Liberals Are Not the Enemy

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Forgive me. I say “liberal” sometimes when I mean something else.

My mistake is habit, not irony. (Irony would require some intent on my part.)

I grew up disparaging liberalism. I grew up reading and watching William F. Buckley Jr., for whom liberalism was the enemy.

In the post-WWII era, the liberalism of the day was a problem. But it was never the problem.

The problem in Western Civilization was a faction that used liberalism as cover. This faction crossed party lines. This faction actively sought and seeks the elimination of the US Constitution.

This dangerous faction included Republicans John Lindsay, George Romney, Lowell Weiker, and Nelson Rockefeller. Plus, many, many Democrats, communists, and others.

That dangerous faction goes by the deceptive name “progressive.”

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the difference between liberals and progressives:

Liberals.

Liberals who believe in the power of ideas.

Liberals who believe their ideas are so excellent that open debate can only help their cause.

Liberals who say “I’m okay; you’re okay.” (Progressives say, “I’m okay, you’re wrong, and you’ll be punished for your wrongness.”)

Oh, how I long for the liberalism of my youth.

A few days after I wrote that post, progressives turned against Nancy Pelosi, driving her from the stage. More proof that progressives, not liberals, are the enemies of freedom.

I previously warned that leftists are not liberals. Today, Nancy Pelosi learned that lesson. The hard way.

Nancy Pelosi had to be rushed off stage for her own safety. Safety from a mob. A mob of angry leftists. Leftists angry because Nancy condemned Antifa and ate dinner with Trump.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Bill McClellan, a liberal, wrote an excellent column today. He reminds us that he’s like the liberals of my youth. The ones who might save us from the progressives. From the Antifa terrorists.

McClellan’s excellent column draws a bright line between liberal and progressive. You will enjoy reading it.

Regarding the recent progressive violence following Stockley’s acquittal, McClellan explains the difference between liberals and progressives:

I am still skeptical, but a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Progressives seem to believe that skepticism ought to be sufficient for conviction.

After reading McClellan’s column, you’ll probably agree that we on the right can find common cause with liberals like Bill McClellan. We can find common cause in fighting back against anti-American progressives like Antifa. Those Antifa progressives are our common enemy.

Who Can Stop the Antifa Caliphate?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Yesterday, I explained the military strategy behind Antifa’s remarkable growth.

In case you didn’t realize it, Antifa has effectively shut down grass roots conservative speech. You cannot hold a public rally, march, or carnival if your views conflict with Antifa’s.

Antifa has established a small caliphate in North America. Just like ISIS did in Syria and Iraq.

And the government’s doing absolutely nothing about it. You should read my military strategy post and all the links. They’re important.

The government’s not doing anything about this state within a state.

Conservatives can’t do anything about it. We can help, but we can’t do it alone.

The NRA, the National Review, and Tucker Carlson can’t do anything about.

The GOP won’t do anything about it. Hell, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and John McCain are Antifa allies. Try to find a single GOP leader willing denounce Antifa. Will Ann Wagner?

But one group can save us from the Antifa caliphate. An unlikely group. A group you’d never believe could be the heroes of this terrifying story.

Who’s this group? Who will save America? Who will preserve Western Civilization? Christendom? Judaism?

Not the Right.

Not the Center.

Not the Great “Undecided” Voter.

No, if you want to be saved, look left, young man. Look left.

The left can save us.

Not the “leftists.” Not the progressives. They’re on Antifa’s side. (Until Antifa turns on them.)

But liberals.

Our friendly liberals.

Liberals like Alan Dershowitz.

Liberals like Dennis Prager.

Liberals like the great campus free-speech activists of the 1960s.

Liberals.

Liberals who believe in the power of ideas.

Liberals who believe their ideas are so excellent that open debate can only help their cause.

Liberals who say “I’m okay; you’re okay.” (Progressives say, “I’m okay, you’re wrong, and you’ll be punished for your wrongness.”)

Oh, how I long for the liberalism of my youth.

Once upon a time, I argued for hours in the Caf at Fontbonne or the Rat at Wash U. Arguing with liberals.

We’d argue about Reagan. We’d argue about the military. We’d argue about William F. Buckley. We’d argue about art and literature and philosophy and the price of beer and the virtues of rap music and Indica vs. sativa.

Sometimes, we’d get angry, me and those long-lost liberals. We’d be mad at each other. We’d shout. We’d raise our voices. We’d call in friends for support. We’d rope in strangers for support.

Then a cute girl would walk by and we’d forget the argument, induce her to join us, and sit with our puny arms draped over the back of the chair to make our biceps look bigger. (It totally works.)

