The Left Side of History

obama-benghazi“As frustrating as may be sometimes,” Obama told ObamaCare navigators and volunteers. “We’re on the right side of history.”

It wasn’t the first time that Obama had invoked the right side of history to rally the troops. During the Arab Spring, as Mubarak resigned on his orders, he said, “History will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history.”

It’s hard to be on the right side of history at every juncture. But Obama believed that he had achieved the feat by backing Mubarak, then backing his overthrow and then backing the Muslim Brotherhood.

Two years later, history recorded that Obama was on the wrong side of history with the fiction of the Arab Spring being swept away by the impersonal forces of history which despite  liberal claims to the contrary do not care who was claiming to be on their good side last week.

After lying to Americans and telling them that his intervention in Libya was about protecting Benghazi from a massacre that was never going to happen, he told the Democratic National Committee; “We’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East, because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and we believe in human rights for all people.”

The Libyan rebels began targeting Africans and Christians, then they attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and today the country is run by warring militias; including Al Qaeda groups which recruit fighters and obtain weapons for their campaigns in Mali and Syria.

In the summer of this year, Obama told Democratic members of Congress who were concerned that the ObamaCare rollout was going to be a mess, that there was no reason to worry. “We are on the right side of these issues and the right side of history in terms of providing health care to Americans.”

Now the right side of history is starting to look like the left side of history.

At least one of the Democrats, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, decided that she had been on the wrong side of history and voted for the “You Can Keep Your Plan” Act.

The right side of history is where the left wants to be, but it’s a famously elusive place.

Hillary Clinton warned Russia and China that they had to stand on the right side of history against Assad. Since then Obama has moved closer to the Russian side of history than the Russians have to his side.

Afterward, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wrote an editorial titled “On the Right Side of History”; sardonically mentioning that his regime’s solution was the way to stay “as it has become fashionable to say, ‘on the right side of history.’”

After her resignation, Hillary Clinton took credit for the Arab Spring telling The Economist, “I do think we are on the right side of history” and insisted that “focusing on how to assist these new governments… that are heavily dominated by Islamist parties, is very much in America’s interests.”

Fast forward through a little history and the Tunisian Islamists she was discussing are on the ropes and on the wrong side of history.

In 2008, Bill Clinton told the Democratic National Convention, “The Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander in chief. Sound familiar? It didn’t work in 1992 because we were on the right side of history. And it will not work in 2008 because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.”

Clinton was inexperienced. His failure to cope with Al Qaeda led to September 11 and his failure to force Saddam Hussein to comply with his agreements led to the Iraq War. Clinton left behind a mess for Bush to clean up. If he was on the right side of history, the world he left behind would have been a lot neater.

Now his wife is preparing to launch a presidential campaign by arguing that her husband was a liar, that Obama was inexperienced and that she can do better.

During the presidential debate, Mitt Romney challenged Obama, warning that “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran.”

Obama arrogantly retorted, “They can look at my track record, whether it’s Iran sanctions, whether it’s dealing with counterterrorism… and they can say that the president of the United States… has stood on the right side of history.”

On this side of history, Obama ‘s track record is that he trashed Iranian sanctions and attempted to give their nuclear program a blank check. Al Qaeda is romping around the world while he scrambles to appease the Taliban. If that’s his idea of the right side of history, then it also happens to be the side of history favored by Iran and Al Qaeda.

Obama wasn’t the first man of the left to believe that he was on the right side of history.

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev had told Western diplomats, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!”

Eight years later, he had been removed from power and was being written out of Soviet history by his own comrades. His only recourse was to smuggle his memoirs to the only place that would print his version of history… the United States.

Khrushchev had told Nixon that his grandchildren would live in a Communist America. Nixon had replied that the Soviet leader’s grandchildren would live in a capitalist Russia. Both men proved to be right and wrong at the same time. Christopher Cox Nixon lives in Bill de Blasio’s New York while Khrushchev’s son applied for permanent residency in the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union.

History is famously elastic and only progressives believe that it has a right side and a wrong side. There is no such thing as the right side of history; just as there is no such a thing as the right side of age. History, like age, is mortality. The only truly inevitable outcome of history is death.

History does not have sides; only outcomes.

Everything wrong with Obama’s attitude can be gleaned from his quote. “If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress.”

It’s the sort of quote that sounds inspirational if you don’t think too much about the implications of a world leader who already claims to know what the right path is and believes in determinedly moving down it, without regard to consequences, because he is certain that if he persists, progress will come.

Obama believes that the left side of history is the right side of history and has a radical faith that whatever goes wrong will eventually be set right again by the inevitable progressive force of history.

