It is amazing how consistent the left has been over almost a century now (since the rise of the Communist movement in Russia). Individual leftists die. The players on thw world stage change. It doesn't matter. The left is still stuck in the mind set of that girl who aked me (I was presenting a paper on East Germany), at New Mexico State University in 1968, if I did not believe that we could "learn" things from the POLITICAL SYSYSTEM (not even the economic system, although Russia itself has now rejected that) of the Soviet Union.
Leftists are still stuck in the idefensible position of making excues for LEFT WING dictatorships, while willing to support any measures against "RIGHT WING" dictatorships. Thus, Russia (and then the USSR) were nothing more than "agrarian reformers" trying to fight outside influences (the U.S. and West), while trying to make a better life for the peoole than they had under the corrupt, oppressive Czar. The left kept to this position even AFTER the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union appeared after Wrold War II--blaming all of the evil actions of the Soviet Union of the UNITED STATES--blaming the U.S. for the Cold War itself.
Cuba and Fidel Castro? The left has made excuses forever, and still does (Michael Moore, in an act of utter stupidity, tried to suggest that Cuba's Communist health care system is better than ours). Even when Che was trying to spread armed revolution through South America, it was leftist chic to regard him as a hero.
Thus, you have Brad Pitt, and other Hollywood leftists making, cozying up to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. While Venezuela is supposedly a democracy, everyone with a brain knows that there is less freedom in Venezuela than in most "right wing dicatorships". Even American, leftist Democrat politicians have been reluctant to criticize Hugo Chavez.
There are two factors at work here. One is that letists do NOT really favor freedom. They faovor COERCION--government COERCION. If you doubt this, read again yesterday's entry setting forth the devastating analysis of Walter Williams of the leftist urge to take things from people at the point of a gun. You don't have to agree totally with Williams to realize that leftists are far too willing to trampleon FREEDOM in order to pursue a leftist agenda. Leftists are CENTRAL PLANNERS. Joseph Stalin was a central planner (as well as a monster). That is why leftists were never willing to look at the Soviet Union clearly.
The second thing fundamentally motivating leftists over almost a century (since the rise of Communism) has been ANII-AMERICANISM. Oh, I fully realize that leftist believe that they are "saving" this country from itself. But it is appropriate that Barack "World" Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party as extreme leftists have pretty much taken over the party. Obam has announced himself a "citizen of the world" (in Berlin, of all places--where Hitler wanted to make EVERYONE the citizens of a Nazi world, and which was the symbol of the fight against a LEFTIST empire). That seems to mean that Obama is willing to criticize the U.S. just as enthusiastically as John McCain likes to criticize conservatives, while only paying lip service to the VIRTUES of the United States (as McCain only pays lip service to the virtues of conservatives).
That is why leftists were unwilling to criticize Reverend's Wright's view of America as the main source of evil in the world--a country that needs to be SAVED from itself (hence the "Messiah" complex that has gone to Obama's head). It is not just that Reverend Wright is black. He was expressing the world view that has attracted leftists for almost a century--the world view that an America which has not been willling to let leftists COERCIVELY run the country is a fundamentally flawed America which does not deserve all of the power and prosperity which we have.
Is IRAN a "right wing dictatorship" (forget the trappings of democracy, and ignore the Associated Press and mainstream media paying actual attention to Iranian "elections" as if they are real)? It is a FUNDAMENTALIST THEOCRACY. That used to be called a "right wing dictatorship". However, opposing the United States is the operative criterion for sympathy from many leftists. Thus, many leftists (Jimmy Carter, for example) have cozied up to Iran. All leftists, of course, are prey to the delustions of that girl in my class at New Mexico State University so long ago. This is the delustion that we just need to TALK to our enemies; to UNDERSTAND them: and even LEARN from them. It is that delustioin that caused Barack "World" Obama to first dismiss Iran as a threat, and then to say he would "talk" to Iranian leaders without preconditions, before political consierations caused him to start backing off.
We now come to the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" and that truly disgraceful 1800 word article alleging WAR CRIMES by the U.S. and Harry Truman (oops!--I lied--the AP did not say that, but Harry Truman is the one who said: "The buck stops here"). See Simdayu's entry; Tuesday's entry; and Wednesday's entry--that is, see the THREE previous entries this week on that disgraceful AP story).
The despicable AP, in its 1800 word smear of the U.S., referred to South Korea as a recently "democratized" country, that used to be a "right wing dictatorship". You might well ask how many times the AP refers to a "left wing dictatorship". or a former left wing totalitarian dictatorship. But to merely accuse the despicable AP of sanctimonious hypocrisy of the crassest kind is to miss the point. This is all about AGENDA.
