Bookshelf update: Dupes — How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

November 7, 2014

Renaissance scholar astrologer

I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Paul Kengor’s “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

book cover kengor dupes

I’m only a few chapters into it, so far, but it has been an interesting discussion of how Communists in the 20th century targeted non-communist liberals and progressives to be suckered into supporting the USSR and the Communist movement against the United States. Kengor notes that the efforts of the duped were not nearly as often aimed at conservatives as they were at anti-communist liberal Democrats and progressives, Harry Truman being a  particular target.

The author seems fair in his treatment of the Democrats, reminding us that there were many who, while liberal or progressive, were staunchly anti-communist — including those who had once been duped, but saw the light. You’ll be surprised at the names that appear in the book, both  “recovered” dupes and those who played the fool till the day they died. The work is extensively footnoted with references to primary sources (both Soviet and American), and Kengor has an easy writing style. The book is available in both Kindle (1) and hardcover formats.

PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. But I still think it’s a good book.

Footnote:
(1) I’m happy to say I’ve found very few typos or formatting errors, so far. These are all too common in Kindle e-books.

Advertisements

(Video) Jonah Goldberg on the real meaning of “social justice”

March 25, 2014
Justice is individual, not social

Justice is individual, not social

“Social justice” is one of those phrases the left loves: stripped of all precision, it means whatever progressives want it to mean — raising the minimum wage, economic redistribution, “rights” for this or that group, etc. It forms a hot mess of unrelated issues, until you see he common thread behind it: “social justice” means doing whatever progressives think is good, and this good is accomplished through the State, with progressives in charge. And, if you disagree, you must be a racist, fascist, misogynistic, reactionary, greedy capitalistic homophobe. (Did I miss anything?)

Anyway, the invaluable Prager University has published a new video that features Jonah Goldberg explaining the real meaning of “social justice:”

Try some of these arguments on liberals you know. Then have fun watching their heads explode.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics”

March 11, 2014

That’s the the bomb-throwing title of a take-no-prisoners article at PJ Media by “Zombie,” an anonymous San Francisco-area blogger who often skewers the Left in his/her neck of the woods. In the article, Zombie examines several common progressive policies. For each, he or she (1) first presents the position neutrally, in a flat statement. Then Zombie gives the progressive public reason for the policy, the conservative misunderstanding of it, and finally the real, racist motive at its heart.

Zombie writes:

What conservatives don’t (yet) know is that under the surface, most progressive positions are motivated by racist attitudes and assumptions felt by white progressives, usually against African-Americans. Progressive positions often seem inexplicable to outsiders because the proposals emanating from them usually manifest as colossal social engineering experiments, which the progressives have only devised as a distraction from the shameful racist motivations at the core.

This essay will likely be eye-opening for conservatives, and infuriating for progressives, who often don’t know their own history and never contemplated the origins of their own belief system. But it’s time to finally bring the uncomfortable truth out in the open.

He/she then gives eight examples. Below is one; I urge you to read the rest:

THE WELFARE STATE (2)

Progressive position:
“Maximize benefits and ease qualifications for all entitlement and social welfare programs; ultimately institute a “guaranteed income” for all U.S. residents.”

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
“No one should starve or go homeless in a wealthy nation such as ours; we should always give a helping hand to those in need.”

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
The ever-escalating magnitude of unnecessary government handouts is just a backdoor route to socialism by confiscating more and more wealth from the productive class and “redistributing” it to the unproductive.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The true goal of progressive-style cradle-to-grave welfare is to enslave blacks in a culture of dependency and thereby keep them mollified and also a dependable Democratic voting bloc.

The toxic addictive effect of an ongoing welfare system has been debated for centuries; as far back as the 1700s in England it was pointed out that giving free food to the lower classes both removed their motivation to work and also increased their numbers; abusing these sociological trends for cynical political advantage dates back even further, when Roman emperors handed out free bread to curry favor with the masses. In modern America, African-Americans disproportionally comprise the lower class, so progressives have devised a racist strategy of lifelong government dependency to not only permanently keep blacks at the bottom of the economic scale but also corrode their sense of self-sufficiency so that they always return to the Democratic Party just as the addict always returns to the pusher.

According to Ronald Kessler’s book Inside the White House, President Johnson explained the rationale behind his “Great Society” welfare programs thus: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” As there is no audio recording of this quote (which was reported second-hand), progressives have spent years trying to cast doubt on its existence, because it confirms the worst assumptions behind the justification for welfare. However, there are other audio recordings from the same era of Johnson obsessing over maximizing black votes and referring to them as “niggers” — for example, listen to this tape of Johnson complaining that he can’t prove black voters are being suppressed because “More niggers vote than white folks.” While this doesn’t conclusively prove he also said the disputed “200 years” quote, it does prove that he spoke in those terms, referred to blacks insultingly, and schemed about ways to maximize the black vote for the Democratic Party — all of which lend credence to the disputed quote’s likely veracity.

What can’t be disputed is that since the institutionalization of welfare, Johnson’s cynical racist vision has come true: generation after generation of inner-city African-Americans have indeed become completely dependent upon welfare, and consequently reliably vote Democratic because the Democrats vow to keep the handouts flowing.

While the motivations for progressivism are more complex than simply “racism” –including for many a genuine, if misguided, desire to help people because society is too difficult for the average person to manage on their own–there’s no doubting that a perception of non-White inferiority underlies a lot of progressive politics, including the cynical use of public money to turn Blacks into dependent voters. Something they’re now trying to do to all through Obamacare and the push to expand dependency on food stamps.

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s controversial and inflammatory, no doubt, but perhaps also illuminating.

And, besides, it’s fun to throw the Left’s own tactics in their face for once.

Footnotes:
(1) I really wish English had a third-person, gender neutral personal pronoun. “He/She” is so clunky.
(2) For a good short booklet on this topic, check out Kevin Williamson’s “The Dependency Agenda.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Politizoid: great moments in liberal history!

January 19, 2011

Celebrating the wonderful things progressives have done to us for us recently:

Anyone know a good incandescent light-bulb smuggler?


When love goes sour

October 6, 2010

It was so wonderful for left-wing Democrats back before Obama was elected: their Messiah-candidate promised to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, investigate the CIA, and even  …maybe, just maybe, in their most cherished dreams… go after the evil Bush and Cheney themselves.

But then Obama actually won, and the reality of governing set in. He found he couldn’t fulfill the Moonbat wish list and, so, he made compromises. But compromise is anathema to those who demand purity; the Left is feeling betrayed and they are punishing Obama for it:

It was a lot of fun while it lasted, up to election night 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009. But then Obama had to govern. Knowing little of military affairs, he retained Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has loyally served presidents of both parties. Understanding even if not admitting the great headway Americans had made in Iraq, Obama declined to throw it all away.

Appreciating that Afghanistan was critical to protecting Americans, he made a commitment to increase troop levels there in May 2009, reconsidered it from August to November, then restated it Dec. 1, with a commitment to begin withdrawals in July 2011.

In so doing, Obama implicitly confessed that the view of the world held with quasi-religious fervor by the Democratic left was delusional all along. Bush didn’t lie, we didn’t go into Afghanistan and Iraq without allies and against their wishes, we didn’t carry out policies of torture, etc. The effort to cast Iraq as another Vietnam and America under Bush as an oppressive rogue power were perhaps emotionally satisfying but unconnected to reality.

And so the legions of ObamaTots are not enthused about voting, their dreams exposed for the childish fantasies they were, and the big donors’ checkbooks remain closed. I suppose I could be gentlemanly and make sympathetic noises toward those who rooted against their own country in time of war, but why disguise my enjoyment of the sweet, sweet schadenfreude?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes

February 26, 2010

PJTV’s Andrew Klavan shines a light* the progressive mind:

Rolling on the floor

*(Carbon-neutral, of course)


Like spoiled children

February 17, 2010

Unable to get their way playing by the rules, some leading progressives are now advocating not just banning the filibuster, but eliminating the Senate altogether.

Granted there’s a snowball’s chance of this ever happening, yet these left-liberal intellectuals are truly laying bare just how little they care for the constitutional order we’ve created here. They don’t want representative democracy; what they want is a form of Jacobinism.

Of course, this is an old theme in progressivism; Woodrow Wilson, our first progressive president, also was the first to speak disparagingly of the Constitution and considered representative democracy a phase whose time was passing. (Liberal Fascism, pp. 81-93)  FDR was so impatient with the Supreme Court that he wanted to subvert it through his court-packing scheme.

Still, they worry me.Nailbiting

(via Zombywolf)