He believes that ObamaCare will work because socialized medicine is on the right side of history and the free market is on the wrong side of history. It is this faith in a radical muse of history that will fix websites, soothe terrorists and calm the angry peasants that moves him from one disaster to another.


Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Daniel Greenfield about Obama’s Destructive Agenda, his Muslim Brotherhood Romance, the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin saga, and much, much more:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Ron Lewenberg

    I believe in standing athwart history and yelling stop.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    If history is moving towards Armageddon, then, yes, Obama has been on the “right side” of history at every juncture.
    Honestly, though, the man sounds like a second-rate Bond villain. His megalomaniacal hubris is getting very close to meeting its Nemesis.

    • ltcdmward

      Come to think of it, he does remind me of a Bond villain: Hugo Drax in the movie ‘Moonraker’ (one of the few villains not doing their mayhem for money). Corporatist Drax hates the world as it is and is willing to totally wipe out humanity sans those he personally selects to rule his new Earth according to his vision of Utopia. Other human beings are merely collateral damage.

      • tickletik

        Yes, but Drax was also competent enough to privately fund and build both an advanced space shuttle program, AND a full functioning space station with a laser cannon! He also did this in around ten years in secret.

        Bottom line: someone with that level of focus, discipline, creativity and organizational genius could only live in the private sector and would likely want to kill everyone else out of sheer frustration.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Naresh,OKC and you are complete nerds. Next, you’ll all start speaking Klingonese or play Dungeons and Dragons.

  • truebearing

    Progress, as a word, requires a qualifier to have meaning. Things can progress from bad to worse just as easily as they can from tolerable to good. The Left, Obama included, rigidly adheres to the idiotic notion that “progress” is a moral category… as long as the progress is in the context of their ideological hallucination.

    This tortured thinking is the result of collective self-delusion and their incessant warping of definitions for the purposes of indoctrination. They fail to realize that with every perversion of meaning, they distance themselves further and further from unyielding reality. It is ideological solipsism. They believe their linear goose stepping can somehow always stay on the “right side” of a human history that has so many twists and turns it makes a mobius strip look like a highway in Nebraska.

    Is it any wonder the Left always fails at governing?

    • ltcdmward

      Now, with a few trillion here and a few trillion there as their buffer. No wonder they hate passing budgets so they can further cover up their incompetence and, yes, corruption.

    • Drakken

      God save us from the leftist/progressives and their good intentions!

      • truebearing

        No doubt that is what it will take to save us from the deluded messianic fools.

  • The March Hare

    When the left refers to “the right side of history” it is like saying “it all depends on what the meaning of is is”. They always depend on verbal slight of hand maneuvers to manipulate the populace into backing their devious plans to gain more and more control without caring what the near term outcome is, as long as their in control.

  • Jason

    Great Article, I loved it.

    Expect more lies from Obama and co, historical revisionism about how he will always remain on the right side of history. He’s tried to get away with so many lies that I’d be surprised if Obama and his ilk didn’t lie their way out of a horrible presidential legacy. Unfortunately for Obama, it wont work. People are savvy now to his constant skulduggery.

    • tagalog

      But you see their lies aren’t really lies; if they’re on the right side of history, what appear to be lies are really deeper truths.

      • ca1

        …. and they actually believe this and are dumbfounded when reality challenges this philosophy…..

  • David Ashley

    “We’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East, because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and we believe in human rights for all people.” – Pres. Obama (from the article)

    Uh, yeah. What about them innocents in Iran protesting since 2009 with extreme self-sacrifice (remember Neda) against a theocratic Islamic dictatorship?

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    So Obama believes his own rhetoric…just proves that underneath the sweet talk…lies a borderline sociopath.

    • ebonystone

      I think he’s already crossed the border.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Way over.

  • JVictor

    A friend of my once told me that things start going downhill for someone when he starts believing his own b.s. Tragically, this country has been forced to endure someone who is enthralled with his own b.s.–and we are all suffering from Obama’s fascination with his own rhetoric. Or, more graphically, his endearment to his own excrement.

  • cacslewisfan

    “We are on the right side of history.” What the heck does that even mean? I think they actually mean “I am able to predict the future, and this is the right move. Look, I just did a science! (Thanks for the Hulk meme)” I can’t believe how many times the “history” phrase has been used, and how many times they have been dead wrong. Worst fortune tellers ever.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It means that in the religion of progress, this is the next step so it must be right and they think that their religion is science, when their religion actually killed science and mounted its corpse in its foyer

      • monostor

        Mr Greenfield, do you agree that O’care has not much to do with health but more with the “transformation” promised in 2008? I see it as a blueprint for the “process” that only started to unfold.

