Over the past generation, we have been inundated by disinformation from an unlimited number of seemingly credible organizations whose aim is to discredit any development related to Israel that does not advance the positions of the Left. And due to the ubiquity of this disinformation, among wider and wider circles today the belief has taken hold that there is something fundamentally illegitimate about non-leftist Israelis and non-leftist supporters of Israel.

Since most Israelis are not leftist, and since the most outspoken supporters of Israel are not leftists, there is a widening belief – particularly among liberals – that Israelis, Israeli institutions and Israel’s supporters are illegitimate.

This brings us to the second reason that it has become so difficult for Americans – and particularly liberal American Jews – who viscerally support Israel, to defend or even understand the Jewish state today.

There is a Western tendency, most pronounced on the anti-colonialist Left, to ignore the nature of the Islamic world generally and the Palestinians in particular, and concentrate their attention on Israel alone.

Case in point is Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz is rightly considered one of Israel’s most outspoken defenders in the US. But like his fellow leftist ideologues, Dershowitz apparently does not think that it is important to focus on the nature of things in the Islamic world. Rather than notice current realities, he places his faith in his power to shape the future through his intellect and his willingness to compromise.

If a Liberal Democrat MP can court the lowest common denominator by attacking ‘the Jews,’ and escape with little more than an ear-bashing – why shouldn’t others follow? If endorsing hate-preachers won’t get in the way of your nomination as a candidate for the most powerful directly-elected position in Europe – but will likely make you some fairly useful political allies – then why not?
 

Unless the Left can come to terms with the moral and ethical rot that has set in among its ranks, they should expect it to spread, not disappear. In that case, they will forever be remembered for their role in allowing fascism to stroll in through their front door

The double standards applied in relation to Israel are extraordinary. Where Obama’s assaults on Pakistan are nodded through, or occasionally mildly criticised in newspaper columns, Israel’s assaults on Gaza give rise to the most furious condemnation and to rowdy public demonstrations at which Israel is denounced as “evil” and “fascistic”. Where Obama’s victims – not only Pakistani militants but vast numbers of Pakistani women and children, too – are almost instantly forgotten, Israel’s victims are splashed across the front pages of our newspapers and at the top of news bulletins and are speedily put on anti-war placards that denounce Israel’s barbarism. Where Palestinian territories are overrun with keffiyeh-wearing, conscience-possessing Westerners who monitor Israel’s every act, rural Pakistan has no such army of caring outsiders, no well-minded gatherers of info about Obama’s bloody destruction. I guess rural Pakistan is too hard for these people to get to. Their consciences don’t stretch as far as the Khyber Pass.

Finally, many of Israel’s critics are guilty of massive oversimplification of both Israeli and Palestinian society. For its part, Israel is often defined solely in terms of the Occupation, as if it’s the only salient feature of Israeli life and culture. Any discussion of other topics — its environmental achievements, LGBT rights, even domestic social justice issues — is said to be a distraction, or propaganda, or worse. That is absurd. Israel, like anywhere else, is multifaceted and complex, and discourse about Israel is not a zero-sum game. Ads promoting “Gay Tel Aviv” are tourist advertising, not political propaganda. Hyperbolic public relations about Israelis inventing the cell phone is PR, not some attempt to justify the Occupation. Imagine if everything Americans said about themselves was seen as a smokescreen to obscure the oppression of Native Americans.

But the flattening of Palestinian society is even worse. Ironically, given the critics doing it, it’s Orientalist to depict the Palestinians — as Sarah Schulman did in the pages of The New York Times — as noble victims of European colonialism, free from blemish and fault. Such oversimplifications are no different from those of noble “Indians,” noble poor people, or noble savages in general and are offensive to Palestinians and Israelis alike.

For example, in one of the accounts of an LGBT trip to the Palestinian territories last year, one participant expressed dismay at being told not to be visibly affectionate with her female partner. This naiveté is revealing. Palestinian society is patriarchal, homophobic and conservative. The Palestinian Authority has done little to prosecute so-called “honor killings” (that is, murders of LGBT people or unmarried women suspected of sexual activity), and there are hundreds of LGBT Palestinians living, legally and illegally, in Israel as a result. That doesn’t mean that Palestinians shouldn’t have the right to self-determination, but it does mean that facile dichotomies of victim and oppressor are misplaced. I don’t know what queer paradise this particular individual expected to find in Ramallah, but the expectation says much about the naive propagandizing that takes place in my community. There’s pinkwashing on both sides of the political fence.

Mitt Romney is under furious attack from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and pro-Obama media for pointing out the truth about why culture matters in the economic success of Israel.

How would these people have reacted if Romney gave this speech:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania the Palestinian Territories, and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest Middle East, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Rabin administration, and the Bush Netanyahu administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant Israeli sentiment or anti-trade Jewish sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I suspect the reaction would have been what it now is, with absurd charges of racism and cultural insensitivity.

What a difference a continent makes.

Progressivism, in the Marxist and post-Marxist forms that have been swallowing the world for a century, is, in its methodology, nothing but the moral infantilization of mankind.  It seeks the establishment of a population dominated by the childish fear of facing the world alone.  Its pretty slogans are all variations on this theme.  From “Workers of the world unite” to “It takes a village,” the message is always the same: you can’t face this “dog-eat-dog” world without the safety of the herd, which means without material security provided by political force.  An all-powerful mother government must always be there to protect you from the ever-present monster, which is just life itself.  And such security is not “charity”; it is your right.  You are entitled to it, as any child is entitled to his parents’ protection. 

Today’s ever-expanding “entitlement mentality” is literally shamelessness elevated to the status of a moral code.  Progressivism has created an entire euphemistic vocabulary to justify the unabashed demand that others sacrifice their liberty to save me from my childish fear of facing life as an adult.  “Positive rights,” “social justice,” “redistributive justice,” “creative individuality,” and so on, are all part of the leftist lexicon of cowardice. 

You need something?  Don’t be afraid, mother government will make someone give it to you. 

You’re unable to get something?  Don’t be afraid, mother government will find someone who has too much of it, and force him to share it with you. 

Yet Friedman is no more than an example of an allegory for the way many in the West, including its leaders and journalists (led by Obama) formulate their doctrine in line with the ideological color of their worldview, and as result of an overdose of wishful thinking. For them, reality is no more than a burdensome nuisance.

According to this mechanism, the Egyptian people’s deep desire for democracy, equality, civil rights and respect for women and minority rights is attested to by the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, and not, heaven forbid, by the mood of the more than 80 million citizens of this country.

According to polls undertaken in Egypt in 2008 and in 2010 by Gallup, some 95% of Egyptians want Islam to have greater influence in politics, 64% want Islamic Law to be the basis for legislation, 54% support public segregation of men and women, 82% support stoning as punishment for adultery, and 84% endorse the death penalty for those who shun Islam.

In 1979, in the name of noble human rights ideals, Jimmy Carter abandoned the Persian Shah, paved Khomeini’s way to Tehran, and with his own hands turned Iran from America’s most important ally in the Persian Gulf to an Islamic Ayatollah republic.

People who lack the skills to take on more prestigious jobs can either remain idle and live as parasites on others or take the jobs for which they are currently qualified, and then move up the ladder as they acquire more experience. People who are flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s on New Year’s Day are seldom flipping hamburgers there when Christmas time comes.

Those relatively few statistics that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time show them moving massively from one income bracket to another over time, starting at the bottom and moving up as they acquire skills and experience.

Telling young people that some jobs are “menial” is a huge disservice to them and to the whole society. Subsidizing them in idleness while they wait for “meaningful work” is just asking for trouble, both for them and for all those around them.

In a global economy the rich are mobile. Last week, the co-founder of Facebook Eduardo Saverin renounced his American citizenship, the better to avoid $600,000,000 in taxes.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the mob that got her fired, Ms. Riley tells us that “If you want to know why almost all of the responses to my original post consist of personal attack on me, along with irrelevant mentions of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and George Zimmerman, it is because black studies is a cause, not a course of study. By doubting the academic worthiness of black studies, my critics conclude, I am opposed to racial justice — and therefore a racist.”

Liberals like to howl about the chilling effect when supposed enemies of free speech try to get them fired for something they said. In academia, these enemies, of course, are always conservatives. Liberals are always the victims of the mob. All of this proves a point: They’re not only dumb, these academic authoritarians — they’re also breathtakingly clueless.

Will Rahn, deputy editor for The Daily Caller, wrote an article titled “NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury” (Nov. 2, 2011). Nearly 1,000 protesters were arrested in New York between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15. Police collected information on each arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The median value of the homes of the arrestees was $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied homes of the rest of us. Ninety-five of the arrestees lived in homes valued at more than $500,000. Those who rented paid a median rent of $1,850 per month. Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. One Occupy Wall Street protester arrested — presumably, if you listen to the mainstream media, penniless and from a blue-collar family — lived in an $850,000 home in the nation’s capital.

After all, in Egypt or Syria you would become another dead body on the street. In China or Russia you would find yourself imprisoned for the rest of your life if you even attempted to raise your hand against a local police officer or soldier.

“So wait,” I asked in all seriousness. “You wouldn’t have come here if you thought you could get badly hurt?” My Swedish friend grinned. “I don’t think so,” he said. “I may be a radical, but I’m also a spoiled one!” And they both burst out laughing.

That’s when I realized that for many of those foreign peace activists, this is all just a game. And in this game we, the Israelis and Palestinians, are the pieces. They come from all corners of the world to a faraway country they have never been to before. They confront soldiers and policemen, blocking roads and holding signs. Moreover – as long as they have their cold beer by the end of the evening, as long as they lay their heads in a comfy and friendly hostel – they will continue to arrive.

alonmg:

jaget:

fucknoliberals:

According to bombshell CommunismKills: the best speech of all time.  I tend to agree.

I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a liberal New York Jew; you don’t get much more liberal than that—although it was lower-case “l,” not what’s considered Liberal today. I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.

I tell a story. It’s not a true story, but it helps crys­tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you’re catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, “I hate my wife.” You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you’re together, and you know he doesn’t hate his wife; they’ve been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they’re just like her. No, he doesn’t hate his wife.

So you’re having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she’s being beaten up right outside the restaurant. You grab your friend and say, “Come on, let’s help her. Let’s help your wife,” and he says, “Nah, I’m sure she deserves it.” At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That’s what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I’d hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I’d chuckle to myself and think, “Oh, they always say that; they love America.” Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, “Come on, let’s help her. Let’s help America,” and they said, “Nah, she deserves it.”

At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. And that began me on what’s now a five-plus-year quest to try to understand the mindset. How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and see only oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperi­alism? How could you live in the least bigoted nation in human history and, as Joe Biden said, “see racism lurking in every dark shadow”?

Over the next five years, what I came to think through, what I came to learn, what I came to find in conversations and studying, listening, and read­ing became this talk and very soon will be the book Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals “Think.”

I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I’m here to propose to you that it’s not “just about” every issue; it’s quite literally every issue. And it’s not just wrong; it’s as wrong as wrong can be; it’s 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful.

What I discovered is that this is not an accident. This is part of a philosophy that now dominates the whole of Western Europe and the Democratic Party today. I, like some others, call it Modern Liberalism. The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Give the Modern Liberal the choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, and he will not only side with Saddam Hussein; he will slander America and Americans in order to do so. Give him the choice between the vicious mass murderer corrupt terrorist dictator Yasser Arafat and the tiny and wonderful democracy of Israel, and he will plagia­rize maps, forge documents, engage in blood libels—as did our former President Jimmy Carter— to side with the terrorist organizations and to attack the tiny democracy of Israel.

It’s not just foreign policy; it’s every policy. Given the choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage promiscuity—and believe me, I know this from my hometown of Hollywood—they will use their movies, their TV shows, their songs, even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it’s cool: like the movie American Pie, in which you are a loser unless you’ve had sex with your best friend’s mother while you’re still a child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice group, will hold a fund-raiser called “‘F’ Abstinence.” (And it’s not just “F.” It’s the entire word, because promoting vulgarity is part of their agenda.)

So the question becomes: Why? How do they think they’re making a better world? The first thing that comes into your mind when trying to under­stand, as I’ve so desperately tried to understand, is that if they side always with evil, then they must be evil. But we have a problem with that, don’t we? We all know too many people who fit this category but who aren’t evil: many of my lifelong friends, the people I grew up with, relatives, close relatives.

If they’re not evil, then the next place your mind goes is that they must just be incredibly stupid. They don’t mean to always side with evil, the failed and wrong; they just don’t know what they’re doing. But we have a problem with this as well. You can’t say Bill Maher (my old boss) is a stupid man. You can’t say Ward Churchill is a stupid man. You can’t say all these academics are stupid people. Frankly, if it were just stupidity, they’d be right more often. What’s the expression? “Even a broken clock is right twice a day,” or “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.”

But if they’re not stupid and they’re not evil, what’s their plan? How do they think they’re making a better world by siding with Saddam Hussein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open, by seek­ing the destruction of a democracy of Jews? I don’t know if you’ve seen the list going around the Inter­net of all the Nobel Prize-winning scientists from this tiny state of Israel. How do they think they’re making a better world by promoting to children behaviors that are inappropriate and cause diseases and unwanted pregnancies and ruin people’s lives? How do they think they’re making a better world?

What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with—none of the religions, none of the philos­ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government—have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they’re convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov­erty, crime, and injustice must be found—can only be found—in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency—all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

When this first started to dawn on me, I would question my Liberal friends—and believe me, there were plenty of them in Hollywood. The thing about Hollywood is that it is overwhelmingly Liberal: upper-case “L,” not lower-case “l.” There are a lot more of us conservatives than you would suspect, but they are afraid. It’s hard to come out because what’s so Orwellian—and virtually everything about this philosophy is Orwellian—is that the Lib­erals are as illiberal as you can imagine. As much as they scream “McCarthyism,” there is a “graylist” there that sees people not get hired because they don’t toe the Leftist line.

What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn’t right and to prove that wrong isn’t wrong. You see this in John Lennon’s song “Imagine”: “Imagine there’s no countries.” Not imagine great countries, not imagine defeat the Nazis, but imagine no religions, and the key line is imagine a time when anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there’s nothing left to kill or die for.

Obviously, this is not going to happen overnight. There are still going to be religions, but they are going to do their best to denigrate them. There are still going to be countries, but they will do what they can to give our national sovereignty to one-world bodies. In the meantime, everything that they teach in our schools, everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick and how they spin them have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., and that is: Does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil? Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to failure so that there is nothing left to believe in?

You might recognize this as the paradigm and the purpose of one of the most successful Liberal motion pictures of all time, Fahrenheit 9/11. There’s nobody who believes Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was an honest attempt to portray the real events of that horrific day and its aftermath. Every­body knows that Michael Moore is a Leftist and that it was a propaganda film in which the facts were cherry-picked, the evidence manipulated, the nar­rative near-lunatic, all for one purpose. The ques­tion that we were debating at the time was, “Should we go to war against the Iraqi government, against Saddam Hussein?” So he used all the tricks and manipulations and lies that he could to show that America isn’t that good, that America isn’t worth fighting for, that Saddam Hussein isn’t that evil and not worth fighting against, for the purpose of undermining our efforts to go to war.

Again, there is quite literally nothing in Holly­wood, in the newspapers, in our schools that does not have this as its sole criterion. For example, there is no journalistic standard by which the misdeeds of a handful of night guards at an obscure prison for terrorists—misdeeds in which nobody was killed and nobody was seriously hurt—ought to be a front-page story in The New York Times. Not for a single day. Yet, for 44 straight days, this non-story was a front-page story in The New York Times. Why? Because while it met no journalistic standard, it met the one and only Modern Liberal standard: “You think America’s good? We found something that’s going to make you not believe that any longer. You think that the Islamic fascists are bad? No, no, no, this is why they do it. No wonder they fly airplanes into our buildings.”

And that’s just one of so many other examples. There was no journalistic standard by which News­week printed the story of Korans being flushed down the toilet. Not only was it a bogus story, it never happened—it was an impossible story. Think about it: Can you flush a book down the toilet? Even a five-year-old would know that you can’t flush a book down the toilet; you can’t fit a square peg into a round hole. So why did Newsweek run a story that was not only bogus, but that failed to meet even the most obvious logic? Because nothing matters to them. There is no standard, because a standard would require them to say something is better than something else, which goes against this entire philosophy. It met the one and only criterion of truth to Newsweek, which was that it attacked America and justified the Islamic fascist terrorist.

The same thing is true in the art world. There is no artistic standard, no aesthetic criterion by which— forgive me—a jar of urine with a cross in it is beauti­ful. There is no aesthetic criterion by which the cura­tors of the museum said, “Take down the Monet and put up the urine,” but it met the one and only stan­dard of art that exists to the Modern Liberal.

Similarly, the movies last year met no criterion of storytelling and no criterion of cinematography. The five nominees for Best Picture met one criterion. Brokeback Mountain said heterosexual marriage isn’t that important; go be a homosexual if you choose. Munich said there is no difference between the terror­ists and the people who stop them from murdering again. And if you look at the other pictures as well, ultimately with Crash winning, Crash said America is this evil, horrible nation where every moment of every day is filled with bigotry and racism.

There truly is no standard, no criterion for truth, beauty, justice, or anything else amongst the Mod­ern Liberals, the dominant force in today’s Demo­cratic Party: not all Democrats, but those who will mindlessly accept without question, without doubt, that of course we went into Iraq to steal their oil because that’s what America does; no need to even consider any other possibility. Not everyone who voted for John Kerry and who fits that description is aware of the elite’s blueprint for utopia, and I don’t think some of them would support it if they were.

What the elite have succeeded in doing through the institutions we’ve allowed them to control—and if we’re going to save America, we must take back the schools, the universities, the media, the entertain­ment industry—is indoctrinating, starting with the very young and going all the way up through college and beyond, starting the first time they turn on “Ses­ame Street” and “Buster Bunny,” going up through the middle years when they’re told, “Hey, little boy, if you have a queer eye, you’re going to be a cool guy,” or, “Hey, little girl, it doesn’t matter how cool you are; if you grow up to be a heterosexual married woman, you’re going to be a desperate housewife.”

So many of the other shows that are on the air show family and marriage and all the things that are traditional and that we recognize as good—shows like “The War at Home” and “Rules of Engagement”—as if it’s another battle. They wouldn’t allow “Make Room for Daddy” and shows like those because they were not realistic, so instead we now have the Bundys, where the mother and father hate each other and are looking to get as much as they can from each other, and this whole mindset. And it continues on through Ward Churchill’s ethnic studies class.

What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a “cult of indiscriminateness.” The way the elite does this is by teaching our children, start­ing with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how sin­cerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your great-great-great-great-great grandfa­ther’s birth; that no matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to eliminate bigot­ry is to eliminate rational thought.

There’s a brilliant book out there called The Clos­ing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recog­nition, that they’d been raised to believe that indis­criminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. I para­phrase this in my own works: “In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”

I’ll give you an example. At the airports, in order not to discriminate, we have to intentionally make ourselves stupid. We have to pretend we don’t know things we do know, and we have to pretend that the next person who is likely to blow up an airplane is as much the 87-year-old Swedish great-great-grand­mother as those four 27-year-old imams newly arrived from Syria screaming “Allahu Akbar!” just before they board the plane. In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.

The problem is, of course, that the ability to dis­criminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options—as in “she’s a discriminating shopper”—is the essence of rational thought; thus, the whole of Western Europe and today’s Democrat­ic Party, dominated as it is by this philosophy, rejects rational thought as a hate crime.

So what you’re left with after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in the Leftist indoctrination centers that our schools have become are citizens of voting age who are utterly unwilling and incapable of critically judging the merits of the positions they hold and have held unquestioned since they were five years old and first entered the Leftist indoctrination process.

There was a book that came out at just about the same time as Professor Bloom’s that in some ways even better describes and explains the mindset of the Modern Liberal. It was Robert Fulghum’s All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, and it reads like the bible of Modern Liberalism and the playbook of Democratic Party policy.

The sentence fragment “Don’t hit,” which is one of the lessons that Fulghum refers to, has morphed into an entire sentence now that they’re adults: “War is not the answer.” But they don’t really need to know anything, because even though they know about Neville Chamberlain and what happens if you appease evil, they don’t really need to know it because knowing it or not knowing it would not have changed the position they have now and have held unquestioned since they were five.

When I was five years old, I used to go around the neighborhood trick-or-treating with my friends on Halloween, and we’d have in one hand a bag for candy and in the other hand a little box with a slit on top for nickels and dimes and pennies for UNICEF, because at five years old, the United Nations is a terrific thing: “Don’t hit, talk.” Another lesson from Robert Fulghum is “Share everything.” Well, here, we’ll share power; we’ll share our wealth; we’ll pay for the United Nations. Let’s talk things out. What a lovely, wonderful thing.

Then you turn 10, 15, 20, and you learn some things about the United Nations that change your opinion. You learn about the corruption. You learn about the anti-Semitism, that they ran away from the genocide in Rwanda, have done nothing about the Sudanese genocide—in fact, made the Sudanese members of the Human Rights Commission while they were committing this genocide! You and I change our position because these are things we really need to know, yet the Modern Liberal will maintain their five-year-old’s position, their belief that the United Nations is this great, wonderful thing, and completely ignore everything they’ve learned since.

There was a song that came out at about this time called “Goodbye Stranger” by a group called Super­tramp—because, you know, being a “tramp” is super! In it, this guy and this girl shack up together for a couple weeks, and apparently things are pretty wonderful until she says something like, “Honey, we’ve run out of food. Why don’t you go to the supermarket, pick up some things, and then we can do this for another week or two?” He says, “I should go shopping? No, no, that’s not my paradise. I’m leaving.” And as he’s walking out the door, he says to her, “Now, I believe that what you say is the undis­puted truth, but I have to see things my own way just to keep me in my youth.”

That is so much the mindset of the Modern Lib­erals. It’s not that they are not aware of all the things that we’re aware of; it’s that they need to reject them in order to remain in this five-year-old’s utopia that they’ve been told is the only hope for mankind: a mindless indiscriminateness.

So what you’re left with is not really adults, but citizens of voting age who cannot judge their own positions but are virulently antagonistic to any posi­tion other than their own. Why? Because when you’ve been brought up to believe that indiscrimi­nateness is a moral imperative, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination. This is why Bush is Hitler; this is why Reagan is Hitler; this is why Giuliani is Hitler.

How is Rudolph Giuliani like Hitler to a thinking person? In one way: Hitler discriminated against the Jews; Giuliani discriminated against the crack-addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times Square. Hitler discriminated against the Catholics; Giuliani discriminated against the criminal over­lords. Hitler discriminated against the gypsies; Giuliani discriminated against the terrorists on 9/11 and beyond. In other words, any form of discrimi­nation is wrong.

The Modern Liberals know that theirs is a posi­tion arrived at through the moral imperative of indiscriminateness; therefore, any position other than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of discrimination. So this makes you not just wrong on your issues and your stances. They don’t even think about your issues and your stances. They don’t have to. Even if they were will­ing to, even if they were able to, they don’t need to. Would you sit and contemplate Hitler’s Social Secu­rity policy? No, you would fight Hitler.

So what you’re left with is, after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in these indoctrination centers—and it’s not a coincidence that the longer you stay in the indoctri­nation process, the more morally inverted you become, so that to become head of the Ethnic Stud­ies Department, you have to argue that the Islamic fascist terrorists are the good guys and the victims of 9/11 were all little Eichmanns—is people who quite literally cannot differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse.

But indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought invariably leads the Modern Liberal to side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Because in a world where you are indiscriminate, where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, your expectation is that all behavior should lead to equally good out­comes. When, in the real world, different behaviors lead to different outcomes, you and I know why— because we think. We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity tend to fail at a greater rate than communities that promote teenage absti­nence: Teenage promiscuity and teenage abstinence are not the same behaviors. Teenage abstinence is a better behavior.

Forget the moral component for a moment; let’s just talk practicalities. If your boy’s out messing around, he’s not home reading a book. If your daughter’s down at the abortion mill again, she’s not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son’s in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, he’s not putting together his five-year plan.

You and I recognize why communities that pro­mote teenage abstinence do better than those that promote teenage promiscuity in their music, in their movies, in the schools. But to the Modern Liberal who cannot make that judgment—must not make that judgment—that would be discriminating. They have no explanation. Therefore, the only explana­tion for success has to be that somehow success has cheated. Success, simply by its existence, is proof positive to the Modern Liberal of some kind of chi­canery and likely bigotry. Failure, simply by its existence—no other evidence needed, just the fact that it has failed—is enough proof to them that fail­ure has been victimized.

So the mindless foot soldier, which is what I call the non-elite, will support the elite’s blueprint for utopia, will side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, out of a sense of justice. As I said at the beginning, they’re not evil. It’s just a mindless acceptance without any true Socratic desire to talk about the real consequences. It’s meaningless to them, and it’s why John Lennon said utopia was all the people living for today.

By the way, it’s not a coincidence that those who live for today now have so much debt. What is debt? It’s the failure to repay a promise from yesterday. And they vote themselves nothing but more and more entitlements, which is what? Stuff for me. I’ll worry about who pays for it later.

The same is true of good and evil. Since nothing can deemed good, nothing can be deemed evil. That which society does recognize as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice. That which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that prejudice. So, again, the mindless foot soldier will invariably side with whatever policy, mindlessly accept whatever policy seeks to tear down what is good—America, Israel, Wal-Mart—and elevate what is evil until everything meets in the middle and there is nothing left to fight about.

Take an issue in the news and think like a Mod­ern Liberal, and you will see how, once you’ve been indoctrinated into this mindset, there is no other choice. Remember, I said it was inevitable. Once you belong to this cult of indiscriminateness, there is no other conclusion you can come to than that good is evil and that evil is the victim of good.

We all know it’s official policy at the Leftist media outlets to never call Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hezbol­lah, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, or any of the oth­er Islamic fascist terrorist groups around the world “terrorists,” and you know why. In fact, it’s even in official memos to reporters ordering them not to use the appropriate word. That reason is that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Who are we to employ critical, rational judgment?”

But, as a very minimum standard, can’t we at least agree that in order to be called a “freedom fighter,” you have to be fighting for freedom? We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he’s told us. It’s not freedom; it’s an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated. People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off. That’s how sick this mentality is.

So, if The New York Times and CNN and News­week and the rest of the leftist media outlets are right and there is no objective difference between the ter­rorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that you and I teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are vil­lains? You and I know why because we think.

George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in the his­tory of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff. Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people’s money, sent 14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies, all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.

But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter. So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of Euro­pean descent. If there is no difference between the behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do we teach that Yasser Arafat and Sadd­am Hussein are villains? There can be no other rea­son than they are darker-skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.

So when push comes to shove and after 18 Unit­ed Nations resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people. You and I know why because we think: because we make critical, rational, moral judgments.

But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we’re evil and Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim. So they will rush there, as we’ve seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his tor­ture chambers because they won’t judge rape rooms and torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral judgment.

And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which the forged document users and the Leftist press euphemistically called “anti-war rallies,” you could hear their chant: “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your racist war.” What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don’t know. It’s not a factual statement; it’s not an accurate statement. Didn’t we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn’t we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?

What is this based on? It’s based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, any­thing other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.

Spot-on.

I employed Evan Sayet and produced a TV show around his comedy act a couple years ago. Brilliant thinker and comedian. And a very nice guy. He understands the Left and specifically the Hollyweird Left very well.

totally 100% correct of the left. They bash, they scream, they bitch. And do nothing but make the rhetoric worse, and never do anything to make this country better.