Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

The hysterical left.


  • Please log in to reply
3514 replies to this topic

#1 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 05:52 AM

The left and hysteria
Dennis Prager - Recommend to a friend
September 27, 2005

If you want to understand the Left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics.

Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria.

The Patriot Act: According to leftist spokesmen and groups, the Patriot Act is a grave threat to liberty and democracy. It is frequently likened to the tactics of a fascist state. This is pure hysteria. The Los Angeles Times recently published statistics concerning the use of the Act. Through 2004, of the 7,136 complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general, one was related to the Patriot Act. The number of "sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject, totaled 155. The number of roving wiretaps was 49, and the number of personal records seizures under Section 215 of the Act was 35.

The war in Iraq: It is not enough for leftist opponents of the war to argue that the war is a mistake, was initiated due to faulty intelligence, or is being poorly prosecuted. Rather they charge that President Bush lied, that the war was waged for Halliburton, and that America is engaged in a criminal and imperialist enterprise. Each charge is a form of hysteria.

Risks to health: Not everyone who believes the hysterical claims of danger made about secondhand smoke, baby formula, dodgeball or Bextra is on the Left. But the Left leads the country in hysteria over dangers to health. That is why leftist organizations are generally incapable of merely saying that something is unhealthy. The danger must be described as the killer of hundreds of thousands and often be ascribed to some murderous corporate conspiracy.

Environment: More people may be attacked by aardvarks in any given year than visit the remote and frozen region of Alaska known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It is the home, however, of vast oil reserves and many caribou. Good people can differ on whether or not to drill for oil there. But the rhetoric of the Left is hysterical. Listening to leftist organizations one would think that drilling would bring no benefit to America and would render the caribou virtually extinct. None of this is true. It is all drama.

Likewise there is largely hysteria over global warming and the charge that man -- especially Homo Americanus -- is the cause of it. The great number of scientists who claim that we are in a normal warming period or in no major weather change at all are ignored. Only the most hysterical scenarios are offered by the Left. Witness the reasons given for Hurricane Katrina. Yet even The New York Times reported that scientists are virtually unanimous in denying that the hurricane has anything to do with global warming.

Animal rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the living embodiment of hysteria. Take their program "Holocaust on your plate," which equates barbecuing chickens with the cremating of the Jews in the Holocaust. It is one thing to be concerned about chickens' welfare, but only hysterics compare eating them with the slaughter of a people.

Racism: There is no worse charge than racism. Acting hatefully toward people because of their skin color is among the most vile acts a person can engage in. Yet the Left throws that charge around as if it were the essence of the American people (which, come to think of it, is what many on the Left believe). Most of the time, however, the charge of racism -- such as when it is directed at opponents of race-based affirmative action -- is just another example of hysteria.

Christianity: Most on the Left really believe that this country is on the verge of a theocracy because George W. Bush is an evangelical Christian, because the words "under God" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, and because most Americans don't think marriage ought to be redefined.

Other examples abound. America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are common accusations of the Left.

No event is free of leftist hysteria. On the third day after Katrina, civil rights activist Randall Robinson reported that blacks in New Orleans were resorting to cannibalism. Indeed, most of the news media coverage bordered on the hysterical. Not to mention the hysterical predictions of 10,000-plus dead in New Orleans.

None of this is to deny that the Right also gets hysterical. Some right-wing reactions to immigration and Terry Schiavo provide such examples.

But the irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally. And that is hysterical.

link
  • 0

#2 abbracadabra

abbracadabra

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1545 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 06:51 AM

http://www.bendib.co...beus-Corpse.jpg


http://www.bendib.co...reme-Bodies.jpg
  • 0

#3 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 12:18 PM

The Left tide that rose worldwide in the 1960s subsided in the '70s, just as the previous tides from the '30s and '40s subsided in the '50s.

There was no significant Left upsurge in the '80s or '90s, partly because reactionary forces were already on the retreat, with the liberation of southern Africa, East Timor and Eastern Europe, the creation of the Palestinian Authority and the shift from military to parliamentary rule throughout Latin America, the Philippines and Indonesia.

When the left tide is rising, May Day provides an opportunity to sum up past victories and preview the revolutionary "festival of the oppressed" to come. When the tide is low or dropping, as now, Mayday is just the international distress call - a cry for help.


For more than two decades, the genuine Left has been swamped by a pseudo-Left whose hostility to capitalism is reactionary rather than progressive. The pseudo-Left opposes modernity, development, globalisation, technology and progress.

It embraces obscurantism, relativism, romanticism and even nature worship. At May Day rallies, the pseudo-Left whines about how things aren't what they used to be.