        • Headed4TheHills

          Ocrapacare is only a means to and end, that end being the single-payer system, toward which Obama was aiming all along.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Nationalizing everything is the whole point of Socialism. So yes.

          • trickyblain

            You’re talking about Marxian Communism. Socialist states encourage private property ownership (since you were talking about that belief vs. reality thing.)

          • reader

            Which one? How does raising taxes and expanding regulatory bureaucracy encourage private property?

          • monostor

            “Encourage”? No, but they let you have a house or a flat, sorry, apartment, if you already had it at the time of the change. The sword of eminent domain will always hang over you. As for small industrial or agricultural properties, all welcome as long as you pay your dues and implement government regulations. BTW, what other type of communism you know apart from the one that Marx envisaged?

          • truebearing

            Socialism is on the one way path to Communism. And where did you hear that Socialism encourages private ownership?

          • ziggy zoggy


            Bull to the $hit. Go lie someplace else.

          • trickyblain

            Nice alliteration. Seriously. IckyStain is brilliant, if you didn’t miss an “i” and I cared. But I can always count on you for consistent, impotent road rage transposed into internet posts. Your hate is strong, sloth looking man.

            However, a) a lie is not a lie because you say it is — BMW, GlaxoSmithCline, Ferrrari, IKEA…Ever seen anythingn as gorgeous as a Lambo Gallardo produced by a Commmunist country? No private wealth being generated in European nations? B) Ok, i’ll post someplace else. Because you say so. hahahahaha….funny, funny sloth.

          • ziggy zoggy


            You’re right about one thing: I hate you. Sorry I’m so handsome. Can’t help it. 3:)

        • pupsncats

          No law dreamed up by Progressives is meant to do anything but give them power and control over people.

      • Naresh Krishnamoorti

        Isaiah Berlin’s “The Hedgehog and the Fox” tells you all you need to know about this. The fact that Obama has a Hegelian/Marxist concept of history tells you all you need to know about him.

      • tagalog

        Sadly, progressivists give progress a bad name. Even conservatives admit that the human race has made some progress from earlier times. But for progressivists, that progress to be authentic must come from a collective urge, not from individual enterprise.

        • The March Hare

          Their use of the term progressive is in the context of their politics progressively become implemented. What they are meaning is creeping socialism where you won’t notice so much. They just keep getting more and more power and they see it as progress.

      • pupsncats

        Their religion is progress and its definition is a constant, never-ending destruction of what is because nothing that exists now gives them satisfaction because they can’t accept reality.

  • Lanna

    Once again the left forges its own chains of doom. Yes, everything that they have done to hurt mankind and pursue evil is recorded by the Biggest Judge of the Universe. Revelation 20:11-15 “And I saw a great White Throne, and Him that sat on it….And I saw the dead, small and the great Stand Before God….and the dead were judged….Out of the book of life….The book recording all their deeds on Earth! Consider the Great flood, and the fire that reigned down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Those who practice evil are lining up for Judgement!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    “We’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East, because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and we believe in human rights for all people.”

    All Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, even the women and children. There are no innocents in Islamic society. We must know our enemy or we will lose to that enemy, and the way to learn our enemy is to study their history and so-called religious text.

    Clinton was inexperienced. His failure to cope with Al Qaeda led to September 11 and his failure to force Saddam Hussein to comply with his agreements led to the Iraq War. Clinton left behind a mess for Bush to clean up. If he was on the right side of history, the world he left behind would have been a lot neater.

    Nevertheless, Bush wasn’t on the right side of history either as his fantasy-based nation-building missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history.

    To make a long story short, the USA should have eradicated Iran’s nuclear weapons program years ago and as soon as we learned about it to send the larger Islamic world a message. Now successive Dhimmicrat and Republican Presidents alike have all failed to act and the Islamic world has become exponentially far more emboldened as a direct result. Out of all of them, GWB was the worse since the Iranians were massacring our soldiers in Iraq and he still refused to act. Nothing can be anymore disgraceful and incompetent than that!

    • defcon 4

      GWB was the worst? Huh? Have you noticed what the current presidential regime has been doing?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        GWB was the worst? Huh? Have you noticed what the current presidential regime has been doing?

        While Obama if he could would be worse than Bush, so far he hasn’t been given the opportunity yet, but nonetheless Bush is responsible for the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan with absolutely nothing whatsoever to show for it but brave dead American soldiers and trillions of dollars of national debt. Not to mention a big humongous leviathan federal government that he created like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, and when the Iranians were massacring our troops in Iraq, Bush like the coward he is looked the other way.

        I hate to rain on your parade, but it is hard to tell who is more incompetent these days with regard to Islam between the Republicans and the Dhimmicrats, as both of them fully embrace multiculturalism and view the Islamic world as morally equivalent to the Western world. In fact, that’s why what is really jihad (war) is according to both multicultural political parties just terrorism, since terrorism as opposed to war, is a much smaller problem.

        Indeed, if you haven’t figured it out yet, both major political parties in this country are really just two sides of the same leftwing coin, as both of them fully embrace multiculturalism and the power of the state. As a matter of fact, we are like Detroit and the Left has a monopoly on power. Thus, we will soon end up like Detroit, courtesy of Obama, the Dhimmicrats, and the Republicans.

    • ziggy zoggy

      GWB didn’t hand nukes to the mullahs.

      Try to stay relevant.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        GWB didn’t hand nukes to the mullahs.

        Where did I say your idol handed out nukes to the Mullahs? Please give me a break! He is, however, responsible for the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan, besides the creation of a massive leviathan federal government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids. Now in Iraq, when the Iranians were massacring our troops with impunity, Bush didn’t exactly go after the Iranians or their nuke program did he? No, instead like a coward he let the Iranians get away with it with impunity. Now let’s see you defend that incompetent record with a straight face.

  • Keith

    That “history” confirms the platitudes of the Left is nothing but an asinine superstition left over from defunct Marxism. Thanks, Dan, for this witty, insightful piece.

  • tagalog

    Being “on the right side of history” is only a short step away from “Washington never makes mistakes.”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Being on the right side of history means never having to say you’re sorry

      • tagalog

        It also means that when you blow it, you just go back to the drawing board and come up with a new crackpot scheme.

    • ziggy zoggy

      The Marching Morons/Idiocracy took over in the 80s. We weren’t supposed to notice because we were distracted by the yuppie greed-heads. It started in the Universities and spread via the Monostream media.

      America has been fucked.

  • Clare Spark

    The free-will vs. determinism debate has been going on for eons, and is a tough one. We are left with more ambiguity and the role of chance than is comfortable for many of us. See “Is Ahab, Ahab? The Free Will Debate.”

  • mtnhikerdude

    We are burying ourselves in the cemetery of deficit spending. Who votes for 4 more years of Cancerous Government ?

  • Waiting

    There are Proverbs that fit this man and one of them, based on his quoted words in this article, is: “There is a way that seemeth right
    unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
    [Proverbs 16:25] Another one that applies to everything he says and does is: Proverbs 11:2.

  • ratonis

    People who use the phrase “right side of history” demonstrate their presumptuous arrogance, as the whole construct assumes that one knows the future. When the nation is bankrupted by the welfare state policies it has embraced will all those programs be on the “right side” of history?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Fanatics tend not to turn back. If they’re on the right path, then they can’t be wrong.

    • pupsncats

      I believe the goal of Obama and the left is to bankrupt the nation. Obama, through his writings, his statements and his actions prove that he wants America’s superpower status to end, wants a totalitarian welfare state, and wants the rise of Islam to eventual world domination.

  • logdon

    “If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress.”

    And it all depends on the definition of ‘right’.

    There is not a shadow of doubt that all those Thirties German Nazi’s who bowed to every word that Hitler screamed believed it was the ‘right’ path.

    He was the German messiah who had pulled the nation from the humiliation and degradation of Versailles into the bombastic behemoth of National Socialism. What could go wrong?

    By 1945 what could go wrong most certainly had and would a bombed out Berliner cowering amongst the rubble as a merciless Ivan poked his PPsh41 round the corner still have thought the same about their ‘right path’ hero?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Everyone thinks they’re on the right path. That’s the problem when you put belief over reality.

      • Biff Henderson

        The progressive”s utopia is unbridled freedom. They institute draconian measures to achieve anarchy. Madness for madness’ sake.

      • logdon

        As in the ludicrous Hope and Change.

  • herb benty

    The left side of history’s proponents goal is Totalitarianism…that is their “Utopia”.

  • MarilynA

    Obama is a moron. His is a puffed up, socially promoted, self esteem enhanced, affirmative action product of our public education system, who thinks he is the smartest person in the world. It’s too bad that white America, laden down with white guilt, can’t see what the left leaning Communist radicals, most of whom have advanced degrees in Psychology, has foisted off onto us. .

    • MukeNecca

      Obama is certainly not a moron. His objective is to “moronize” America, so she becomes just another idiot in the global socialist village. If intelligence of a person is assessed on the basis of his success in getting what he wants then indeed he is quite intelligent.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Obama is as mediocre as they come. He couldn’t plan a wet fart, much less the destruction of America. He is an Affirmative Action poster boy.

        • MukeNecca

          I’m afraid you are missing my point.

          It doesn’t matter if Obama could, or couldn’t, plan a wet fart. This ability, or lack thereof, doesn’t interfere with his quite palpable achievements in degrading the fighting quality of the American military, damaging in most severe way the American economy, destroying America’s image, encouraging Islamic terrorism, ramming down American throat his Obamacare, dividing America racially as she has never been in the past five decades, promoting idiots and
          traitors to the highest position in government, endorse unprecedented growth of marxism in every level of America – especially academia, muzzling the freedom of expression by setting the governmental institutions against individuals he disapproves of. We could talk of opening America to unrestrained immigration from the third world and especially moslem countries which will forever change the character of America – the consequence of which will affect most tragically your (I am not American) children and grandchildren. And so on, and so on…

          He will leave the office in a couple of years, but the results of the damage he had succeeded to mete out will not disappear with his departure, but continue to damage and poison the life of
          Americans and the West that he hates so much, very long into the future.
          You say he is “affirmative action boy”. Well, he certainly was. But now the “boy” owns, runs and uses the AA withgreat deftness against the white America . . . Not bad for a “moron”.

          • pupsncats

            Stated very well. You only touched on some of the horrors awaiting America after Obama leaves office. With the Senate now changing the rules to confirm Obama’s nominations for court judges to a mere 51, that impact will last for decades with so many more leftwing, social engineering, legislating judges in the system which will have a devastating impact on all aspects of our lives.

  • Daniel Rubio

    As much as I admire Mr. Greenfield’s writing, I must say that this article is pointless. History always has two sides, and both are right. The only difference is who is victorious and who is the loser.

    Take for instance the Alamo battle and the rest of the Texas campaign. From the Mexicans’ perspective, a bunch of ungrateful Anglo settlers who had benevously been allowed by the Mexican government to settle in Texas, allied with the U.S government to force Mexico into a war that eventually led to one of history’s major thieveries: Mexico lost more than half its territory to a greedy, imperialistic neighbor, a fact that is ressented by Mexicans until this day. We all know of course the “other’s” point of view, namely that a bunch of galant heroes fought an unequal battle against the blood-thirsty Mexicans, won the war fair and square, and ended bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to the whole region.

    Whose version you believe depends on who taught you history or what country you were raised in. In the end, the U.S. came out victorious, ended up with a vast territory and Mexico went back to lick its wounds, its territory forever crippled and that’s all that matters.

    0bama and those who brought him to power and kept him there 4 years later are convinced about them all being on “the right side of history” (a most moronic phrase certainly coined by a cretin). In the end what will matter is whether or not the 0bama era brought about the demise of the U.S. or if the American people and its institutions were strong enough to hold their ground and found the antidote to undo 0bama’s 8 years of profound damage.

    • tagalog

      Your history is defective. The first fight between Anglos in Texas and the Mexican state was the Texas Revolution of 1836, in which the United States played no part. The result of the Texas Revolution was the creation of an independent nation, the Texas Republic, which didn’t join the United States until about 12 years or so later. And Hispanics like Juan Seguin played a prominent part in the fighting and in the formation of the government of the Texas Republic.

      What you are talking about is the Mexican War (as it is known in the United States) of 1846-1847, which began over Mexican military intrusion into disputed border lands between the Texas Republic and Mexico, around the Neuces River. That war was highly controversial and quite unpopular with many Americans. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay taxes to support the Mexican War effort, and was imprisoned for his tax rebellion.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s actually a restatement of my point

      • Daniel Rubio

        Again, as I said and has been clearly demonstrated by the above replies, there are two sides of history. Even if tagalog’s arguments are true, they don’t invalidate mine’s, but rather prove my point. The American narrative desperately needs to justify the invasion and conquest of the Mexican territories. “Tagalog’s” attempt is yet another entry of such narrative. Adorning it with historical facts still doesn’t justify it.

        “The so-called contemporary Mexican resentment is a rousted
        dog-in-the-manger kind of pumped-up indignation used to justify Mexican
        support for illegal immigration.” Mexican resentment existed long before there was even an issue of illegal immigration. “Gringos” have always been despised by common folk, it’s not a 1960’s and onwards phenomenon. And like it or not, illegal immigration is more a U.S.-originated problem. If Americans cared so much, they wouldn’t “illegally” employ several millions of their “illegal” neighbors.