The despicable AP (and AOL "News") had two objectives here. The first was to "explain" why we should pay any attention to allegations made 58 years after the fact, of interest only to historians. The desicable AP wanted to suggest that the "right wingers" in the Korean dictatorship, in conspiracy with the evil U.S. military, covered up the WAR CRIMES of Harry Truman (sorry, continued Freudian slip as I forget that the desoucakble AP would never accuse Harry Truman of war crimes because he was a DEMOCRAT--even though not one recognizable to today's Democrats).
The second objective was to take a passing swipe at the United States for supporting a "right wing dictatorship" all of those, years, even if the U.S. did SAVE South Korean from being part of a STALINIST dictatorship. In all of those 1800 words, of course, the AP had little or nothing positive to say about the U.S. military SAVING South Korea For the despicable AP, and AOL, THAT was ancient history. The EVIL United States actions in the Korean "Conflict" was NOW--the only relevant consideration to today's "news".
As I have shown in my previous entries, an objective view of the alleged "deliberate" killing of refugees by the U.S.. military leads to the conclusion that the entire 1800 word article of the despicable AP proves only one thing: William Sherman was right when he said: "War is Hell". All the Associated Press did NOT "convict" the U.S. military of anything. It merely convicted ITSELF of being ANTI-AMERICAN, and willing to reach a long ways to smear the United States of America. Otherwise, the whole article was merely a further illustration of the Sherman statement that innocents suffer in war, which Sherman told the AP even further back in history that the despicable AP reached for its anti-American smear.
Was South Korea a "right wing dictatorship"? Only in the agenda driven world of the AP. South Korea had MORE freedom, as a dictatorship, than Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. Fidel Castro's Cuba, today's Russia, Iran, or the People's Republic of China. This is true even though several of the named entities are supposedly democracies.
WHY was South Korea relatively free, even though it was a dictatorship (thereby, by definition, kept in place by force)? First, it had a free market economy. Second, its citizens had relatively free access to outside voices of freedom, including those in the U.S. Why else do you think South Korea was able to transition to a democracy without substantial violence? So what does it MEAN that the despicable AP referred to South Korea as a "right wing dictatorship".
The term is meaningless, as far as objective meaning. Nevertheless, it does mean something. Its real significance is as to the person or entity USING the meaningless term. Use of that term exposes you as a LEFT WING PROPAGANDIST--a phrase that perfectly fits the despicable Associated Press. Only leftists use the phrase "right wing dictatorship", and they use it invariably for propaganda purposes.
To leftists, there are two related things that make a "right wing dictatorship" (besides being a dictatorship, although some leftists so debase the word as to call President Bush a "dictator"). First, if the country is an ALLY of the United States, it is likely to be called a "right wing dictatorship" to suggest the alliance with the "right wing" United STates ("right wing" so long as we are not completely under leftist rule).
Second, a dictatorship is "right wing" if it is ANTI-COMMUNIST. Even though the AP is ignorant of any "left wing dictatorships", the Associated Press is perfectly aware that Communists are "left wing". The AP{ is also perfectly aware that leftists have a longstanding flirtation with Communism, and people at the AP--as close to Marxists as it gets in the world today--are pretty unsympathetic to anti-Communists. So are leftists. South Korea was virtually FORCED into anti-Communism, since they were INVADED by Communists from North Korea. Therefore, South Korea automatically becomes a "right wing dictatorship", as distinguished from a simple dictatorship. This terminology is, in fact, a product of left wing ideology--another phrase that accurately describes the product of the despicable AP.
Is Iran a "right wing dictatorship"? By most objective standards, it IS. It is a fundamentalist THEOCRACY. You don't get much more "right wing" than that. But you would be correct in believing that it makes no sense to refer to Iran as a "right wing dictatorship", because that tells you nothing. That is true of the phrase in every situation. It tells you NOTHING, except the politics of the person using the phrase. It is a phrase virtually coined by leftists to try to impose "guilt by association" (a favorite LEFTIST thing, despite their frequent attempts to accuse conservatives of it). It is not even that conservatives "associated" with South Korea's previous dictator(s). The mere use of the phrase suggest and association, and is part of the REASON for the use of the phrase.
Notice that I am NOT just calling leftists "hypocrites". They are that, since they make excuses for ENEMIES of the United States while condemning LESSER faults and crimes in ourselves and our friends. But the real point is that leftists see no real WRONG in government coercion "for the people", and against evil capitalists and "aristocrats", once you get past the murders and the secret police (even though those things are integral to the rest of a totalitarian government). Leftists BELIEVE in central planning, and Joseph Stalin was a central planner.