That doesn’t happen anymore. (Well, I still have tricks to make my biceps look bigger.)

If tomorrow I woke up my 19-year-old self, enrolled in a local college, wearing my Trump hoodie on my way to Rhetoric class, I’d get my ass beat before I got out of my 1970 Chevy Impala.

If I weren’t beat up, I’d get hauled before some Soviet-style Central Committee for Community Sensibilities where a parade of my peers would fabricate a long string of offenses I’d supposedly committed. Offenses against humanity. Offenses from which They Must Be Protected!

Hate speech.

Hate hats.

Hate hoodies.

Hate! Hate! Hate!

The Comitet* would find me guilty of offending Millennials and sentence me to banishment from the campus, loss of my scholarship, and acceleration of my library fines.

In 1983, liberals encouraged and demanded free speech. Conservatives did, too. We defended each other against attempts to shut down free speech.

In 2017, free speech is crime. A crime punishable by vigilantes and terrorist Antifa thugs.

I think America still contains a few good liberals. I know. I heard Alan Dershowitz on Adam Carolla recently. I hear Dennis Prager on Carolla all the time.

William F. Buckley’s best friend was socialist (and liberal) Professor John Kenneth Galbraith. They sailed together, vacationed together, and argued together. They agreed on almost nothing political. But they appreciated each other’s company, brilliance, and right to promote their beliefs.

Buckley and Galbraith each believed his ideas were superior. They each believed their own ideas, given proper exposure, would sway huge numbers to their side.

[Read Buckley’s obituary for Galbraith. It will warm your heart.]

Only Buckley was right. (Reagan won. Galbraith died before American voters elected George McGovern.)

Today, they’d both be hunted down, beaten, and possibly killed by Antifa. Buckley for being a “Nazi.” Galbraith for hanging around with him.

(Buckley threatened to punch Gore Vidal in the nose for calling Buckley a Nazi. Buckley was a WWII vet. On our side.)

Conservatives can’t win this battle alone.

We need the liberals.

I miss the liberals.

Send in the liberals.


*Comitet is a rough phonetic spelling of the common Russian term for the Committee for State Security.

A Military Strategist’s View of Antifa

Reading Time: 4 minutes

If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal, we can flee from him.


If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve.


Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

—Sunzi. The Art of War. Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

Let’s look at Antifa logically, without the blinding rage of emotion. Take a deep breath and let these words sink in.

Pretend both Antifa and the wretched white supremacists in Charlottesville are neither good nor bad. Neither your enemy nor your ally. Make believe, instead, they are opposing feudal Chinese princes and their armies. Pretend Charlottesville is in black and white, grainy, long ago. Like stories in a fifth grader’s history book. Distant and small.

Neither faction can hurt you. You are protected by generations of history between you and those ancient combatants. You are safe and secure.

Now, look at Antifa’s tactics.

  • First, Antifa’s political arm declares war on statues.
  • Next, a certain element comes out of hiding to defend those statues.
  • Then, Antifa swoops in for battle.
  • The only death in the fray is a non-combatant (by all accounts to date) Antifa sympathizer, at the hands of Antifa’s enemy.
  • In the aftermath, politicians and pundits side with Antifa, declaring their actions and motives noble and virtuous. Those politicians and pundits curse Antifa’s enemies, declaring the enemies evil and deserving of Antifa’s attacks.

Antifa followed up its Charlottesville victory with vicious attacks on non-combatants in Berkeley, California. In between, Antifa forces attacked an innocent man in Colorado. And Antifa terrorized Trump supporters in Seattle.

In each of these guerrilla attacks, Antifa indicated that it considers anyone with political views the conflict with their political views “fascists,” “white supremacists,” “Nazis,” or “KKK.”

To find Antifa’s strategy, we need to look at its growth from a higher view point. We have to see the alliances Antifa’s formed. Here are just a few of Antifa’s allies:

  • Jake Tapper, Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon, and other CNN employees
  • Numerous reporters and editors at the New York Times
  • MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and others
  • Senator Bernie Sanders
  • Rep. Maxine Waters
  • Many rank and file Democrats
  • Senator John McCain
  • Speaker Paul Ryan
  • Mitt Romney
  • Apple CEO Tim Cook
  • Other powerful establishment Republicans

(Note: Nancy Pelosi has condemned, in writing, Antifa’s violence. Nancy’s on our side.)

Breitbart’s John Nolte explained on Breitbart’s daily SiriusXM show recently:

The media is part of the Antifa conspiracy because you can see it. You can see it across all media platforms: the ever-expanding definition of the ‘alt-right,’ the ever-expanding definition of ‘hate speech,’ the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling opposition to same-sex marriage ‘hate speech’ – which, by extension, labels the Christian church a hate group. As the media says ‘maybe it’s OK to commit violence against Nazis and the alt-right and haters,’ they’re also expanding the definition of the alt-right and hate to include traditional conservative views.

Antifa’s strategy is starting emerge. See it yet?

Alliances plus tactics give us an indication of an the strategy an army is pursuing. As Clausewitz wrote in On War:

Strategy has been defined as “the employment of the battle as the means toward the attainment of the object of War.”

So what is the object of Antifa’s war?

Attacks before and after Charlottesville hint at Antifa’s tactics: terrorism. But terrorism is not a strategy. Legally, terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence to advance a political goal. But we still don’t know Antifa’s goal.

Or do we?

Antifa’s Charlotte tactics were brilliant. Straight out The Art of War. Antifa’s tactical battle went like this:

  1. Assess your strength relative to the enemy’s.
  2. Attack a place the enemy will be obliged to relieve.
  3. Be assured of victory before the battle begins.

Sun Tsu couldn’t have designed a better battle.

The Battle of Charlotteville earned Antifa some of those important new allies: John McCain, Paul Ryan, and many other prominent Republicans.

By securing the support of prominent Republicans, Antifa was free to attack more sympathetic targets: peace activists, Christians, everyday conservatives. Back to that John Nolte interview on Breitbart:

One of the great undercovered stories during the whole Charlottesville episode was that the day after Charlottesville, in another city – I think it was Seattle – a bunch of Trump supporters held a rally, and Antifa also went over there and beat the hell out of those people, and shut them down. Those weren’t neo-Nazis. Those weren’t neo-Confederates. Those were just Trump supporters, and violence was used to shut them up and to stop it, and the media just doesn’t care.

And now we can start to see Antifa’s strategy. We can see its alliances. We can see its tactics. We can see it in Antifa’s progression.

We can see Antifa’s strategy in its allies’ words and actions, in the propaganda campaign. We can see Antifa’s strategy in the political tactic of declaring war on statues.

We can see Antifa’s strategy clearly.

Antifa has an end game.

Antifa has an alliance.

Antifa has a proven set of tactics.

Antifa’s strategy is identical to ISIS’s.

Antifa wants to give every American a choice:

  1. Submit or
  2. die.

Like ISIS Antifa wants to destroy icons representing freedom, progress, science, history. Like ISIS, Antifa wants the masses to fear their retribution. Like ISIS, Antifa wants to establish its own kind of caliphate in North America.

Maybe they don’t want an Islamic state. Probably not. But they’ll use Islamists to advance their strategy.

But that’s Antifa’s strategy: elimination of competing thoughts. Elimination of competing ideas. Elimination of competing ideologies. Elimination of competing statues.

And, like ISIS, Antifa justifies any means to achieve its end. Because few will stand up to terror. Very few.

As a student of military strategy, I admire what Antifa’s done. They’re close to establishing a state within a state, just as ISIS did in Iraq and Syria.They’ve won allies from their natural enemy: the party that supposedly stands for freedom, liberty, and the American way. It commands most of the major media and the leadership of both major political parties.

There is one major difference between ISIS and Antifa. And it’s a terrifying difference.

ISIS has a powerful enemy in the United States and its allies.

Antifa has no declared enemy. Disorganized, individual enemies, sure. But Antifa operates unopposed right now.

Will the Trump administration grow a pair and declare war on this domestic enemy? And, if not Trump, who?

Peace Through Violence: CNN’s Radical Chic Moment

Reading Time: 5 minutes

CNN screwed up. And it reminds me of an incident from 1970.

A headline writer admitted that the Antifa terror group seeks “peace through violence.” Later, presumably after receiving threats from Antifa terrorists, CNN removed the “peace through violence” sub-head.

But the damage was done. CNN stumbled onto real news. Real news that exposes Antifa’s terrorist aims.

Before we get to the dangers of normalizing political violence, aka “terrorism,” let’s remember a famous party. A party for radicals. Radicals who were adored by limousine liberals in the 1960s. A party to raise money for the Black Panther Party.

If you’ve never read Tom Wolfe’s two-part book Radical Chic and Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers, now is a good time. You’ll learn that there’s really nothing new under the sun. You’ll also learn that Antifa is nothing more than a broader re-emergence of the Black Panther Party. Its aims, its tactics, and its philosophy.

Leonard and Felicia Bernstein. (STEIN!, not STEEN!)

Leonard and Felicia Bernstein, two of the limousiniest of the limousine liberals, held a fundraising party on behalf of the Black Panthers. The year was 1969. And, like all good liberals, the Bernsteins invited several reporters to cover the story. Included in the press pool were a New York Times society page writer and Tom Wolfe.

After the story broke in the New York Times, the Bernsteins became the laughing stock of society for a few months. The damage to their reputation was so sharp and severe the season of Radical Chic died quickly. Perhaps because even Lenny Bernstein saw the Black Panthers for what they were. What Antifa is: terrorists.

In an interview with UPI in the midst of the controversy, Bernstein distanced himself from the Panthers. From Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers:

 

“It is not easy to discern a consistent political philosophy among the Black Panthers, but it is reasonably clear that they are advocating violence against their fellow citizens, the downfall of Israel, the support of Al Fatah and other similarly dangerous and ill-conceived pursuits. To all of these concepts I am vigorously opposed and will fight against them as hard as I can.”

So why did he host a fundraiser for the Panthers?

Perhaps because he wanted to look cool and hip. According to Wolfe, New York’s high society fell in love with radicals in the 1960s. One expression of their fascination was dinner parties. Elegant dinner parties in which radicals and terrorists provide the entertainment for liberal snobs. Lenny and Felicia couldn’t resist.

But the Panther’s defense minister, Don Cox, was a little too honest for some of the invited guests, like Barbara Walters. Here’s Cox according to Tom Wolfe:

 

Cox seizes the moment: “Our Minister of Defense, Huey P. Newton, has said if we can’t find a meaningful life . . . you know . . . maybe we can have a meaningful death . . . and one reason the power structure fears the Black Panthers is that they know the Black Panthers are ready to die for what they believe in, and a lot of us have already died.”

Walters, to her credit, challenged Cox’s casual attitude toward violence and death. Walters pointed out that she had children and grandchildren who would likely become targets of the Panthers’ war on capitalism, on whites, on American society.

Director Otto Preminger, too, challenged Cox’s anti-Semitism. Preminger asked, “Is it all right for a Jew to leave Russia and settle in Israel?”

Preminger was probably aware that the Panthers opposed emigration from Russia to Israel. The Panthers were pro-Soviet.

 

“Is it all right for a Jew to leave Russia and settle in Israel?”

Most of the Bernsteins’ invited guests were Jewish. Most of their guests had already donated 4-figure checks to the Panthers before the Q&A began. The Q&A raised serious concerns about how the Panthers might use this money. Would they use it to drive Jews out of Israel? To blow up NBC?

Who knew?

But the Radical Chic era was over. Because the Panthers had been exposed. Along with their limousine liberal supporters.

 

In general, the Radically Chic made a strategic withdrawal, denouncing the “witchhunt” of the press as they went. There was brief talk of a whole series of parties for the Panthers in and around New York, by way of showing the world that socialites and culturati were ready to stand up and be counted in defense of what the Panthers, and, for that matter, the Bernsteins, stood for. But it never happened. In fact, if the socialites already in line for Panther parties had gone ahead and given them in clear defiance of the opening round of attacks on the Panthers and the Bernsteins, they might well have struck an extraordinary counterblow in behalf of the Movement. This is, after all, a period of great confusion among culturati and liberal intellectuals generally, and one in which a decisive display of conviction and self-confidence can be overwhelming. But for the Radically Chic to have fought back in this way would have been a violation of their own innermost convictions. Radical Chic, after all, is only radical in style; in its heart it is part of Society and its traditions. Politics, like Rock, Pop, and Camp, has its uses; but to put one’s whole status on the line for nostalgie de la boue* in any of its forms would be unprincipled.

Like the Bernsteins of 1969, CNN has exposed Antifa as a dangerous terrorist organization that wants to replace the rule of law of with rule of the jungle. Out of fear or ignorance, CNN and the culturati of 2017 go along with Antifa’s dangerous ends.

Scott Adams points out what it means to support Antifa:

 

I learned this past week that if you are marching with urine-hurlers, and making common cause with urine-hurlers, you’re just as bad as urine-hurlers.

According to CNN’s expose, Antifa terrorists consider thoughts and words forms of violence. Therefore, they feel justified in countering thought-violence with physical violence. Like Nazis and Stalinists. Antifa terrorists wants to kill thoughts they don’t like. By killing the thinkers who have bad thoughts.

Last week I challenged hate groups to define their end games. We already know the white supremacists’ end game: elimination of races and religions they don’t like.

Now we know Antifa’s end game: elimination of people who hold views Antifa doesn’t like.

Maybe white supremacists who say awful things are worse than Antifa terrorists who say and do awful things. I’m not an authority on such things. I’m just applying what I’ve learned in a mid-length life to situation.

What I see is two groups of terrorist thugs facing off, and a lot of Americans taking sides with one group of terrorists against the other. Probably because those side-takers are more worried about their reputations (what other people think) than their character (who they are).  As I said before, I’ve learned that character is more important than reputation.

Now we know their end games. The white supremacists end game. Antifa’s end game. Those end games allow only one possible response from responsible people: we must oppose both. It’s not a matter of moral equivalency. It’s a matter of cultural survival.

Those who would side with one over the other will lose control of the monster they support. Neither Antifa nor white supremacists represent large numbers, though the Antifa tumor appears to be growing and metastasizing. Both factions represent abhorrent ideas. Both have histories of countering ideas with bricks and fire. Both must be destroyed.

Thanks to CNN for accidentally giving us a Radical Chic moment. Maybe people will see.

 

Update: Antifa terrorist stabs a man in Colorado for looking like a neo-Nazi. Tim Cook and Mitt Romney will undoubtedly approve.

 

And another Dem Congressman comes out in favor of vigilantism.

 

  • French, nostalgia for the mud.

Who’s a Racist?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

So many people say it’s okay for Antifa to beat people they don’t like. Tim Cook says it. Mitt Romney says it. It’s easy to agree with them. It’s easy to say, “I hate racists and Nazis. I’m glad somebody’s taking the initiative and beating them with clubs.”

Many people feel that way. Many people feel it’s good and just to beat and maim wicked people. Especially people who hold wicked beliefs. It’s easy say, “we should declare open season on those skinheads and Nazi racists.” You might have said it yourself.

I know the feeling. Back in 2010, some skinheads and Nazis showed up at a St. Louis Tea Party event in Clayton. We had to humiliate them with signs. The Tea Party was non-violent, so no one laid a hand on them. But we walked around them with signs that said “Fake Tea Partier” and stuff.

Reporters from RFT and St. Louis Post-Dispatch may have paid those Nazis to show up at our event. So the press could photograph them. The Post and RFT really wanted everybody to believe that we were racists and Nazis. They couldn’t get us to say anything racist, because we’re not. So maybe they resorted to going to Rent-a-Nazi. To frame us.

But it didn’t work. Big Government told us how to prepare. We were too smart for the Post. We had signs ready. We surrounded their hired stooge with “Fake Tea Partier” and “Nazi Infiltrator” signs. The signs had arrows that pointed at the stooge. We surrounded their stooge. You couldn’t take a photo of their Nazi stooge without also getting a “Fake Tea Partier” sign in the shot. It was brilliant.

Finally, the Nazi stooge, or Nazi impersonator, left in humiliation. I think Hoft mocked him from the stage. Everybody cheered. From The Gateway Pundit, April 16, 2010:

The sign pointing down at the white supremist [sic] plant was from the Big Government tool kit. It came in handy. The infiltrator scurried off after he was confronted by several patriots including local blogger Adam Sharp who got up in his face. “Just know that you’re not going to come here and pretend that you’re with us.” Adam told the plant. Adam was fearless. The hater left shortly after the confrontation.
Adam’s parting words… “GO HOME NAZI.”

Here’s Adam Sharp’s post. And video:

The sad thing is, Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney and Tim Cook would be happy if Antifa beat up us Tea Partiers. Because Graham, Romney, and Cook think Tea Partiers are all Nazis. Or they’re afraid to disagree with alt-left thugs who might beat their lilly-white asses.

The problem with unleashing goons to beat the wicked is that the goons get to decide who’s wicked and who’s not. Tea Partiers don’t go to events that welcome Nazi and white supremacists. Or black supremacists. Or any other kind of supremacists. Except, maybe, idea supremacists. We’d welcome groups that wanted great ideas to win.

But Antifa treats libertarians and Republicans and Tea Partiers as one big blob of Nazis. The Post-Dispatch’s editorial board does, too. And if society says it’s okay for Antifa to beat people Antifa doesn’t like, you and I and millions of others are fair game. Hell, I might as well wear a “Kick me, I’m a Tea Partier” sign.

Before you say “hell, yes” to beating up people you disagree with, remember this: the beaters are the judges. The beaters are the jury. The beaters are the executioners. You don’t get a veto. You don’t get a vote. They’ll beat whoever they damn well please.

If you found yourself cheering for Antifa to beat a Nazi, you should forgive yourself. It’s sort of a natural reaction. We wanted to beat up that Nazi in 2010, too.

But before you sign a petition to let Antifa free the land of racists and Nazis, consider this: you might be on their list of racists and Nazis. Along with your spouse, your kids, and your parents.

Beating up people who disagree with you is a fascist tactic. Fascism is colorblind.

Vigilantism doesn’t end racism. It ends civilization.