The Left Cancels Our History

Most conservatives do not yet understand how profoundly things have changed in America … and that the changes are on-going, at an increasing rate.

They will re-write our history. And it’s not just that they will substitute a Marxist version of it for what was there.

The ‘old’ Marxists embraced what they saw as the democratic aspects of American history: they were enthusiasts for the American Revoltion – the Communist Party’s ‘social science’ school in New York was the Thomas Jefferson School [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_School_of_Social_Science]

The American Communists who went to Spain fought as part of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

The new ‘Progressives’ want to wipe out our history altogether, even as they abolish entry tests for our elite science/math high schools.

Right out of 1984:
https://www.themix.net/2021/01/san-francisco-canceling-founding-fathers-by-renaming-dozens-of-schools/

People who think that we can carry on like this, with the business-as-usual Republicans, or even a new ‘Patriot Party’, where we co-exist with these people and trade places in government with them periodically … do not yet understand what’s happening.

It’s like having been on a cruise ship where the passengers have divided into factions, each getting its way periodically about the direction the ship will travel. And then one faction begins to bore holes in the hull.

1 Like

Are you still rooting for donnie in 2024?

They are looking to wipe out our entire culture and replace it with their vision. The French tried to do the same thing in 1793 and ended up with the reign of terror.

Does anyone else notice that the far left is now dominating the posts here? They are trying to drown us out so that they will dominate this site. I will guarantee you that most of these posts are generated by paid stooges who are who are doing this under orders from a well financed source. Their posts have long been too slick to have come from casual far left sources.

1 Like

I’m taking this as a compliment

Post sponsored by Soros for Supreme World Leader Corp®

Maybe you have been programmed in one of the retraining camps for Trump supporters. Katie Couric has called for Trump supporters to be sent them. Are you onboard with that @Gene? How about the rest of you leftists?

This is just pathetic, but oddly flattering. You think my arguments are so comprehensive that not only I’m getting paid, this conspiracy goes as far as Australia. Let’s be very clear: if I got paid to debunk some of the nonsensical crap that is alleged in this forum, it would be the easiest work I’ve done in my life.

You don’t like your absurd conspiracy theories being demolished? My suggestion for you then is to argue better. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for my monthly meeting with George Soros and Hugo Chavez.

1 Like

There is no debating you because your brain is made of iron, and even if the world goes to hell under your modified, Communist Chinese socialist system with rouge corporations getting rich from other people’s pain, you won’t care. You are a trained robot, plain and simple. All you will look at is your form of “social justice,” which is a very sad joke.

And no, I don’t think that Soros has set up the posting and called bank office in Australia YET. Oh, and I had hate to break it to you, but Hugo Chavez is dead.

1 Like

I have literally no idea what this crap means. I think the only time I’ve mentioned China was how dangerous it is them buying up national debt from Pacific Island Nations. This was around 2017-2018 and I was critical of both the Turnbull and Trump Governments not projecting influence in South East Asia. Thanks to Trump, 2/3rds of the countries in question don’t even have a US ambassador to initiate dialogue with. And it would have been a lot easier in the long game to provide debt relief to nations like Sri Lanka, Tonga, Papua New Guinea and Fiji than it is to let China hold the receipts. I have zero charitable feelings towards Trump, his Administration, Scott Morrison and the Liberals in general. I still recognize the difference between bad and worse. Because the Trump Administration couldn’t give two craps about Asia, China filled the vacuum. But it’s too late now, damage done. This is part of what I was alluding to in a previous thread on how Trump’s foreign policy was absolute shite.

But no, apparently I’m some Chinese stooge, even though I suspect I am more aware of the danger China brings than you do.

It’s adorable that you think George Soros, who has a fraction of the influence Koch Industries and the Wilks Group has, is some sort of Bond villain with his tentacles far reaching into everywhere. And yes, right wing morons in Australia do view Soros as a bogeyman because they get their marching orders from Sky News.
You know, the very thing you accuse me of doing. Blindly following what Murdoch tells them.

You might want to inform the QAnon Trump supporters. They’re a tad confused about it. Chavez stole the election with the help of Cuba and China, remember?

1 Like

I will explain to you very simply.

I cannot understand why you guys want to give so much power to the central government. When they get that much power, the possibilities for abuse are endless.

I know that you very upset that Hillary Clinton did not win in 2016. Yet you never looked at the issue of what went on with that illegal private servicer she had stashed in somebody’s bathroom. You never had any interest in the fact the she destroyed thousands of emails. Why did she do that? If there was nothing incriminating in them, why was she so determined to keep them secret? Even James Comey could smell a rat, which is why he screwed around with her election chances twice.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are worth $100s of millions of dollars. Where do you suppose that money came from? Do you think it might have been selling influence? I know, you are not interested.

Ditto for Biden and his drug addicted son who gets paid $100 of thousands of dollars for sitting in the board of a Ukrainian energy company when he has no expertise in the industry. Why did the mayor of Moscow, “evil Russia” which owns Trump’s butt according to you, paid him $3 million? Why did the Chinese allow him to manage $1.5 billion when a domestic company would not hire a crack head like him to be a “junior executive” at $60 thousand a year? These are questions you should be asking, but you aren’t interested.

You think that your precious little Democrat Party is out for “the little guy.” What do you have to say to “the little guy” when Biden does away with thousands of jobs with the stroke of pen? What say does the little guy have to say when John Kerry, who is worth over $500 million because he’s good are marrying rich women, tells the little guy, your fossil fuel job that pays you $40 an hour is up in smoke. Now you can relocate and get a green job that currently pays $22 an hour. What does Kerry care about what happens to “the little guy?” He’s worth over $500 million. He doesn’t give a rat’s tail about “the little guy.” It’s all about power and more money for him.

All you care about is that Trump plays golf which costs whatever price tag you have put on it. It’s peanuts compared the high stakes influence peddling game the Democrats pay with the large corporations that receive their favors.

But, I know, you’re not interested.

I’m not interested, yet apparently I’m upset Hillary lost.
Hillary using a private server is bad, yet it’s okay when Trump cabinet members did it.
The Clintons being millionaires is bad, yet Trump charging the American taxpayer for his golf trips and forcing members of the military to stay in his hotels is good

I could go on, but I don’t recall saying any of the BS your incoherent conspiracy rant alleges me of doing. All these invisible communist marxist socialist fascist atheist fundamentalist.crypto shadow ninjas that are living rent free in your head can’t be healthy for you.

Out of curiosity, what else am I guilty of in your fantasies? Have I declared war on Christmas? Do I believe in open borders? Do I want abortions to be mandatory? Please enlighten me.

You are mistaken. There are no representatives of the Far Left here. There are a couple of what I would call old-fashioned liberals (a dying breed), and a recent addition who is probably a kid, and who is representative of the new genration of shallow ‘progressives’ – full of emotion and little else. But no representatives of the far Left.

If you want to see what the Far Left is like, look you will have to go to places like World Socialist Website, or the Revolutionary Communist Party, or “It’s Going Down”. Moving towards the center from there, look at CounterPunch, or Jacobin Magazine. Then on to the Nation, and New Republic.

Generally, the Far Left do things – like physically attacking scholars trying to speak on campus, or getting professors fired for their political views – that the more traditional liberals don’t like … for a while. But after a year or two or three, the liberals fall into line.

I’m genuinely curious. Fall in line to what? Or to be more specific how do you think the life cycle of a leftist is?

Just to put into perspective, I joined in with my dad protesting against the new gun laws in Australia after Port Arthur (1996). I was a big Tom Clancy fan during High School. I thought George Orwell was a naive do-gooder. And I felt relief when George Bush Jnr became President as it would erase Clinton’s stupidity in foreign affairs. Kosovo was a disaster because anyone could tell you airplanes alone would not decide an outcome. Monica Lewinsky is not the only person Teflon Bill supposedly plugged. He goes after anything that moves, and if it doesn’t move, he will push it to make it move.

And then 9/11 happened. It didn’t impact my life. I was in East Timor making coffee for people more important than me at the time. But the reaction to 9/11 disturbed me. I saw conservatives screaming to invade Iraq despite the fact it was the Taliban providing Bin Laden safe harbour for so long that caused such an atrocity. And then the arguments of “We will be welcomed as liberators” started. The second I expressed my skeptecism, I was labelled a traitor and a sympathiser for terrorism. Then I saw the DFAT Directives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that stipulated that no matter what Prime Minister John Howard says in public, there is going to be an invasion in Iraq. Despite indications that Pakistan and Iran are in dialogue. Raising concerns labelled me a traitor again.

Then a few things occurred in East Timor that I can’t discuss (if you google East Timor, Australia and listening devices I can’t stop you), and that was it for me. As far as I am concerned, conservative governments will say anything, do anything to get themselves the prize. And the prize is rarely the people they represent.

So what about the left? Well in my opinion the left are critically, but not fatally, incompetent. Every time they stuff up, the media and conservatives will always hold them to account. And then they backpedal. A far left government is about as believable as a flock of unicorns as the second a left wing government appears, they lose their bottle. A conservative government is more like a high school rugby team with solid people in key designated areas to ensure the TRUE MESSAGE ™ is brought across. So given those two choices, I would prefer a weak government vulnerable to media scrutiny and a political opposition that feels obligated to hold government accountable.

I can’t ever see a conservative government adhering to this standard, There will always be another Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine to be a cheerleader for the right. The same is not the truth for the left.

So that’s why I am a lefty. That is also why, to reiterate, what you mean by “falling into line” interests me.

“Falling into line” has to do with the cancel culture that the left is pushing here in The United States. If you don’t fall into line, you get kicked off the major Internet blogs or get black listed for hiring. Major publishers are now putting out the word that they will not publish books written anyone who was in the Trump administration.

At many colleges and universities conservatives are banned. They can’t speak on campus. There is only one political view point that is acceptable, and it’s the left.

You support the people who want to do all the bad things you mentioned.

There is one big difference between the left and the right. Conservatives generally leave people alone and let people live their lives the way they see fit. Radical liberals and socialists force people live the way they see fit.

I don’t want to live in California for a reason. It is a high priced, high taxed hell hole that is poorly run. There is no place for the middle class there. There is the mega rich and the poor. If you are not rich, you are screwed. In case you missed it, the so-called “compassionate California radicals” don’t do a great job for their poor and homeless. They are all talk and no results. If you want to live there, have at it.

I prefer to live in a state where you are not taxed and regulated to death and housing is affordable. Yet, more and more California radicals are taking over the national government with the intention of imposing their system on me. I have no say in the matter. It has to do with the earlier statements about “falling into line.”

This.

Okay, a very interesting post and life-history. (I’m very happy that you and your co-thinkers hang out here, because otherwise we’d be a small echo-chamber … there are indeed differences among us on the Right, but having to defend our general political posture is good for us in several ways.)

To answer your question: First, it’s not “the life-cycle of a leftist” I’m talking about. I wish it were a “cycle”, which implies a return, but its a one-way drift. Or so I fear.

A drift from what,by whom? First of all, I’m not talking about the Left as a whole, which spans an enormous range of political positions, from hardline Stalinists over to mild reformists --you might even include liberal Republicans in it. I’m talking about that political tendency which has dominated American intellectual life since the 1930s, which I’ll call “liberalism”.

I’ll direct you to someone you may not know about, you being an Aussie, Lionel Trilling, and in particular his book, The Liberal Imagination, written in 1950. A famous (to some of us) quote from it:

“In the United States at this time Liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation. This does not mean, of course, that there is no impulse to conservatism or to reaction. Such impulses are certainly very strong, perhaps even stronger than most of us know. But the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas .”

Ouch! But it was true at the time.

That last italicized phrase is well-known among those who follow the history of political ideas in America, and was true then. Some five years later, a respectable conservative set of ideas, or ‘intellectual tradition’, began to emerge, expressed by people writing for the magazine founded at that time, National Review. [More about Trilling here:[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Trilling ] It’s of interest to note that about half of the founding editorial board of National Review were ex-Marxists of one flavor or another.

Anyway, one of the things that absolutely distinguished American liberals was their committment to free speech. I am not really deeply familiar with what conservatives, or their predecessors, said about McCarthyism at the time, but I doubt very much that many of them strenuously opposed it. Their argument then would have been that the ‘witch hunt’ was directed against actual witches – namely, the CPUSA and its periphery of sympathyzers – and they would have been right. But the witch-hunt encompassed many others as well, and in any case, it was possible to combat the Soviet agents of the CPUSA without taking away the democratic rights of its membership.

Or without using violence – as was done at Peekskill [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekskill_riots – warning: while the Wiki piece has the facts, it is written by a CP sympathyzer and distorts them to make it look as if opposition to the CP was based on racist/antiSemitic grounds, rather than on the fact that it was (rightly) perceived as a Fifth Column of Joseph Stalin. ], or the sort of disgusting tactic that was used in your own country against the editor of the Australian Communist newspaper, The Guardian, who was falsely, deliberately, accused of child molestation by a rightwing Catholic group. (I know about this, because I am friends with his daughter.)

Please note that I am speaking of liberals here, not of Democratic Party politicians who may call themselves such. These people – Democratic politicians – have been the authors of some of the worst illiberal anti-civil liberties actions and laws that the US has ever seen. Details supplied on request.

Now it is my argument that this committment by liberals to free speech for everyone, to civil liberties, is rapidly dying. Things that would have been considered totally unbelievable a few decades ago, are now routine: scholars being fired from their jobs – or attempts to do so – for their political views, conservative speakers on campus being physically attacked. I assume you are familiar with these events – if not I’ll provide some examples. These are not isolated cases, but represent a general trend.

In other words, liberals are no longer liberal. They are rapidly moving away from a position which was once a central core value of liberalism.

I’ll save for another time a defense of conservatism in general, except to note that the Iraq invasion, while of course reflexively supported by American conservatives, who, like conservatives everywhere, are significantly more nationalist than liberals and the Left (with the exception being in Third World countries, where nationalism has been taken up by the far Left), was also supported by people on the Left.

The argument of these people, was the same as the ‘intellectual’ argument for invading Iraq which was put forward in th US mainly by neo-conservatives, who had come over to conservatism from the liberal camp in the 1970s when they perceived official American liberalism being too ‘soft’ on Communism.

Their argument was the ‘drain-the-swamp’ argument, with which you are no doubt familiar. It’s a leftwing argument, actually, as it’s a “base determines superstructure” approach. (In the 1950s and 60s, a common liberal critique of American foreign policy was, “It’s not enough to fight Communism, we must change the conditions that make people embrace Communism.” )

Whereas most rightwingers wanted to respond to radical Islamism purely by ‘kinetic’ means, some people argued that since Muslim societies were stagnant, corrupt, backward – that of course young Muslims would turn to some radical alternative that proposed to transform their societies for the better.

After WWII this was Communism, or some simalcrum of it, like the Ba’athism. But that proved to be a busted flush. So the next generation turned to radical Islam, which in Iran and Afghanistan had shown itself capable of deep going transformations of society (albeit in an illiberal direction), and of standing up to and seeing off the two major super-powers.

The answer to this malign turn would be to provide a better alternative: to ‘drain the swamp’ by imposing a liberal democracy in Iraq, whose oil reserves, if not stolen by the elite, would fund a benevolent transformation of that country. (After all, we had done something similar in Germany and Japan, and had led South Korea from authoritarianism to liberal democracy. So it could be done. Or so we thought.)

Well, it was a theory. It was embraced by some unusual people, not just rightwingers.The well-known columnist Christopher Hitchens believed in it, and polemicized very effectively for it.

In your own country, a group of Maoists (or Maoists in origin) started a website called the “Last Superpower” which supported the invasion – they saw it as bringing modern capitalism and bourgeois democracy to Iraq, a necessary prerequisite to socialist revolution. (You would recognize their leader’s name, as he is the one who is referred to in the eponymous method of ‘Langer voting’.)

I should also note that many American conservatives now understand that the invasion of Iraq was a deadly mistake. Given the skewed class nature of American politics, with the middle- and upper classes tending towards liberalism and the bottom layers tending toward conservatism, it’s a fact that it tends to be the children of conservatives who actually have to carry out American foreign policy via military means, and who come home in coffins.

Some of the conservative base are beginning to generalize this to an understanding of the folly of our trying to dominate the world. Trump hinted at this understanding, or appeared to, which was one of the bases of his appeal. In office, he was not consistent in this understanding. Why is another discussion.

It was ironic to see the Left screaming about Russian influence and pretending to be patriotic (while at the same time honoring Ethyl Rosenberg, an American who was a Soviet atomic spy).

Finally, a question: you have provided some strong hints that you were involved in the struggle to free East Timor from Indonesian domination. If so, te salud. If you were there during the struggle for independence – ‘making coffee’, about which I will inquire no further – then you put your life on the line, literally.

My fellow ‘Republican Operatives’ should know we’ve got a courageous man here, who deserves our respect, despite his wrong-headedness politically – read about East Timor here: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor ] The vile Indonesian military killed tens of thousands of people there, trying to turn this nation into a province of Indonesia.

In East Timor at that time, being a white man from a major country didn’t protect you from the murderers of the Indonesian military either: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balibo_Five

Let’s hope if the time comes in our own country when we have to risk our lives for freedom, we can do as well.

I need to put this here, now. ( I will answer your other statements in due course.) I was never a member of the East Timorese Resistance (FALINTIL or Fretalin). I was a glorified clerk when the vote was already decided. I am no one’s idea of a hero. I was there from 1999-2002.

But given the history of East Timor, this was not without risk. You could have been building your wonderful career, safe in Sydney or Melbourne. Instead you spent three years, doing things for others, and not by running a safe charity shop in Darwin.

Americans know little about East Timor, as for once it was someone else’s problem, but here’s a sample of its history that will give an indication of the post-independence problems there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_East_Timorese_crisis

Once again, a lesson which my brand of conservatism takes to mean, with respect to the Third World : let 'em alone! Don’t send your soldiers to straighten them out and show them the right way to do it. The Australians paid us the compliment of imitation in East Timor – their own private Iraq! – and do you think the East Timorese are grateful?

Here’s how the Australian Left saw it then: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/09/tim-s21.html
And now: https://redflag.org.au/node/5105

And lefty academics in Australia: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/12680/1/Pietsch%20Australian%20imperialism%202010.pdf

As Robespierre said, people do not love missionaries with bayonets. If brave – or foolhardy – civilians want to go into these places to try to do good, that’s up to them. We can salute their courage and selflessness. [They’ll be pilloried as the advance guard of imperialism by the Left, both in their home countries and in the countries they go to try to help, but usually that’ll be the least of their worries.]

If private charities want to open schools and hospitals, or even build roads, wonderful. But any official intervention by us, by our governments, will simply earn us the title of arrogrant interfering white imperialists. Monetary foreign aid will mainly be wasted or stolen. Let all the hate and ingratitude and jealousy be directed at private charities.

They don’t want to be governed by us, directly or indirectly, and we ought to satisfy their wishes.
And when the six o’clock news comes on with reports from these countries, now ‘governing themselves’ ha ha, of some terrible inter-tribal massacres, or mass starvation, well, that’s what the channel-changer is for.

It’s the other way around – Iraq was us imitating a way of war the Australians had been executing for decades. Most wars they have fought have been of the irregular sort. The Boxer Rebellion, the Borneo War, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Revolution, etc.

When General David Petraeus was leading the surge in Iraq he had an Australian veteran there advising him; David Kilcullen. We’re the new kids to this kind of war, one of insurgents and counter-insurgency; for the Aussies this is the norm.

Whoa! Wonderful! We can blame those damned Aussies for leading us astray!

You hear that, Patooka? You should be ashamed of yourselves! (On the other hand, being upside down all the time and having your seasons the wrong way 'round might be evidence given in mitigation.)

And to think how many Americans swooned over Crocodile Dundee! Well, live and learn.