Beginning with the Communist revolution in Russia (circa 1917), leftists have had a tendency to make the U.S. the primary villain in the world (with the exception of the World War II years). That is because the PHILOSOPHY of Lenin is more attractive to leftists than the philosophy--especially economic philosophy--upon which this country was founded. That is why you have Brad Pitt cozying up to Hugo Chavez, and numerous leftists thinking well of Fidel Castro. That is why the left has always been willing to label anti-Communist governments as "right wing dictatorships", while being unwilling to criticize Communist governments at all. They are hypocrites in failing to see the faults of left wing governments, and being willing to make excuses for them, but the real problem is that they sympathize with the PROFESSED OBJECTIVES of these left wing dictators, and believe that the WORLD is being "oppressed by American capitalism, and therefore are willing to make allowances. It is like people being willing to believe in Obama "citizen of the world" SPEECHES, even though he has accomplished nothing. Leftists are willing to pout SYMBOLS ahead of either actions or results, and they do like to consider themselves "citizens of the world", because they are GUILTY about the wealth and power to the U.S that they don't think we DESERVE.
Whether you consider it hypocrisy or not, are not conservatives willnig to excuse anti-Communists and capitalist dictators for extreme crimes just because they seem to go along with some cherished beliefs of conservatives? Actually, no. It is perfectly rational , and NOT hypocritical, to support people who are helping you fight your ENEMIES, even if those people are pretty bad characters. You think not? Are you saying we were WRONG to ally with Joseph Stalin in World War II? Pat Buchanan would say "yes", we were wrong. But almost everybody else (my brother, who once voted for him, thinks Pat has gone senile) thnks that we had no choice but to ally with Stalin against the invading Germans. Conservatives have occasionally been too willing to let "anti-Communist dictators get away with muder (literally) by crying "nati-communism". But this is NOT "hypocrisy", or a betrayal of allegiance to American values. It is merely a mistake in judgment, when it happens. Conservatives realize what leftists apparently do not: Totalitarian states (whether Communist or Islamic theocracy) destroy ALL freedom, and are our sworn enemies. Mere dictatorships will always fall, eventually, and almost always provide more freedom than a totalitarian state. Conservatives also recognize that economic FREEDOM makes long term political repression impossible, while economic central planning makes long term political freedom either impossible or irrelevant.
Was Saddam Hussein a "left wing dictator" or a "right wing dictator"? See how meaningless the terms are. What is true, however, is that it is LEFTISTS like the people at the despicable AP who are hypocritical on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a REPRESSIVE dictator at least as bad as Mussolini, and probably worse. He attempted genocide on his own people, and was a sworn enemy of the United States. The OFFICIAL policy of teh Clinton Administration was regime change in Iraq. All of that had NOTHING to do with whether Saddam Hussein CURRENTLY had weapons of mass destruction. Once 9/11 occurred, and gave urgency to coutering our sworn enemies before they struck, it becomes solely a matter of whether an invasion of Iraq was WORTH IT. You can argue it was not, but you MUST recognize that it was desirable to get rid of Saddam Hussein. if you don't recognize that, you are an extreme leftist and/or work for the despicable AP.
But for leftists, Saddam Hussein became just another enemy for whom they MAKE EXCUSES, because leftists regard the U.S.--so long as it is not under leftist control--as the main source of evil in the world. Thus, Saddam Hussein becomes a GOOD GUY, or at least a person you don't mention as a "repressive dictator" who murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of people. The same thing happened in Vietnam, where Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam to CHEER ON the killing of American soldiers. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a "good guy", or even an acceptable guy (except if you believe it was too costly to remove him). The North Vietnamese (Stalinists in their own right) were not the "good guys". But the left seems incapable of making intelligent distinctions. Thus, the Associated Press mentions South Korea as a former "right wing dictatorship" as an agenda attempt at DEMONIZATION, in pursuit of the ultimate demonization of the United States itself, in terms of our "mistakes" in the world that "citizen of the world" Obama is so comfortable talking about.
That was the whole purpose ofthat 1800 word AP article: to DEMONIZE the U.S. military and the United States itself, in support o the Reverend Wright thesis that it is AMERICA which has been the prime terrorist in the world over at least the last 70 years or so. That is why the reponsibility of NORTH KOREA--not to mention the Soviet Union--for the entire Korean Conflict, the refugees, and everything else is hardly mentioned in the 1800 words of the disgraceful AP article.
Nope. This is contemptible. It is contemptible that both the AP and Obama appear to get as much joy out of TRASHING the United States as John McCain gets out of trashing consrvatives.
There is no doubt that the despicable AP, and most leftists today, are anti-American in the sense I describe above. The use of the phrase "right wing dictatorship" is just one of the many illustrations of the subtle and unsubtle ways in which this anti-Americanism is revealed. The entire 1800 word article smearing the U.S., with no perspective and no search for contrary views, is worse than the sum of its parts. The series of THREE AP articles trying to USE 58 year old events in Korea to trash the U.S. shares billing with the Time Magazine essay ENDORSING the philosophy of the Unabomber (also rashing this country)That, as the worst mainstream media articles I have ever seen. That is, the worst until tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment