The Radical Dream


[Photograph: Cambodians standing over the skulls of the victims of the Khmer Rouge genocide, 1975-1979.]

Somewhere in Argentina, old Nazis still gather in cozy restaurants with black-and-white photos on the wall to reminisce over old times. The types of movies made about them, ‘The Boys of Brazil’ and ‘Notorious,’ tend not to be very flattering at all.

The old Nazis may sip their stale beer and mourn the wonderful world that could have been if all their dedicated young men willing to kill millions had not gone down in defeat, but their counterparts in Hollywood have largely the same obsession.

The entertainment industry helped turn the young radical into an exciting figure, and it still cannot let go of his old worn self. The old leftist radical who still struggles to retain his passion is as common a figure in movies and television shows as the old Nazi; but while one is a despised villain, the other is a reluctant hero.

The difference between them was never a matter of means. The American left has a long history of treating radical killers like heroes. From the Haymarket bombers to the Weathermen, the willingness to kill has long served as a mark of revolutionary sincerity. Much of the American left closed its eyes to Communist atrocities in Russia and China; not only ignoring the minor details of their means because it agreed with their ends, but even using the murderous scale of the means to validate the revolutionary sincerity of the ends.

The central myth for the modern left is that the Sixties was a decade of enlightenment that then sold out to the grim corporatism of the Eighties. This delusion of a period when real change was possible through committed activism before it was swallowed up by greed and consumerism finds its avatar in the old radical who goes underground and still somehow holds on to his principles.

The old radical, unlike all his contemporaries who moved from their idealistic digs in Greenwich Village lofts (now running to $2,000 per square foot) to the suburbs while working at marketing firms and college campuses, emerges as a principled “voice of conscience” to remind them of what their youth was really about.

The spectacle of it is every bit as cheap and repulsive as the old Nazis getting drunk together and singing the Horst Wessel Lied. It’s the amoral nostalgia of people with no conscience who confuse murder with idealism and youthful anger with principles.

But the artistic idealization of the old radical is even worse. It’s not a spectacle of old Nazis getting drunk together, but people who wish they had stayed Nazis waxing nostalgic at the smell of stale beer and the Horst Wessel Lied.

When Neil Gordon wrote “The Company You Keep” in 2003, the time was perfect for another revival of radical nostalgia. The Iraq War and Bush’s popularity, like the triumph of Reaganomics, sent the left into a fit of longing for the bad old bomber days when instead of winning elections, the left set off explosives.

Back then the LA Times review gushed that the book was grounded in “the passionate conviction that the radical opposition in the ’60s to the Vietnam War represented the high point of American idealism, the best dream America ever had.”

Ten years later the reemergence of “The Company You Keep” as a Robert Redford movie is not unexpected. As the Sixties left ages, those who approved of the deeds of the Weathermen, who appear thinly disguised as the heroes of the book representing the titular “Company,” grow only more nostalgic for the killing fields that might have been. For the change that might have happened if only the left had never compromised.

Even Obama isn’t enough for them. The true reds long for the red blood to flow.

“There is something undeniably compelling, perhaps even romantic, about America’s ’60s radicals and the compromises they did or didn’t make,” Variety writes. And that is indeed the point. What the left truly mourns for is the lack of total ruthlessness. Its conflation of the willingness to kill with principles exposes the dark rotten heart of the left and of its liberal fellow travelers.

The anti-war movement was not against war. The crowds chanting, “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh/ NLF is going to win” were not against war. They were against America winning.

In the mythology of the left, the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were a reaction. The truth is that they were not a reaction. They were an action.

“’The Company You Keep’ is streaked with melancholy: a disappointment that the second American Revolution never came,” Time Magazine writes. The nostalgia is for that leftist Third Reich that never came about. The melancholy mourning is not for those murdered, but that the violence of their murderers fizzled out without accomplishing anything that its perpetrators wanted to see done.

In the leftist mythology the many deaths, those of Americans murdered by Weathermen terrorism and the millions dead in Cambodia, represent a lost idealism. The Sixties nostalgia industry cloaks all these bodies with a soft haze of idealism, but underneath that haze lie miles of corpses.

As chronicled by David Horowitz and Peter Collier in “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties,” the period was not a lost radical Eden, but a national implosion overseen by activists and gangsters bent on tearing the country apart. The lie has been sustained by a revisionist history which glosses over the casualties and replaces real events with imaginary tales.

“The Company You Keep” is another contribution to that imaginary history of the Sixties in which the Weathermen were misunderstood heroes and the only thing wrong with the radical decade was that it somehow failed to go on forever.

The reason why the left and its fellow travelers prefer the imaginary history of “The Company You Keep” to the real history of David Horowitz and Peter Collier’s “Destructive Generation” is that the real history exposes the old radicals, not as passionate and committed intellectuals, but as liars, idiots and murderers. The radical agendas of those days didn’t implode because not enough people believed, but because of the inherently self-destructive nature of the radicals and their cause.

The left’s goal is to set up the Sixties as the model of activism and terrorism for every future generation to emulate.

Every decade is to be measured against that “great period.” The 1960s have become to the left what 1776 once was to the old America. Each protest, down to Occupy Wall Street, is mythologized as a rekindling of the spirit of the Sixties.

Each act of national destruction is celebrated as a return of the revolution that nearly brought down the country and that the radical myth-makers wish would finally come back to finish the job.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Texas Patriot

    America was founded on the idealistic principles of the Enlightenment, and two of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment were Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. And the core principles of these great men are still the best hope for a better tomorrow for all the world. The so-called Left you speak of is largely a fantasy and irrelevant. It does not really exist in any tangible form, either as a political movement or in any other way. What does exist, and it is not a bad thing, is a desire for a better world, and that is a universal human impulse that transcends the political sensibilities and leanings of the left and the right.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The so-called Left you speak of is largely a fantasy and irrelevant. It does not really exist in any tangible form, either as a political movement or in any other way. What does exist, and it is not a bad thing, is a desire for a better world, and that is a universal human impulse that transcends the political sensibilities and leanings of the left and the right."

      Look in the mirror. Your lips are stained purple. The left doesn't exist the way the sky doesn't "really" exist because it's ubiquitous. You can't discern it because you've breathed it in for your whole life. It's actually more like air pollution; it's everywhere but easy to forget about if you can stop the overt allergic reactions.

      • Texas Patriot

        "Look in the mirror. Your lips are stained purple."

        I seriously doubt that. I was raised as a Goldwater Conservative, and there was little if any cool aid in the water I was allowed to drink.

        • EarlyBird

          Texas, disregard the Object. He's a troll.

          • JacksonPearson

            And you're not a troll?

          • reader

            Good one. Who's on first?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            EarlyTurd is on Turd base.

        • Drakken

          Your liberal enlightenment always leads to more chaos and war because you really believe in social utopia, God help us all.

      • joe b

        "The so-called Left you speak of is largely a fantasy and irrelevant. It does not really exist in any tangible form, either as a political movement or in any other way."

        you get the prize for possibly the most ridiculous post of the day.

      • EarlyBird

        In other words, you have no objective facts to counter his claim, or don't have the intellectual skill to express them.

        • Drakken

          Lib/socialist/marzist like you and that other useful idiot of the left always leads to a stack of dead bodies and mass graves, your going to have to pardon the rest of us if we don't go along with your pogram.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "In other words, you have no objective facts to counter his claim, or don't have the intellectual skill to express them."

          No objective facts to support my claim of leftist cultural hegemony?

          Sure. The problem is that if you have read any of the discussions we have, and you still don't recognize it, you're ignoring it the way that you ignore the air you breathe. If you can't find any evidence at this point, there is little I can do. Nor do I care about such people.

          Look at the statement you're defending you psychopath:

          "The so-called Left you speak of is largely a fantasy and irrelevant. It does not really exist in any tangible form, either as a political movement or in any other way. What does exist, and it is not a bad thing, is a desire for a better world, and that is a universal human impulse that transcends the political sensibilities and leanings of the left and the right."

          Therefore you agree that all liberal progressive ideas are benign or helpful. And you claim to be conservative. The thing is big bird, we can read and remember what you say. If you can't, why should I waste my time again today?

          Oliver Stone. Howard Zinn, UCB, etc. "Islam-o-phobia," I could go on for hours and you leftist lunatics will simply ignore the facts. This is proved by your past behavior.

      • EarlyBird

        I'm sure Texas can speak for himself, but since he may not know that he's dealing with a half-wit, I'll try to help him:

        He's saying that while movements are identified with their white-hot phases, time, and battles both won and lost, take place, and movements change and soften with time. If, for instance, you suggest the Radical Left hasn't changed since the '60s, you're lying again.

        And from those radical days, some good values have been absorbed, such as being skeptical of wars, being against racial and sexual discrimination, concern for economic equality, and other decent things you are allergic to.

        Did that help?

        • Drakken

          I just love how you use those commi/socialistic buzzwords like economic equality, social justice, racial discrimination and other decent things, and try to jam them down our throats in some sense of moral outrage. The problem with your communistic ideals is that no matter how much you try them, they always fail in the end and always leads to mass graves. Please by all means continue to to throw out those nice names in the lefty effort to shut down debate, too bad most of us aren't going to go with the pogram.

        • JacksonPearson

          "I'm sure Texas can speak for himself"
          Than why are you passing gas for him? Apparently, he can't even yap.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "He's saying that while movements are identified with their white-hot phases, time, and battles both won and lost, take place, and movements change and soften with time. If, for instance, you suggest the Radical Left hasn't changed since the '60s, you're lying again."

          What on earth are you babbling about? Who said "the radical left hasn't changed?" All anyone has said is that a few of them have the same radical agenda but for the most part it's evolved as it's been challenged. That's why what we do is so important. If we tolerate the likes of you indefinitely, this country will be destroyed very soon.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "And from those radical days, some good values have been absorbed, such as being skeptical of wars"

          It's a lie from the left that nobody else is skeptical about war you nincompoop.

          "being against racial and sexual discrimination, concern for economic equality, and other decent things"

          They didn't invent any of that. They were used by communists to embarrass the government fighting the spread of communism.

          "you are allergic to."

          Everything is a dichotomy to you. What else can we expect from a bird-brain?

    • Rifleman

      The people they murdered in the name of their revolution and ideology were tangible, they had names and families, and so were the tens of millions of their fellow citizens they calmly planned to liquidate to better their world. The scores of millions of people the left has murdered over the last hundred years aren't fantasy and the part our leftists played isn't irrelevant.

      • EarlyBird

        Rifleman,

        Greenfield is intentionally conflating the activities of Horowitz's old comrades on the radical American Left, with the "Global Left," i.e., the communists which the American left stupidly revered.

        The American left, though in many desctructive, are not responsible for millions of murdered people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc., etc.

        Remember, along with the American Left which brought us the drug epidemic and lots of bad ideas, it also brought us the Civil Rights Act, concern for the environment and so on.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The left in europe and asia pollute the air a water with nary a concern.

          AMERICAN concern for the environment is not shared by euro trash commies.

        • JacksonPearson

          Like Islam all being the same. so is the radical left and global left the same. There's not much difference.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Like Islam all being the same. so is the radical left and global left the same. There's not much difference."

            The bird troll is confused by the whole thing. He sees something that he can't reconcile and then uses false dichotomies to "prove" we're wrong.

            The ideology can be traced back to the post-Darwin philosophers who brought out a lot of hostility towards anyone who used the Bible to justify anything, personally or collectively. By that I mean that if you were Christian or a Jew…or if you tried to defend any traditions that were clearly derived from Biblical values, ipso facto you were personally holding up evolution which means you were freezing "progress." Progress in humanity would be just another force of nature if not for those liars with their Bibles. That's the ethos on the left, even from supposed Christians (actual dupes)…because they've been prevented from learning how to form coherent logical theories.

        • judahlevi

          "Remember, along with the American Left which brought us the drug epidemic and lots of bad ideas, it also brought us the Civil Rights Act, concern for the environment and so on."

          This is baloney. The American Left is institutionalizing racism and other collective forms of thinking – just observe Obama. They won't let us get beyond the fifties because of their obsession of thinking of people as groups instead of as individuals.

          It is the Republican party which pushed for civil rights laws for the last 100 years. It was the Democratic party which formed the KKK, created the Jim Crow laws, and even voted with less proportionality for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. It was only Republicans who voted for the 14th Amendment without one Democratic vote.