The real Left has been marginalised, debating neither the neo-cons nor the pseudo-Left, simply because there has been no audience for that debate. Incoherent nonsense from complete imbeciles is published as "Left" comment in newspapers just so right-wing commentators can pretend they have something intelligent to say. In fact "Left" is used as a euphemism for "pessimistic", "unimaginative" and just plain "dull".

But now there is an audience. The war in Iraq has woken people everywhere - and the pseudo-Left has really blown its chance.

Millions who marched in mid-February stopped marching two months later, as soon as the argument shifted towards democratising and liberating the Iraqi people. Those millions still agree that George W. Bush is an arrogant bully but they no longer believe the peacemongers have got it right. People want to figure out what is going on and are joining the debate at websites such as www.lastsuperpower.net.

For months, the argument was about weapons of mass destruction and the role of the UN. If the demands of the US, and the UN, had been fully met, Saddam Hussein could have lived happily, and the Iraqi people miserably, for ever after.

But look at what happened next! Suddenly we were hearing a different song. Bush has been making the argument not for disarming Iraq but for liberating Iraq.

Stripped of the "God bless America" stuff, the US President's case now goes like this:

If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face, but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.

Actually, those words are from Noam Chomsky two days before Bush's UN speech on September 10, 2002.

But if Bush had adopted Chomsky's position so early, that would have prevented congressional authorisation. Such a position threatens to destabilise despotic, reactionary regimes everywhere. But those in the US foreign policy establishment have devoted their entire careers to supporting the most corrupt tyrannies in the Middle East, in the name of "stability".

For Chomsky, "draining the swamps" apparently didn't include killing people and blowing things up. Fortunately, Bush is made of sterner stuff.

Both Bush and Chomsky know the US cannot be secure from medievalist terrorist mosquitoes while the Middle East remains a swamp. But Bush also knows that modernity grows out of the barrel of a gun.

That is a genuinely Left case for a revolutionary war of liberation, such as has occurred in Iraq. The pseudo-Left replies: "That's illegal."

Well, of course revolutionary war is illegal! Legal systems are created by revolutions, not revolutions by legal systems.
The next logical step for the new policy is to establish a viable Palestinian state. Bush has put himself in a position where he can and must take that step. Naturally, he will not admit to the enormous strategic and policy retreat that such a step implies, so he has preceded it with enough triumphalist rhetoric to make even the Fox News team look queasy.

The revival of the Left in the '60s only began once it was widely noticed that the remnants of the previous movement were reactionaries obstructing progress. After it tried so hard to preserve fascism in Iraq, even after Bush Jr had wisely given up on Bush Sr's policy of keeping the Iraqi dictator in power, can anyone deny the pseudo-Left is reactionary?
  • 0

#4 Zen

Zen

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11661 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 12:32 PM

Originally posted by abbracadabra
http://www.bendib.co...beus-Corpse.jpg


http://www.bendib.co...reme-Bodies.jpg



:kowt: :cheers:
  • 0

#5 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 12:40 PM

but zen,

did you read my posted article?

What did you think of it?
  • 0

#6 rozlan

rozlan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3509 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
link



one thing about mr kettle pot that I might understand..He is BUsh right hand man...an unpaid white house spokesman...:P
  • 0

#7 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
....
The revival of the Left in the '60s only began once it was widely noticed that the remnants of the previous movement were reactionaries obstructing progress. After it tried so hard to preserve fascism in Iraq, even after Bush Jr had wisely given up on Bush Sr's policy of keeping the Iraqi dictator in power, can anyone deny the pseudo-Left is reactionary?





Thanks for pointing out the similarity between the "revolutionary Left" and the Trotskyite neo-cons. BOTH are murderous ideologues who believe that they know what's best for the rest of us.


This is precisely why I am an antiwar CONSERVATIVE. -- a paleo-con I reject the idea that "the end justifies the means"! Nor do I believe that it is the U.S.I.'s job to "save the world". Nor do I think that the U.S.I. has a right or a duty to impose its corrupt decrepit undemocratic political system on other countries. I do not suffer from megalomania, messianism, or satanic arrogance.


To take us beyond the misleading and imprisoning one-dimensional universe of "Left" and "Right", I will refer to the murderous ideologues as "neo-Jacobins". Sometimes these killers pose as (neo-) "conservatives", and sometimes they pose as (neo-) "liberals". In reality, they are neither liberal nor conservative.

Whatever the neo-Jacobin aim, it does not justify killing a hundred thousand Iraqis!

Whether they call themselves "Left" or "Right", the neo-Jacobins use evil means, and poison roots yield poison fruit. The more they kill, the more their "utopia" recedes beyond the horizon.


What's more, the aims the neo-Jacobins give for public consumption are different from their real aims. In public, they speak of "democracy" and "liberation", but in practice, they are UNdemocratic and even fascistic.