        But the case in point is not the Mexican-American war, or Mexican’s immigration for that matter, but the “right-ism” or “wrong-ism” of 0bama’s history. Just as Tagalog’s futile attempts to justify the American rip-off, 0bama-compliant historians will try to justify in the years to come 0bama’s wrong-doings. The issue is whether in the end, 0bama’s stupid policies managed to un-stabilize the U.S. to such an extent that 0bama’s barbarians, dressed in muslim garb, managed to breach the walls of the empire and bring it to its knees, just like the barbarians in Europe did to the Roman Empire.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          That’s a view of history which is not the same thing as a right or wrong side of history.

        • truebearing

          Why are there only two sides to history? Certainly your biased and inaccurate versions don’t represent the only alternative to accurate versions from the Mexican or Texan viewpoints. Facts do matter, however, and regardless of how many perspectives there may be on a given era, the one’s that hue to the truth will be the ones likely to survive scrutiny.

          Mexicans stole much of their land from various indian tribes. Are we going to go back and right all wrongs, from the moral viewpoint of the vanquished? The truth is that those living in Texas after the defeat of Mexico were far better off, which can be easily proven by the phenomenon we call illegal immigration. If mexicans resent gringos so much, why are they flocking here?Apparently, being conquered can have its advantages.

          The Left rewrites history to make it seem harmonious with their idiotic dialectical materialism… and we’ve all seen the “utopian” outcomes of that dialectical process. The Left believes that history is needs to be revised for the simple reason that historical truth is so consistently at odds with Marxian theory and results.

          To say Marxism is always on the right side of history is to say that the square wheel is superior to the round, but unfortunately for the inventor of the square wheel, he didn’t understand the power of the dialectical ruse or we’d all be driving on government mandated square wheels.

          • tagalog

            Of course, Spain stole ALL (if one wants to call it stealing – actually it’s just another example of military conquest) of Mexico from the Indians.

            To this very day, you will run into Mexicans who will tell proudly that they are more Spanish than Indian. Talk about racism.

          • ziggy zoggy

            The only Mexicans more racist than the Spaniards are the Mestizo half-breeds. They treat the Indios worse than dogs. The only people they treat equally badly are the illegal immigrants from Guatemala and other countries due South.

            Mexicans are the scum of the Earth. Anybody who says different has never met One (And yes, I’ve had plenty of beaner buddies. But a fact is a fact.)

        • Drakken

          To the victors go the spoils, as it has always been since man threw a rock. So if you want we can paly cowboys and wetbacks, just ask the Indians how well that worked out for them.

          • Daniel Rubio

            “To the victors go the spoils”. Thank you. That’s precisely the point I’ve been trying to make all night long. History has two sides of the story, both of them on the “right side”, but in the end what matters is who ended up with the upper hand of the deal, not who is on the “right side” of it. I wasn’t trying to start a polemic discussion on the Mexican-American war. In the end, the U.S. obtained California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma and Nevada. That’s what matters. The rest is rhetoric for the apologists. The victors would eventually become the world’s greatest power and the losers became, well, the losers.

            And instances abound throughout history. The darkest time for Jews, even darker than the Holocaust, was the destruction of the Second Temple by Titus and the expulsion of the Jewish nation from Judea. Yet to the Romans, it was a great triumph, a time of victory celebrated to posterity by the Arch of Titus. Rome’s mighty empire endured for another 400 years while Jews were left to wander dispersed throughout the rest of the world. Who stood in “the right side of history”? In the long run, the Romans disappeared eventually, but Jews are still struggling to regain their nation. The 1948 victory of modern Israel over the combined arab armies is refered to as “the naqba”, the “catastrophe” by the muslims, who claim to be on the “right side of history”, backed by none other than Mohammed, the pedophiliac war-mongering murderer. So far the arabs haven’t been able, much to their chagrin, to crush the Jews, and thus rewriting history from the point of view of the victors is still evading them.

          • tagalog

            Texas was not taken from Mexico in the Mexican War; it was taken from Mexico by a rag-tag collection of Anglos and Mexican colonial rebels who were not acting on behalf of the United States. The Texan Revolution was a true grass-roots movement.

          • Nixys

            Thank you. Are you a fellow Texan? So few people seem to understand this. Texas existed as a very sparsely populated land full of hostile warring Indian tribes, that the Spanish and French barely touched for a very, very, very long time. (1500-1800, roughly) When Mexico won independence from Spain, Mexico invented the state of Texas out of what was very underpopulated border territory that Mexico then promptly encouraged Anglo settlers to immigrate to. From 1825-1835, the population of Texas exploded and became mostly white Anglo with a Latino/Mexican/Spanish minority population. Then Mexico’s government was already suffering from infighting, and did a lot of things to p*ss off Texans, so they asked for independence, and when they didn’t get it, they fought a war to get it. Later they joined the Union.

            The land never was really “originally” settled by anyone, until many white Anglos and some Mexicans did in 1830, at the invitation of the Mexican government. It’s very difficult to say it was “theft” of Mexican land whatsoever.

          • tagalog

            I am not a Texan, but am married to a Texan.

            Texas was almost all Comancheria, run by the Comanches, who were so skilled in war that they were able to keep all of Texas north of the hill country for themselves for centuries. The southern desert country of Texas, the Apaches down there, and the Comanches to the north of it kept the Mexicans from coming into Texas in large numbers, and the Comanches kept the Anglos from settling Texas from the east in large numbers until the first third of the 19th Century.

          • Nixys

            Good choice of spouse. :)

          • tagalog

            The only thing is, she keeps singing “Deep In the Heart of Texas,” and it does get a bit tiresome with all that clapping all the time. : )

            We recently took a trip to the Panhandle to see the site of the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, where buffalo hunter Billy Dixon fired the Mile-Long Shot and hit a Comanche warrior. Now THAT place is out there!

          • ziggy zoggy

            Exactly. The Comanches were inhuman scum but they were bad-@ss. The Mexicans lived in knee quivering fear of them, and they didn’t live North of the Rio Grande without buckets for the piss that dripped down their legs.

            The Texans tamed that land. Fuck those p ussy Mexicans.

          • tagalog

            Mexico didn’t win independence from Spain; Mexico won independence from France.

          • Nixys

            Well, they did both at different times, I believe. It does get confusing.

          • ziggy zoggy

            So you think you sneaky greasers will conquer America with sleazy demographics?

            Think again.

            The day will come when we get sick and tired of you. You’re weak and we’re strong. Only P.C. enclaves tolerate you. The rest of us want you to assimilate or get the fuck out.

        • tagalog

          Winning territory in war is not a rip-off. It’s a long-established and recognized method of one state gaining territory, admittedly at the expense of another state. Did the United States “bully” Mexico into yielding those territories? Having some familiarity with Mexican cultural male values, I doubt if there are many Mexicans who would whine about being bullied.

          If Mexico wants those lands that belong to the United States back under Mexican control, the way to do that is to go to war with the United States and take it back.

          Another way is for Mexicans to inundate the populations of those states and change the culture and ultimately the politics, with an ultimate geo-political transformation. The MALDEF strategy. That’s what’s happening in those states now. Resisting either of those tactics is legitimate, just as initiating them is equally legitimate in history.

          No one says that the Mexican influx into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California is not a historically-recognized tactic. What they say is that it should be resisted.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Mexico tried to steal territory from the Commanches and Texans that lived there – people who improved that territory instead of just claiming it. Mexico got spanked like the bltch it is and America laughed at the losers.

          Fuck you and the bean you rode in on. All you scum do is drag America down to your level. Ptoo!

  • bob e

    another superlative essay…dan you are just the best..est.
    these essays are fun to read & they pack a mule kick…

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • Mike

    Graphically, while one could represent the left/right political dichotomy as bimodal, the normal curve of truth and virtue, creation and life fits over the right half of the graph. There is no virtue for the left – we’re all equal. There is no life – abortion is noble. There is no truth – the ends justify the means, and there is no creation: You didn’t build that.

  • Habbgun

    It takes a special kind of person to simultaneously believe in multiculturalism and the right side of history. They shouldn’t go together and yet what makes leftism, leftism is that they are bound together completely in their minds.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Progressivism is intellectually incoherent

      That’s just another demonstration of that

  • Jyssia

    I hate when people say the right side of history. Anyone who has taken a history class should understand that what is right is based on perspective. I could get behind saying “we are on the majority view side of history” in that sense they would be accurate.

  • ca1

    their whole legacy will be one of revisionist recollection and good intentions…. good luck w/that!!!!!!!!!

  • ricpic

    Greenfield says that the final destination of history is death. Well, yes and no. Yes, in that it is undeniable that every individual dies and that Rome died (well, almost died) too. But while the individual (or Roman) is making history death is not quite real to him. What is real? Why the tremendous urge to make history? What is real is the goal. And the goal is always seen as paradise, as perfect. Thus, the individual’s life, with all its frustrations and failures, is validated by the goal of that life: the achievement or realization of paradise. The end of history, its destination, is heaven on earth. That’s why for Barry being on “the right side” of history is everything. In his mind the right side is the path to paradise. And that’s why the catastrophes he has wrought, to us, are mere “glitches” to him.

  • Marvin E. Fox

    Obama and most Democrats can talk of which side of history they are on, have been, wanna-be, should be, can be, or must be on. I think the truth is the Democrats aren’t on any side of history. The Democratic side of history is only a political ploy attempting to convince the opponent of the day that the side the Democrats are on is the inevitable side.
    Inevitable drags all opponents behind it. The cheer leaders and the reluctant must both hold hands to serve the inevitable. What Democrat facing a political problem would overlook an opportunity to drag the bipartisan and the electorate into an inextricable mess with the Party. Nothing could be lost by the move. The winner wins big if the inevitable works. If the inevitable fails, the blame is already spread.

    Marvin Fox


    History does not have a side.

  • Nixys

    The Nazis thought they were on the right side of history too. So did Napoleon. So did Lenin and Stalin, from whom the modern left gets its insufferable “progressive history” ideology.

    Human nature does not change. That’s what the progs have never realized, and that’s why the only people who were truly on the right side of history were the founding fathers, who recognized in their wisdom that the Hobbesian view of humanity was at least partially the true one, and that history is cyclical.

  • Ellman48

    “As frustrating as may be sometimes,” Obama told
    ObamaCare navigators and volunteers. “We’re on the right side of

    Something a Hegelian or a Marxist would say with utmost confidence. Typical of their audacity and arrogance in lecturing the rest of us about the dynamics of history, which only they understand and only they are in congruence with. Humility and doubt never were traits the Left possessed, nor ever will. Throughout human history certain men have pretended to be gods, saviors of mankind, convinced they can bring heaven to earth. Anyone making such claims is not a god, but a grandiose, pompous demagogue and tyrant, who, given enough power, will impose his will through a gargantuan bureaucracy which exists to serve his purpose and to eliminate those who oppose it. Beneath Obama’s charm is a despot determined to make others conform to his will and purpose. Anyone who has not yet gotten this basic truth about him by now never will. His first big lie was that he never heard Jeremiah Wrong say “God Damn America” or any other of his incendiary statements while Obama was a member of his church for over 20 years. The last big lie was that you can keep your medical insurance if you’re happy with it. There were many lies in between these and many more to come.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Charm? What charm? He’s the most ridiculous excuse for a speaker that I’ve ever seen, and he couldn’t lead a horse to water.

  • Ellman48

    “We’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East,
    because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and
    we believe in human rights for all people.”

    Including Jews and Christians? No! You were taking care of your Muslim brethren you lying hypocrite! You don’t even mention the persecution and slaughter of Christians in the countries you wanted to ‘liberate’. You appeal to the ignorance and indifference of the dependent population because there is no truth in you and those who are not infatuated with your persona and see right through you, as if you wore no clothes at all! Your ancestors are the Pharisees that Jesus argued with and accused of hypocrisy and ignorance. Him I can trust; you NEVER!

  • Anamah

    When you have a progressive disease you understand how terrible is this Progressive ideology and their indoctrination on every layer of Western life.

    I t would be interesting learn when Right and Left become to be called as that because the Left could be explained as the reverse, the odd, the wrong way or side… Years ago I read about about the place who were sitting respecting the King or the Mayor… or it was after the French Revolution?
    But yes what a truth!!! The Left is in the wrong side always.

  • Ellman48

    Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev had told Western diplomats, “Whether
    you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!”

    What does it tell you when Nikita, Obama, Bill and Hillary use the exact same expression “we are on the right side of history”? It tells you that they are Marxists who have swallowed the absurd delusions of Karl Marx and his philosophical predecessor, Hagel. They genuinely believe that they are on the right side of history, no less than Stalin and Hitler did, and eventually this fraudulent belief can produce even more destruction than the two monsters from Russia and Germany subjected the planet to. Is there anyone out there with the audacity and arrogance needed to think they are on the ‘right side of history’ while everyone else is on the ‘wrong side’?

  • george mack

    As in the USA, the Left in the UK has a knack of lining up on the wrong side, but the annoying thing is how they refuse to recognise that.

    • tagalog

      They, like some of our own, a near-majority (and a slight majority at times) have succumbed to the Biblical prediction that a time would come when good would be called evil and evil called good.

  • m4253y

    Daniel, kudos, brilliantly summarized “the right side”. Hey, wasn’t there a movie made about this?

    Oh, wait, that movie was “The Blind Side”…eerily similar.

    I am challenging you to compose an article on his other favorites, “Transform, Transformation”. Good luck. ;-)

  • Heather33

    Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do……

  • m4253y
  • Dallas25305

    Barak Hussein Obozo the racist and liar in chief. When will his destruction be over??

  • More Light

    Perhaps Obama should be concerned about being on the right side of the future.

  • pupsncats

    “We’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East,
    because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and
    we believe in human rights for all people.” —-except the innocent and defenseless unborn.