          The American Left, as with all other leftists, is a disaster and always has been. And yes, I am conflating the Democratic party with the left because 'it is what it is.'

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The American left, though in many desctructive, are not responsible for millions of murdered people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc., etc."

          Not personally, but they were funded by the same ultimate source driven by the same ideology.

          What's wrong with you? Oh yes, small brain.

          "Remember, along with the American Left which brought us the drug epidemic and lots of bad ideas, it also brought us the Civil Rights Act, concern for the environment and so on."

          Yes, the post-war radical left invented the conservative movement with national parks. Not. They were tools and psychopaths. They had no redeeming qualities as a collective. Their ideas when partially useful were useful because they were co-opted for tactical reasons. I'm sure some individuals meant well. They were deceived. That's the point.

          Who do you think funded and organized these groups?

        • reader

          "The American left, though in many desctructive, are not responsible for millions of murdered people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc., etc."

          It's the other way around. Those responsible for millions of murdered people – KGB, for example – channelled talking points and action plans to the American left. Most of Oliver Stone's scripts originated from the KGB talking points. Concern for environment my *ss. Al Gore is the biggest single polluter in the western hemisphere.

    • RUI

      The "so-called" Adam Smith you mention was a libertarian and an exponent of free market capitalism. He was no utopian like you imply.

      • Texas Patriot

        In addition to being the foremost economist of his day, Adam Smith was a leading moralist. His philosophy of free market capitalism was designed primarily to advance the prosperity of nations, rather tan individuals or corporations, and he would be horrified at how the economy of the United States has been systematically de-industrialized and allowed to become more focused on consumption than production. The real "enemy" of America is not the Left or the Right but rather the misguided neoclassical school of economics, aka The Washington Consensus, which is guiding them both.

        • judahlevi

          Adam Smith was better as an economist than he was as a moralist. Let's not confuse the two.

          The world economies have moved beyond what Smith even understood, and we need to move on as well. Smith's greatest economic contribution was his attack on central planning compared to free market movements. Unfortunately, the left continues to believe in central planning because they can only create their utopia by controlling all pricing and wages. Of course, they will tell us where to live, what to do, and how much we can have "each according to (what they determine are) his needs." Yes, there is a difference between the left and the right.

          • Texas Patriot

            "Adam Smith was better as an economist than he was as a moralist. Let's not confuse the two."

            On the contrary, good economics is good morality, and bad economics is bad morality. There are 700,000 Americans out of work and homeless with no place to sleep. That's not only extremely poor economics, it's extremely poor morality.

            "The world economies have moved beyond what Smith even understood, and we need to move on as well. Smith's greatest economic contribution was his attack on central planning compared to free market movements. Unfortunately, the left continues to believe in central planning because they can only create their utopia by controlling all pricing and wages. Of course, they will tell us where to live, what to do, and how much we can have "each according to (what they determine are) his needs." Yes, there is a difference between the left and the right."

            The fundamentals of economics have not changed and they will never change. If you produce more than you consume, you will prosper. If you don't, you won't. Unfortunately, the semi-deliberate and semi-conscious de-industrialization of America has left us as a nation that consumes more than we produce and is no longer able to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st Century.

            As Dr. Robert Atkinson has pointed out in his recent book "Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage", our failure to recognize the importance (and to put into place a set of policies that encourage) technological innovation and high value-added manufacturing has put us on a path of sure and certain economic destruction.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWM08DzTuhY

            Under these circumstances, rebuilding America's economy and competitive strengths relative to the other great economies of the world is now both an economic and moral imperative, and there is no time to waste.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Adam Smith was a leading moralist. His philosophy of free market capitalism was designed primarily to advance the prosperity of nations, rather tan individuals or corporations…"

          He was a collectivist? That's interesting.

          "…and he would be horrified at how the economy of the United States has been systematically de-industrialized and allowed to become more focused on consumption than production."

          Whose fault is that? Leftists didn't destroy our ability to compete globally by turning every labor negotiation in to a zero-sum bargaining session? That's assuming none of them intentionally tried to destroy capitalism.

          We've been at war with the left for many decades and you want to blame the right for the damage caused by the left. Hence, you drink and breathe it but can't discern it.

    • patron

      George Soros' fat face is pretty tangible.

      So were the fat women at ACORN who gave advise on how to be sell yourself when pregnant.

      Same with Former ACORN Lawyer Obama's Organizing for America and the campaign contributors who pay $500,000 for access in the Whitehouse.

      All work in tandem to destroy anyone who wants to shrink the big government utter. The push Patty Murray and Harry Reid out to attack anyone who wants to stop giving free money to crack dealers or cut off the $85 billion a month printing press and $1.2 trillion a year credit card.

      The lasting hope exists in the sheer stupidity of the self anointed philosophical elite. Forget their policy mistakes like creating the subprime crisis by lowering lending standards or QE3. Look at what they've done to their own lives. Coke, heroin and speed won't get them high anymore, so they started with crack, oxies and meth.

      Today I saw a food stamp purchaser buying $30 of old candy, and a couple hundred in video games. Then went and bought cigarettes.

      He's going to fundamentally change America? Good luck.

  • wldbil

    "The evil philosophies of fascism and communism were the two great 20th century mass killers. Of these, communism was the greatest killer. 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by socialism so far, and the killing continues today, notably in North Korea. In terms of body count, socialism is by far the most evil religion, the most evil ideology of any sort, of all time." http://markhumphrys.com/communism.html

    Yet the left and the 1% continue to support and nurture it…….

    Why?
    One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the
    Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the
    downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars.
    The planning, the leadership, and especially the financing came
    entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany,
    Britain, and the United States.
    http://thecreaturefromjekyllisland.org/

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Daniel, American Thinker is featuring my op-ed on this very subject. It should be published tomorrow. I was requested, by Dr. Tina Trent (who wrote the updated introduction), to review Larry Grathwohl's 2013 release, Bringing Down America, his 1976 memoir. The release can be found herein – http://bringingdownamerica.com/

    The left is going to go nuts, when it hits the stands! Stay tuned.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Oh, I'm sure the "Left" is bracing themselves for another intellectual broadside from Adina Kutnicki! From your picture they probably think you're the mom from "One Day At A Time."

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        EarlyTurd,

        Crawl back under your rock.

      • Drakken

        What's tha matter early? Adina getting a tad under your leftist skin?? Keep at it Adina, the more the left shouts out their outrage, the better the light can be shined upon these traitors.

      • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

        Well Early Bird, glad you like my pic…oh, so flattered…. but serious matters prevail. As such, I am linking this – http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/bringing_d

        If you can, cogitate over it…and shalom from Israel!

        Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Edward Cline

    The country imploded in the 1960's because of what the Left's members and activists were taught in American schools in the 1950's and early 1960's, that altruism and collectivism were ideals and workable solutions to alleged problems raised by Leftist professors, and this philosophy has been taught in virtually the whole public school system, including universities, from the late 19th century on. It still is. This philosophy was shared by Progressives, Democrats, and Republicans alike. If the Son of Alinsky is in the White House, it is by default, not because of any inherent strength in Leftist ideology. It is there because of a vacuum in American politics, the absence of a philosophy of reason that upholds individualism and capitalism.

    • EarlyBird

      The fundamental aspect of a society should be free enterprise, individualism and competition. But there needs to be a significant element of collectivization also, for things to work at all. Individualism vs. collectivism (in the form of taxes, standing armies and national banks, eg.) has been the tension present since the very founding of the Republic.

      In the same way that one can crush the masses with too much collectivism, leading to an oligarchy (what the so-called "communism" has always led to), you can also end up with a Darwinian state of affairs which ends with an plutocracy controlling the masses.

      We have gone through times much more "collectivist" than the days of Alinsky. It's a constant balancing act between these two extreme impulses.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        EarlyTurd,

        Which country represents your world view and an example of an ideal society?

        China?
        Russia?
        Cuba?
        1930's Germany?

        • WilliamJamesWard

          Mongolia the land of Ghengis Early Kahn, could be……………William

      • reader

        "In the same way that one can crush the masses with too much collectivism, leading to an oligarchy (what the so-called "communism" has always led to), you can also end up with a Darwinian state of affairs which ends with an plutocracy controlling the masses."

        How many words one needs to spew pure nonsense? But – yet again – IT's lecturing everybody about the need for some magic formula – not too much of this and not too much of that. Of course, only IT knows how much is not too much. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already read similar bull crap in Marx's Manifesto.

  • Brujo Blanco

    The Left does exist and it is in our faces. If Obama has his way we will experience communism for sure.

  • john butala

    Mr. Greenfield is wrong about one point: the radical movement failed in large part because, indeed, most people did not believe. The overwhelming majority of Americans simply did not share the wacky, violent, radical-leftst beliefs of the criminals involved. The truly dangerous radicals constituted only a tiny percentage of American youth/young adults.

    • patron

      They failed because they were a bunch of drug addicted scum who were only awake when high on coke.

      In the 80s crack hit, then 90s in the meth, then they all went to prison, got HIV from getting raped, and died.

  • Texas Patriot

    I'm glad we're having this discussion, because I think it addresses the central question of the modern age: who is the enemy?

    My personal view is that we have deceived ourselves into thinking it is The Left or The Right, when the real truth is that we're all on the same wounded and stricken ship and we're all headed for the same disaster, but there's no one in the wheelhouse. So instead of figuring out how to turn the ship around and actually doing it, we dream up phantoms of the past to blame for all our troubles.

    Here's a challenge for Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Horowitz, and any others who may share their economic views. Watch the following video by Dr. Robert Atkinson and tell me whether you think he's mistaken about the disastrous effects of the de-industrialization, loss of jobs, and loss of entire industries on the American economy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWM08DzTuhY

    Instead of blaming and cursing the phantoms of the past or the imaginary phantoms of the present, we need to do whatever it takes to put America back on the winning track for the global economic competition of the 21st Century. If we fail to do that, we will only have ourselves to blame.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Which phantoms are you referring to?

      Al Qada?
      Communism?
      Fascism?

    • Drakken

      Well it is curious to say the least that you voted for your hero and messiah Comrade Obummer, and you think that we should go further left to save our country? Are you effing nuts?

      • WilliamJamesWard

        Deceptive economic destruction screws everyone, those X'd in the head love it.
        William

    • patron

      There's been no industrialization. Companies need factory workers.

      No one wants to do that work because they're probably all like you emitting intellectual farts on the internet, while high off drugs from their SSI check they've perjured themselves to receive, living some delusional fantasy about how they'll be the next dear leader.

  • tagalog

    The only people who find 1960s radicalism somehow "compelling" are people who didn't spend any time with 1960s radicals. Their talk grew very tiresome after a very short time, and their lifestyles were repulsive, sexist, and nasty in a way that only those who have lived as the butt of high school snobbism can truly appreciate.

    I'll never forget sleeping on the well-used filthy mattresses on the floor and the filthy sheets that no one EVER took to the laundromat down the street. But my favorite was the way they handed around "their chicks" to each other in order to "smash the concept of bourgeois love." And the women actually SUBMITTED to it in all their liberated intelligence – what price radicalism? They couldn't even think about having group and serial promiscuous sex without politicizing it so they could get their jollies in a proper revolutionary way. It's a good thing it was before AIDS.

    1960s radicals knew nothing but talked as if they owned the hidden truth of revolutionary activism. Then they went to graduate school and embarked on the money-and-status-accumulating aspects of their adulthoods while they pointed the finger of blame at others who did the same.

    • kasandra

      You're right. Texas Patriot is wrong. The only place I disagree with you is that many of these revolutionary leftists did not embark on the money-and-staus-accumulating aspects of their adulthoods or, if they did, coupled making money with their far left beliefs. Many of them went into government employment, academia, non-profit work with environmental, civil rights, and "civil liberties" groups where they put their "bring captialism to its knees" beliefs into action, not through mass demonstrations or overt revolution but, instead, by their quiet long march through the institutions, hollowing them out and putting them to the service of their ideology. If you think my college roommate, who kept a bigger than life-sized picture of Leon Trotsky above his bed and who, although white, often proclaimed that he would not blame a black person for anything they did, gave up his beliefs when he graduated and then became an attorney, you would be very wrong.

      • tagalog

        I agree with you that some radicals have never given up the left-wing dreams of their youth in that the kind of people like your college roommate embraced. I spoke too broadly on that point.

