mongers. But some of the anti-truthers are not really interested in truth either.

    As far as the banks and corporations, etc., do they not deserve some criticism? I think they do.