The very idea that the U.S.I. has a right to kill hundreds of thousands to inflict its will on another country is profoundly undemocratic! More than that, the idea is insane.




What are the REAL neo-Jacobin aims?
  • the Israelification of the Middle East
  • a "Greater Israel" stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates"
  • a civil war in Iraq
  • the destruction of the Iraqi people
  • the extermination of the Palestinians
  • the acquisition of a stranglehold on the world's oil supply


Not only are the neo-Jacobin means evil: Their aims are ALSO evil.

This is a common failing among ideologues: The utopians start off very idealistic and high-minded, but their movement is soon taken over by thugs, who then set the real agenda. The idealists then come to serve as front men for the killers.

We saw this transformation occur in communism, and again, in Zionism.

Because the neo-Jacobins embrace ruthlessness, they invite the thugs into their movement. These thugs then proceed to turn the idealists into "useful idiots".




Whether the neo-Jacobins promote themselves as "Left" or "Right" makes no difference. We judge them by what they actually DO, not by what they say.

The bottom line is that they are a war-whooping utopians, and war-making is the most heinous crime there is.




http://prorev.com/shilling.htm
+(
THE COALITION OF THE SHILLING

The Iraqis will have to learn democracy someplace else
By Sam Smith / The Progressive Review

Tired of killing Muslims, we are now trying to teach their survivors some democracy.

There are a number of practical problems with this, among them being that the curriculum is in the hands of the most authoritarian, deceitful, anti-democratic, and constitution-wrecking administration we've ever had. But there's an even more disturbing matter: wander around your nation's capital and try to find something better. Leaving aside anomalies such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute, a few members of Congress, and a handful of anachronic journalists, this town shows virtually no interest in liberty, the Constitution, or democracy these days - except when prescribing them to those in far away lands.
....
)+




http://www.lewrockwe...callahan93.html
Tortured Logic: What Is It Good For?
by Gene Callahan
....
The war fever of the neoconservatives rests on the same impulses that drove the socialist utopians of the twentieth century. It is an inability to tolerate the fact that the world is not arranged exactly as one would like it to be, and that other people may have plans and value judgments different than one's own. Ludwig von Mises captured their spirit forty years ago:

They are driven by the dictatorial complex. They want to deal with their fellow men in the way an engineer deals with the materials out of which he builds houses, bridges, and machines. They want to substitute "social engineering" for the actions of their fellow citizens and their own unique all-comprehensive plan for the plans of all other people.
)+




http://engforum.prav...443#post1531443 -- the Trotskyite neo-cons
  • 0

#8 Zen

Zen

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11661 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
but zen,

did you read my posted article?

What did you think of it?



Interesting point and quite real. Sad on the other hand. Sad for us, "the people" of the first amendament. But my cheers were referring only to the pictures issues.:kowt:
  • 0

#9 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:32 PM

But did you fully understand it zen? It was very pro war. Very pro Bush.
  • 0

#10 shaukat

shaukat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21822 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:33 PM

Is 'the left' is not infiltrated by Jews? :rolleyes:
  • 0

#11 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
But did you fully understand it zen? It was very pro war. Very pro Bush.





Yes, OF COURSE it's pro-Bush. The neo-cons started out as Trotskyites.

http://engforum.prav...443#post1531443 -- the Trotskyite neo-cons

Trotskyites like Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz have long been ardent Bush supporters.


The Trots infiltrated the conservative movement in the 1950s. James Burnham, the founder of one of the leading Trotskyite parties in the U.S., became the senior editor at National Review.

The Trotskyites were masquerading as "conservatives", but they were far more rabidly militaristic than true conservatives. Thus, they were welcomed into the "Defense" establishment, where they quickly rose to the top. Their intense hatred for rival Stalinists led them to promote war against the Soviet Union. They used the U.S. as their cat's-paw in their war against the Stalinists.


Now the neo-cons (the Trotskyite infiltrators) are deeply entrenched at the highest levels of power in the U.S.I.. They have gained the world -- but they lost their soul long ago. However idealistic their aims might have been at one time, their means are ruthless, and poison roots yield poison fruit.

Killing people does not make people "Free". Nor does death and destruction turn a country into a "Democracy". Killing tens of millions of people did not "work" in the U.S.S.R., and it won't work today.

Some people never learn!
  • 0

#12 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 02:31 PM

Originally posted by NonZionist
Yes, OF COURSE it's pro-Bush. The neo-cons started out as Trotskyites.



What do you mean started out as Trotskyites.?

They still are!

the word "revolution" crops up a lot here on pravda in the posts of many pro war posters. LifeIsGood is a prime example.

Bush has a strong pro-Trotskyite base. What he is doing is classic policy. Mr Teapot is most probably a rabid Maoist.
  • 0

#13 Condilover

Condilover

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3441 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 03:41 PM

Brendon,

Good article...

I take issue with the Bush needs to do something over Palestine thing.

Really nothing can be done by outside groups. That has to come from within.

There is never going to be peace there because it is a cause that radical Islamists need. And, they cannot stand a Jewish state to exist in that area. If the Palestinians made peace the Arab terror groups would disrupt this peace. They would be in continuous war with the makers of the peace and try to gain control of the Palestinian government. Once control was had the same old business would begin again. So, don't ever look for a peace there.
  • 0

#14 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 03:59 PM

Condilover,

this is the AUTHOR. Note his politics. He is extreme left wing:

Albert Langer is an unreconstructed Maoist (anarcho-Stalinist) who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for attempted incitement to assault police as a May Day speaker in 1971. Released on appeal after six weeks, he is still at large, and still supports the overthrow of tyrannical regimes by armed force. His most recent sentence was for contempt of both parties, and the courts, at the 1996 election.



I find it instructive that so many so-called conservatives support this man's rantings.
  • 0

#15 Zen

Zen

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11661 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
But did you fully understand it zen? It was very pro war. Very pro Bush.



Ones again: it
  • 0

#16 Condilover

Condilover

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3441 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Brendon
Condilover,

this is the AUTHOR. Note his politics. He is extreme left wing:

I find it instructive that so many so-called conservatives support this man's rantings.



Oh, I thought you had written it. Which Conservatives support it?
  • 0

#17 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Condilover
Oh, I thought you had written it. Which Conservatives support it?






The point everyone is making is that the really EXTREME "Left" has repackaged itself as "conservative". As a result, many superficially "conservative" Americans have been seduced into supporting
  • perpetual war-making,
  • global empire
  • the destruction of international law
  • the destruction of the Bill of Rights
  • the destruction of national sovereignty
  • torture
  • state terror
  • Big Brother
  • massive corruption
  • a collectivist world-view
  • the fascist regime in Israel


Because the neo-cons are so MILITARISTIC so BLOOD-thirsty, and so ARROGANT, they appeal to certain people "on the right" -- people who are not in control of their KILLER instincts and emotions..

But the extreme militarism of the neo-cons is just the SUGAR-COATING that enables them to implement their totalitarian ultra-LEFT policies




+(
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
)+
-- Barry Goldwater, speech, West Chester Pa., Oct 21, 1964

A government big enough to dictate to the entire world is big enough to dictate to Americans. A government that is big enough to murder a hundred thousand people in a country that didn't attack us and didn't even threaten us is big enough and ruthless enough to murder Americans.


Those who lust for global domination will end up with a totalitarian nightmare here at home. They will be dominated and crushed by the monster they themselves created.
  • 0

#18 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 27 September 2005 - 10:06 PM

The leftist screeching rose during the 90s once again, the first since it died off after the early 70s. The civil war in the Yugo was their calling card. Those that were once chanting "Give peace a chance" in the 1960s were chanting "give war a chance" in the former Yugo. Doves became hawks when they wanted to kill Serbs to placate their muslim allies. Well now that the left has helped create a muslim state in the heart of Europe plus turning a blind eye to the growing jihadist threat in their own countries are paying for their allegiance to islam. Jihadists are targeting Europe. Europes' former aggrieved are coming home to roost. What a difference 10 years makes.
  • 0

#19 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Brendon

.... Mr Teapot is most probably a rabid Maoist.



More leftard hysterics.
I figured you had more savvy than SourKraut who automatically substitutes the CIA and Jews for every atrocity perpetrated by Islamofascists.

For months, the argument was about weapons of mass destruction and the role of the UN. If the demands of the US, and the UN, had been fully met, Saddam Hussein could have lived happily, and the Iraqi people miserably, for ever after.

Maybe so. The US is not in the business of regime change unless they determine there is a high probability their security is at risk. Had Saddam co-operated with the West he would still be in place, murdering his citizens at will.
Same situation in Afghanistan. Had Mullah Omar turned over his son-in-law bin Laden, he too would would still be in power, happily treating the women like cattle.

But look at what happened next! Suddenly we were hearing a different song. Bush has been making the argument not for disarming Iraq but for liberating Iraq.


This policy became obvious with the realization that democracies do not go to war with each other. The Despots and Theocrats of the area had to be replaced with law abiding Democracies. Wrenching countries out of the middle ages cannot be accomplished overnight, may take generations.
  • 0

#20 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:31 AM

Mr Teapot,

your hysterical Trotskyite/ unreconstructed Maoist rants do not frighten me.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru