Monday, June 20, 2005

Anyone who doubts that we are in the midst of a civil war in America is simply kidding themselves -- and doing so at great peril to this country.

The Democrats see this as war which is why they have engaged in typical wartime operations including the pilfering of top secret documents (Sandy Berger), the manufacturing of misinformation (Newsweek), the creation of forged documents CBS News), the dissemination of propaganda (Michael Moore), incitement to hate (virtually all Democrats) and aiding and abetting the enemies of their enemies (the Islamic fascist terrorists).

When the likes of Dick Durbin -- the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate -- compares America and America's soldiers to the Nazis there are only two possibilities: either Durbin believes it -- in which case if I believed America was like the Nazis, I, too, would hate America -- or he doesn't believe it and thus is knowingly and intentionally aiding and abetting the enemy. There are no other possibilities.

1 comment:

rlight@alumni.middlebury.edu said...

Dear EVan -- I just discovered your blog through John Ray (I'm a long-time avid reader of his). I just now read some of your posts: your sentiments match mine to a !$#%ing T. I practically pull my hair out with frustration over, yes, the INSANITY that is the Left. In my years of study, I've come the firm conclusion that Leftists are in fact utter nihilists (even if they deny this label; even if they're totally clueless to being nihilists, as they understand themselves). I won't get into the essentially metaphysical reasons for their nihilism (for now at least), but I offer the following excerpt from Roger Scruton's book on modern philosophy. I happened upon this passage the other day reading his book; typed it up and sent it out to sundry friends (and former friends (liberals!). The first paragraph is my introduction, followed by Scruton.

Cheers,
RL



Since Marx and Marxism still (forevermore?) percolate through the veins of the American Left, the following bon mots from György Lukács -- a pre-eminent political theorist of the 20th century and a favorite of Sixties radicals -- come as welcome insight. (Funny, I'd always been given to consider Lukacs a somehow warm n' fuzzy Marxist, one who emphasized the "early, humanistic" Marx). These, coupled with luminous treatment by Roger Scruton, give whole insight into the nature of Michael Moore, Howard Dean (et. al.) and why they are such shameless, out-and-out _liars_ (though, to be sure, part of their ploy is a matter of a particular psychological *projection*: Unload against your enemy every piece of filth of which you know yourself to be totally guilty in the first place).



According to Marxists, "[t]he legal right of private property is explained by the fact that property rights reinforce bourgeois 'relations of production.' In doing so, however, they also contribute to the maintenance of a system that is incompatible with man's final liberation. This will only come with the advent of communism, when private property will be inconceivable, there being no more relations of production that it could serve to maintain.


The theory is more complex than that. But it is often taken to show that there is no such thing as a valid law, or valid system of morality, outside the economic order which requires it. In defending a law as absolute, you not only deny the 'historicity' of human institutions; you affirm the timeless validity of a particular order – usually the bourgeois order – and set your face against social change. It is almost as though morality itself requires the repudiation of morality. In attaching yourself to the moral law, you deny the hope for liberation.



The paradox expressed in those last sentences has been willingly embraced by revolutionaries, from Robespierre and St. Just to Pol Pot and the Sendera Luminosa. It has been most clearly expressed in our time by the Hungarian communist György Lukács, a philosopher and literary critic who was one of the few members of Imre Nagy's government to escape execution after 1956. ' The question of legality or illegality reduces itself . . . for the Communist Party to a mere question of tactics', he wrote in History and Class Consciousness , one of the favourite books of the sixties radicals. 'In this wholly unprincipled solution lies the only possible practical and principled rejection of the bourgeois legal system. ' (You can see here the exultant paradoxism which grips the revolutionary, who, like the mystic, is intoxicated by the thought of his distinguished destiny). What is true of the legal system is true of every other feature of the bourgeois world: economic practices, social relations, emotions, ambitions, even morality itself. Thus Lukács was able to assert that ' Communist ethics makes it the highest duty to accept the necessity to act wickedly,' adding that 'this is the greatest sacrifice revolution asks from us. '



We are familiar with that sacrifice; and it was not paid by the revolutionary intellectuals themselves, but by the countless millions of their victims. As Lukács wrote, 'it is not possible to be human in bourgeois society', so that 'the bourgeois possesses only a semblance of human existence .' It is not hard to exterminate people, when you describe them in such terms. The bourgeois is the Father, whose law is to be swept away; and if he himself is not swept along with it, then has he not asked for just such a destiny?



The scientific pretensions of Marxism have been extremely important as an exonerating device. If revolution is inevitable (being the result of an unavoidable clash between productive forces and productive relations that impede their development), so too are its crimes – which are not crimes at all, but merely birth-pangs of the new social order. Those who seek to facilitate the birth must act quickly and violently. But the small spillage of blood that results is the price of life and liberation."


--Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey. New York: Penguin, 1996, pp 461-2.