        They hold their self-delusions to their hearts as if giving them up would be a violation of their very being. Some do, anyway. Most, though, have shown themselves to be pretty casual about their revolutionary youth, treating it as a mere post-adolescent peccadillo, a phase that they have mostly left behind, only retaining their left-wing views and none of the ruthlessness (that last being, of course, merely the overzealousness of youth).

  • http://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/ alwaysonwatch

    The entertainment industry helped turn the young radical into an exciting figure…

    In my lifetime, two films played a seminal role in glorifying the anti-establishment attitude: Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

    As a teacher, I see just how susceptible, young minds are to whatever appears on the big screen and their computer screens. At to that the media's and academia's Leftist agenda, and what do you get? Two generations of Leftists!

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    The liberal series Mad Men is returning shortly, and it provides a negative view of the admen (a.k.a. spinmeisters) who represent the decadence against which the New Left defined itself and flourished. I wrote about the mendacity of this view here: http://clarespark.com/2010/10/24/mad-men-and-the-…. "Mad Men and the Jewish problem."

    • EarlyBird

      Oh God! Now "Mad Men" is "liberal"? How so, Clare?

      • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

        If you read my blog you would know, but even if you don’t, just the focus on how oppressed women are, makes it liberal. The entire series is a takedown of the supremacy of consumerism and the advertising executives who have turned ordinary people into robots who do their satanic bidding.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Mad Mullahs treat women a bit worse than 1950's homogenized America.

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            I didn’t say I agreed with the authors of Mad Men. If you read my blog, I criticize them for caricaturing women. They are not real “feminists”.

      • patron

        No. It just sucks.

  • Rostislav

    It's rather astonishing for me to see that your Brave New America propaganda of the new millennium is passing now exactly the same stages my Tired Old USSR was passing in the previous millennium's last decades: our TV and cinema screens were also tried to revive images of idealistic radicals, who were fighting against dreadful tsarism for wonderful Socialism. As I see from Mr. Greenfield's article, the main difference now is not with the left script-writers (they are "of the same blood" in yours and in ours), but with the audience. Your viewers obviously tend to take these bloody Weathermen's trash quite seriously, while the cynic Russians were simply dying of laughter, while listening to the fiery revolutionary speeches of 1917 about "Palaces to the poor, land to the peasants and factories to the workers!" – by the end of the century our audience already knew perfectly well that all the palaces, lands and factories went to the Party Leadership and all the poor, workers and peasants stayed right where they had been before 1917 at the best, or went to GULAG at the worst. Seems, it's a long way ahead for your audiences to change from the present-day admiration or indignation at the sight of the Weathermen's rebirth to the all-nation' burst of healthy laughter: my, just how could we be that naïve at the sight of the plain parasitic scum?! Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

    • kasandra

      I think it may be that prior to the USSR, the Russian people saw themselves ruled by a self-centered oligarchy so it wasn't that much of a change to be ruled by the Party after 1917. They were cynical before regarding those in power and remained so. In the U.S., however, virtually all of our prior presidents liked the U.S. and, while they wanted to reform certain aspects of it, they did not see anything basically wrong with it. The 2008 and 2012 voter must have assumed Obama fit the same mold and rejected all of the available evidence out there about him to the contrary. They did not listen even when he said that he wanted to fundamentally transform the U.S. clearly indicating that, unlike all of his predecessors, did not particularly like pre-Obama America. (If you want proof of that proposition, tell your wife you love her but she needs to be fundamentally transformed and see what happens.) Give our sheeple a few decades under Obama and his followers and they'll catch on. Maybe.

      • Rostislav

        Before the 1917 revolution we had no oligarchy in Russia (it's our present situation) – we had monarchy then. Nevertheless, I think that you are right about the generally unchanging attitude of the Russian majority toward ANY ruling regime, be it pre-1917, or after-USSR: mainly it is the passivity of peoples who question their big bosses' decisions very rarely, except within a relative comfort of their kitchen-debates. Yes, this sad passivity can't be compared with the open activity of the West, but isn't it mysterious that both our passivity and your activity bring now quite a similar harvest of Putins, Obamas, Gillards, Hollandes etc? Rostislav

  • http://twitter.com/RonNelson15 @RonNelson15

    If anybody knows David does…the 60's radicals have been in our school system for a very long time and now it is filtered down to pre-school. Sounds familiar….

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

    I've found it curious, if not hypocritical that the leftists from the Sixties who enthusiastically embraced such an anti-establishment posture are now apologists for the very establishment of which they are part. Behind the facade of the noble rebel, you'll often find nothing more than an opportunistic sell-out driven by their own selfish ends. I remain unimpressed, then and now.

    • EarlyBird

      As Horowitze writes in Radical Son, about academia, "we were pushing on doors that were already open to us.'

      • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

        More pertinent to this article comes from Horowitz in 1996: "the Left is permanently at war with America-"

  • EarlyBird

    Yes, the Left lionizes leftist radicals while shamefully over-looking their many crimes. This movie – like the Che Guevara movies a few years back – will surely be another chapter in re-writing the crimes of the left.

    But leave it to Greenfield to put Nazis – who pursued world domination via global war and were responsible for at least 20 million deaths – on par with the Weathermen, who never killed anyone but three of their own members (accidentally) and sent warnings to evacuate before they bombed buildings – all in the aim of ending a disastrous, massive and evil war being waged against the Vietnamese. However immoral their actions, it hardly can be equated with Nazism.

    And of course, since Greenfield never fails to overblow everything he writes, he puts a picture of the Kiling Fields at the top of his latest screed. Weather Underground = Pol Pot. Oy vey.

    • reader

      "But leave it to Greenfield to put Nazis – who pursued world domination via global war and were responsible for at least 20 million deaths – on par with the Weathermen, who never killed anyone but three of their own members (accidentally"

      The same troll, another straw man. How about we put Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro on par with the Nazis? Nazis pale in comparison.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Commies have killed more because they've had decades more time to do their dirty work.

        And commies don't document their deeds as methodically as euro nazis did.

        • WilliamJamesWard

          The only conclusion one can come to is they loved killing, got off on the gore and
          destruction that blood lust brings where there are not stops. Evil is a real force and
          entity that wants to kill everyone and uses all vile means to that end and is ever
          ongoing until the day good destroys evil forever…………………………..William

  • trickyblain

    Would Greenfield forgive a Nazi who repented after committing his mass murders against Jews? Would he accept employment from one? If his current employer was as heinous as a Nazi in the 60's, why is he working for him???

    Unfortunately for chronically hysterical, and no matter how hard Greenfield spins it, the 60's were not entirely defined by a few dozen lunatics like the Weathermen or Horowitz. Actual influential folks laughed at them at the time, as they still do.

    • reader

      Another one bent on inserting Nazis into this. Nazis is the Commies' favorite bait and switch. But the premise is false from the get-go. The Nazis – aka the members of the NSDAP, or the National-Socialist Workers Party of Germany and their admirers – are just a hue away from the Commies.

      • trickyblain

        The article directly compares the 60's left to Nazis in terms of culpability. Even though the author works for one of the more loony among them. I didn't insert it, I was responding to the absurdity of it.

        Admirers of Nazis? Ain't too many of those around, unless we're talking skinhead/neo-Nazi types. Would you seriously suggest that these are "lefties"? Put Goldberg's book down and research how Hitler actually defined National Socialism. It's goes a bit deeper than looking at the word "Socialist" and proclaiming "gotcha!"

      • SCREW SOCIALISM
    • kasandra

      Yes, there may have been only a few hundred members of the Weathermen. But there were thousands or more in SDS and other radical – non- Weathermen – groups. They absolutely controlled campus life, campus agendas, campus policies and, ultimately, campus courses. The Weathermen were only the tip of the spear. My Trotsky-worshipping roommate (see my above post) was not a weatherman. He was, however, in SDS, a much larger group from which the Weathermen grew. They may have differed on tacticis but not on goals.

  • marios

    Leftists=fascists=Islamo-nazis-communists. All of them want Power for ever, all of them give no dime for other people life and all of them use BIG Lie, cynical hypocrisy to reach their goal. Unfortunately there are huge number "useful idiots" who swallow their propaganda. Only Mao-the-Doun killed more than 70ML Chinese, Stalin killed between 20 to 40 MLN their citizens, Poll Pot (doctor, who graduated from Sorbonne University) killed 1.5 MLN Cambodians (out of 3 ML population), Fidel Castro… List is endless. The most common people have no idea about it even in this country with relatively Pre-Obama free Media. And it is so scary!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Don't expect oliver stoned to ever make a film on totalitarian socialist genocide.

      That would be COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY.

  • tagalog

    I'm sorry but I'm going to have to go see Robert Redford's movie, "The Company You Keep," about the 60s radicals, but only because Julie Christie's in it.

    I love Julie Christie. Ever since the execrable "Darling," a terrible movie in which she shone. And "Doctor Zhivago," a great movie. Especially as a chick flick.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Wait till it comes out on DVD.

      • tagalog

        Or I could order it on Netflix. Good advice.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Don't put any more money in Pinkofords pockets.

    • Suzanne

      Unfortunately, Julie Christie is just another British leftist. Wasn't it she who recently boycotted a Canadian film festival because of some ignorant opinion of Israeli politics? Seriously, these people have NO clue as to what Israel is up against. That's why their own countries are being invaded by Islamic barbarians.

  • Weathermen 101

    Should be interesting fun to watch the Redford movie in a college town.

    Listening to a brainwashed, undereducated idiocracy cheer and holler,

  • sd42jnq

    The fruits of the Boomers speak for themselves. I wrote in National Wave of Foolishness:

    "2.1.3 So What Happened?

    The greatest irony of the counterculture Baby Boomers is that so many of them, while adamantly refusing to admit their part in the culture’s decline, sometimes are heard to speak wistfully, wishing things were "like they were" as kids.

    Impossible. They had the benefit of a Christian culture, with Christian values and Christian respect for the Individual, a Christian value of work, a Christian worldview, a Christian value of marriage and the Christian Rule of Law. A portion of the Baby Boomers disowned all that, but they somehow want a civilization without Christianity, with the all benefits of Christianity.

    Something for nothing. If there was an underlying principle of the Baby Boomer counterculture that was it: wanting something for nothing. From "free love" to "sustainability" to "green" to "free trade."

    It's a foolish idea. You can't have something for nothing! You can’t have the benefits of something good, without actually having that good thing in place! If you don't get anything else out of this book, remember that.

    The foolish idea that you can have something for nothing, is at the heart of what is killing the United States. You can’t have the benefits of something good, without actually having that good thing in place. Really simple truths, but the United States in general is ignoring them.

    It's like wanting to have good roads and bridges without actually building them and maintaining them— like the Democrat Congress decided to do in 1993 when they eliminated most infrastructure spending.

    It's like some of the Islamic nations wanting all the benefits of Western societies without actually putting into place the education, egalitarianism, civic virtue, freedoms and rule of law that creates those benefits. Or those Islamic nations wanting the benefits of western societies without the actual Christianity itself that permitted to start with the tolerance, education, egalitarianism, civic virtue, freedoms and rule of law that Western societies are now losing.

    The same with most third world nations. Mexico is a prime example. Wanting the benefits of the developed nations, without having any of the actual self-discipline and national discipline required to attain those benefits, such as the Rule of Law, education, personal morals, government morals and so on. It's all about "doing it the easy way" in Mexico since the Spanish were kicked out. The short-cut. If morals get in the way, they just discard the morals! And so they've never been able to get anything done. Were it not so, the "easy money" that's killing Mexico from their choice to sell drugs to U.S., Canada and E.U. would have been avoided. They would have said "hell, no" to the drug money.

    Speaking of "just thinking about it" rather than doing, have you noticed that so many today seem to think things “just happen” without planning them? Without actually doing the things needed to make them happen?"

  • sd42jnq

    cont.
    "It's another type of insanity, really. It's the mindset of the environmentalist who claims we can have cheap electrical power, but they strive to eliminate all methods of power generation that are practical in nature. Or the good Liberal who "just says it" or even puts something into law that is "supposed to happen," but provides no actual mechanism for what is desired to happen— as if "intending" is the same as doing something to make the desired thing happen, such as paving the streets or building new power plants.

    It’s the same insanity as the current Democrat Party wanting to bring Socialism, but stupidly expecting that the same benefits of capitalism would happen when they destroyed so much of the economy in 2009-2012 through socializing so much of it. The rage that so many Democrats feel is partly due to frustration resulting from this foolish belief that Socialism can somehow produce the good things of capitalism and it was proven absolutely wrong in 2009-2012. You don't get the good things of capitalism if you destroy them with Socialism.

    They just won’t admit it. As always, too, "someone else" is to blame. Never what they do.

    It goes back to the Counterculture Boomers, for whom "someone else", such as the “establishment,” was to blame.

    Now that they ARE the “establishment,” it’s magically someone else’ fault. "Those darn conservatives." Or "those darn Christians." Or those "right wingers." "It's all their fault." SOMEBODY ELSE is to blame…

    Even though the Liberals themselves did it. To themselves and everyone else.

    Scapegoating. Just like Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists did. Just like the Soviets did.

    How many Liberals want to break the law but want everyone else to obey the law so that they, personally, can benefit?

    How many Liberals want everyone else to be polite, but they themselves don’t have to be?

    Both history and God will judge them for what they’ve done and their unrepentant, foolish hearts. I don’t envy them.

    You can't build a culture and a nation on NOTHING. The "Counterculture" Baby Boomers took our nation, tossed everything out and tried to fill it with "their own thing", that is to say, who just did what felt good to them— and the results speak for themselves.

    It doesn't work. You can’t have the benefits of something good, without actually having that good thing in place.

    The “doing your own thing” at everyone else' expense eventually morphed into Socialism for many of them, but now America is trying to move in 300,000,000 different directions and the two most popular directions for Americans are Socialism and Christianity.

    Christianity is currently declining. If the nation is going to survive at all, that has to change.

    The single most important difference between 1960 and 2012 is that there was a much, much larger percentage of saved, born-again believers in the nation, from the President to the humblest, lowest-paid worker in 1960.

    Indeed, the idea of electing persons suffering from demonic possession, as we’ve done twice in 20 years, would have never occurred to a person back in 1960.

    It's time for the Counterculture Boomers and their proteges to admit they messed up. All one has to do is look at the difference between 1960 and 2012.

    It's disgusting that they don't have the guts to admit just how badly they screwed up. Almost every day, it's the accusation of "the Republicans did this" or "the Christians did this" or "X did this."

    They took a thriving culture and have almost wiped it out."

    • WilliamJamesWard

      What about those of us who worked and tried our best, does it boil down to "you want what
      you want but get what you get", seems so with leftists in control………………….William

  • Bob Marshall

    Is America the Daughter of Babylon mentioned in Zechariah?

  • Texas Patriot

    There is nothing more idealistic and utopian than Christianity. When Jesus advised us to pray that God's kingdom would come and that God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven, he meant it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "When Jesus advised us to pray that God's kingdom would come and that God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven, he meant it."

      He wasn't talking about communism. Do you understand the problem with the tower of Babble? That's what you're working on. You want to build a tower to reach Heaven rather than find out God's will, which as far as I can tell is evangelism of the Gospel, not liberty gospel, social gospel, etc. etc.

      • Texas Patriot

        The Tower of Babble was objectionable to God because it was man's monument to himself. Jesus calls us to pray for the kingdom of heaven on earth not as a monument to ourselves, but as God's gift to the world.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The Tower of Babble was objectionable to God because it was man's monument to himself. "

          That's a summary reduced to the point of being useless just so that you can defend your position. It was man's effort to rise to Heaven on his own merits and efforts. That doesn't make your summary completely wrong but reduces it to a trivial comment.

          So you really think that anyone who has "Utopian ideals" or even "radical Utopian ideals" is some kind of "crypto Christian" who pleases God because of the "salient similarities" with Christ (the ones you listed)?

          By the way, you're not to make yourself in to another Christ. You're to follow his teachings.

  • Texas Patriot

    Likewise, there has never been anyone more radical than Jesus, who called himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

  • Texas Patriot

    Thus, there has never been a more radical call to idealism and utopianism than the call of Jesus Christ and Christianity.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Thus, there has never been a more radical call to idealism and utopianism than the call of Jesus Christ and Christianity."

      Please go think about the destruction of what you've just said. So leftists preaching communism are just fine for Jesus as long as they're radical? The Gospel is about building the new Utopia (which in the Bible is represented by the tower of Babble)?

      • Texas Patriot

        Communists were dialectical materialists and atheists. In other words, their radicalism and idealism and utopianism was superficial and limited to material things. The radicalism of Jesus Christ was profound and went to the heart of all things, visible and invisible. In other words, the radicalism of the communists was not really "radical" at all, but rather a superficial joke compared with the radicalism, idealism, and utopianism contemplated by Jesus Christ.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Communists were dialectical materialists and atheists. In other words, their radicalism and idealism and utopianism was superficial and limited to material things. The radicalism of Jesus Christ was profound and went to the heart of all things, visible and invisible. In other words, the radicalism of the communists was not really "radical" at all, but rather a superficial joke compared with the radicalism, idealism, and utopianism contemplated by Jesus Christ."

          Oh now you want to make distinctions? How about one more…

          Definition of UTOPIA

          1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
          2often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
          3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

          • Texas Patriot

            The idea of "utopia" is a literary and philosophical device used historically to signify as state of perfection on earth.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

            The kingdom of heaven is the promise of God's presence and God's rule on earth, as it is in heaven. And of course it was memorialized by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer.

            Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name. They kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

            Jesus is calling for us to pray for the institution of God's kingdom on earth, and there is nothing more radical or idealistic or utopian than that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The idea of "utopia" is a literary and philosophical device used historically to signify as state of perfection on earth."

            Discourse is useful when we learn to draw distinctions and illustrate nuanced teachings, and not useful when we, for example, use technical arguments to defend deceptive conflation.

            If you want to call Christ "Utopian" and conflate him with delusional people who want to be modern demi-gods, that's something you can't justify as a Christian. You're totally off the reservation. In fact you're making arguments in favor of the anti-Christ.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Jesus is calling for us to pray for the institution of God's kingdom on earth, and there is nothing more radical or idealistic or utopian than that."

            It's not radical at all. And even if you bend over backwards to defend the use of these words based on subjectively you're still involved in deceptive conflation to the degree that it's difficult to overlook without questioning where you got these ideas.

            You want to flatter Christ while fighting against him. You'd better think about that.

          • Texas Patriot

            It;s not a matter of flattering Christ. If Jesus Christ was who he said he was, he doesn't need to be flattered; rather, he needs to be followed, regardless of how difficult it is and regardless of the cost. As J.R.R. Tolkein said, Christianity is the one true myth. All the others may have elements of truth, but none of the others is able to provide a completely true and sure path of knowing and following God's will for humanity.

            All of the great thinkers of the past who have attempted to create their own version of an idealistic and utopian society on earth have failed, and failed miserably, as has been well noted by the writings of Messrs. Horowitz and Greenfield on this board. The kingdom of heaven on earth, as referenced by Jesus Christ remains an elusive and as yet unattained goal, but it is not an unattainable goal. If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, there is no other formula that will work; and unless we want to keep trying disastrous experiments that won't work, it would behoove us all to try the formula he gave to us. But no one said it would be easy. As Jesus himself said, "It is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

            Indeed, the path of Christianity is contra-intuitive and extremely difficult. Forgiving enemies and praying for those that want to kill us and destroy every aspect of our civilization goes against the very fibre of our human biology and evolutionary DNA, as well as our cultural conditioning. Yet for that very reason, it offers a faint ray of hope for the future of humanity like nothing else does. As G. K. Chesterton said, "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; rather, it has been found difficult and not tried."

            At this late and very grim moment in world history, perhaps it is time to try it.

  • Howdy Doody

    It all boils down to this, like it or leave it, "The Lord God of Israel is in control. He provides for the USA period. But if we keep acting like Sodom and Gammorah, …Say goodbye to provision and grace, and hello to internal national destruction!!!!!! Boomers or not, we're all gonna suffer if we don't "Get It Together Now"..!!!!!!!

    • tagalog

      "Call out the instigator because there's something in the air
      We've got to get together sooner or later because the revolution's here
      And you know it's right
      And you know that it's right
      We have got to get it together
      We have got to get it together
      Now!"

  • KathleenP

    Go back and read the article, moron. The Weathermen and their ilk did not want to end an "evil war" against "innocent people", they wanted America and the South to lose, and the NLF to win. They did not give a damn about any of the "innocent" people of South Vietnam.

  • John Stone

    After WWI, a point of view developed concerning culture and civilization. “Civilization” was defined as the collective beliefs of the German people, what we would be more inclined to call culture today. And “culture” was taken as what might be called ‘high culture’, or the ‘fine arts’, which is to say the opinions and ideas of the self appointed cultural elite. Most commonly the self appointed elites were internationalist crowd in Berlin.

    Unfortunately the effect of the above cultural movement was not positive. The cultural elite had a lot of influence in the city Berlin, and therefore also, on the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately it weakened the government because it produced an emotional divide between the Berlin elitist and the population at large. With this culture gap in place, when things got difficult, the German population migrated from supporting the elite in Berlin and went to the other choice, the fanatical nationalism of the Nazi party. While the Nazis may have had a new vision of Germany, they believed or pretended to believe that they represented traditional Germany, a romantic vision of a previous and more virtuous Germany.

    The same thing happened with greater intensity in France with the French Revolution. A self appointed and self arrogating cultural elite developed in Paris. In their most intense form they became the Jacobins. Emotionally they self separated themselves from French Civilization and came to see themselves as a moral elite. Empowered by their vision of superiority, they attempted to remake France in their image. That was where the radical doctrines of the French Revolution came from. It was a self presumed cultural elite seeking to impose their culture on the rest of society. Because they no longer identified with French civilization, they produced an emotional divide between themselves and the average citizen

    Now the social elite in Berlin never went as far as the French, but they did fail to realize that there was a cultural divide between themselves and the traditional-nationalistic German. This arose in part because they were internationalists, and in part because the Weimar Republic was imposed by outsiders. If the Berlin elite had been more self aware they would have draped themselves in assertions of German supremacy and followed up at least in part with some policies. That would have weakened any nationalist oriented opposition. The failure to do so left a big opening for the ultra nationalist (tribalist really) Nazi party, in the same way the arrogance of the Jacobins left a big opening for nationalist Napoleon.

    While the Nazis under Hitler were off kilter on an intellectual level, they were closer to what the population wanted on an emotional level. Part of the package of appeals was the role the Jews took on. Nationalists never like treating their fellow nation members as the enemy. They prefer an outsider. The Jew was the chosen target. Along with a certain amount of genuine anti-semetism, they used the Jew as a stand in proxy for the Germans they wanted to attack. It was not the Kiser who screwed up, it was his Jewish banker-advisors. It was not the German people who buckled, it was the Jew led labor unions, and so on.

    If you stop to think about it, McCarthyism was a lot like Nazism in terms of its emotional framework. Like Nazism, it was an intensely nationalistic movement led by a man who was emotionally intense and a little unstable. McCarthy’s stand in target became the Communists. It was not Roosevelt (the liberal) who screwed up, it was his communist advisors. The internationalist State Department was not to blame, it had been infiltrated with communists, and so on. That is, evil when it expresses itself comes from the outside, not from the native population. (not unlike demon possession in religion)

    What we are seeing in the US now is the same general themes playing out. Our new moral elite dominates the liberal arts in our colleges, the newsrooms, and to an expanding extent, the entertainment industry and the movers and shakers in Washington. Saying as some do that they are full of self hatred is wrong. What they are full of (aside from a certain scatological substance) is a sense of moral superiority and superior moral purpose. They would like to convert American civilization to their moral vision. If that can not be accomplished and they gain power, their intent is to impose their own superior sense of moral purpose on the unwashed masses, the people too stupid and vile to understand or accept their ever so virtuous culture.

  • Ghostwriter

    I think I'm going to put "The Company You Keep" on my must-miss list. I'm not going to see it.

  • Guest

    "In the mythology of the left, the Weathermen and the Black Panthers were a reaction. The truth is that they were not a reaction. They were an action."

    By the same mindset, George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party( Who existed and was assassinated just a year before the WU began their terrorist acts ) should also be viewed as heroes. But ,of course, they were openly ,honestly,racist, while Leftist Whites are cleverer,smarter,behind-closed-doors racists,and have always gotten away with it.