Home / Culture and Society / Why Liberals Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death

Why Liberals Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A burning question for many of us conservatives (if not most), is the issue of why so many liberals, that is to say, why so many “commie-libs” qua “commie-symps” qua “commies” qua lefty, pinko Neo-Marxist, qua “New Age” Marxist qua fashionable-chic Marxist “radiclibs” — why so many of the former almost unanimously defend, excuse and apologize for Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-terrorists?

(Wow, how’s that for a loaded and leading question?)

So far the answers offered toward that end appear to me to be somewhat tenuous and lacking, in a word, seem not to be intellectually, philosophically and polemically adequate nor accurate nor fully reasoned out nor rationally complete.  So please allow me, dear readers, to offer and throw my worthless two cents into the fray.

But first this disclaimer.  As much as I would like to flesh out my arguments in great, great depth and voluminous detail; nevertheless I must quote a former, fellow co-worker who said, “ain’t got no time to jive baby.”   So nuff said pah-d-ners.

As I see it there are two very basic, seminal and central reasons, one which is quite simple and the other not.  

First the rather simple reason:  The enemy of my enemy, is my friend (and in this case, my ally too).

But the second is not all that simple and I suspect for many, especially without the slightest degree of explication, that it will either be a difficult pill to swallow which will be met with great, great gnashing of teeth and violent, knee-jerk paroxysm; or, rather will be a difficult set of ideas and arguments to follow, digest and or fully fathom.  But again, dear readers, I humbly ask you to at least allow me the effort.

The second reason, simply stated:  Liberals qua ‘commie-libs’ et al, et al; essentially are soul mates with these Moslem terrorists and Jihadists.

Now I can hear the roar of indignant howling and the popping of spastic, liberal kneecaps for miles and miles throughout the nation.  Oh, for shame, for shame – how can I possibly say this?  Answer:  very easily. 

 I base this on the seminal work of Eric Hoffer, re his magnum opus “The True Believer” first published in 1951.  I also base this observation and conclusion on my own personal knowledge of Classical history in particular as well as all of world history to date, as limited as that be; as well as upon four essential, sine qua non, historians and philosophers whom I group together as the underlying pillars of a Unified, Quantum Field, Theory of History, e.g., Thoucydides, Edward Gibbon, H. G. Wells and Ayn Rand.  I.e., Thoucydides lays down the basic blueprint, Gibbon chronicles it, and H. G. Wells and Ayn Rand further explain and complete the blueprint.

One of the standard responses to the original question, why do liberals, especially the liberal media-elite commentariat, why do they so automatically respond with such a knee-jerk uniformity and conformity to defend, support, excuse, justify and apologize for these Islamic terrorists?  Well, the standard answer is that this simply is a matter, or solely a matter of typical, rather trite and hackneyed liberal “victimhood” and “victimology.”  Well, I must agree somewhat, but I also maintain that this response is too easy, is just too convenient, in effect is somewhat superficial and not all that relevant and material; for I contend there is a much more fundamental and deeper etiology and casuology at play here.

There, like everything under God’ sun, is a reason for everything.  In this particular case there is also a reason why ‘libs’ and ‘comie-libs’ and ‘commies’ etc., etc., possess such a seeming, visceral empathy for all enemies of America in general and these Islamic Jihadists in particular; which transcends the “enemy of my enemy is my friend (and ally)” and the typical politically-correct, intellectual masturbation and ideological nonsense of liberal victimhood and victimology,  Instead I maintain there is a natural predilection and affinity of the former (libs qua commie libs) for the latter (Moslem Jihadists in particuar and left-wing terrorissts of any stripe in general).

Yet ironically these are two rather distinctly disparate groups which one would reasonably expect and assume under normal circumstances, would absolutely despise and detest each other, would literally be at each other’s throats with a passionate hatred verging upon violence and the actual spilling of blood.  Yet while the latter wish to kill the former and have done so on numerous occasions (e.g. Daniel Pearl), they as typical mass-movement, true- believer, fanatics and zealots, simply employ them as “useful idiots.” In a word, when they are not killing them, they “play them like a fiddle.” 

While the former (the liberal, media-elite), whether as a matter of a sense of phony guilt, or as a matter of a sense of solidarity with those whom they falsely reason have been innocent victims of American oppression, jingoism and imperialism, and thereby corporate rapine, pillage and plunder, and or cultural contamination and pollution through “ugly Americanism;” nevertheless they still manage to find ideological solidarity with the latter (Islamic terrorists). Which again, at first glance seems to be fundamentally incomprehensible, to be, in a word, a world gone upside down and topsy-turvy.  It is literally as if the lamb takes great alacrity, solace and comfort in lying down with a very, very hungry lion who is very, very focused on his own hunger.   

But in defense of this assertion of mine, let’s commit a little history here.  The libs qua commie-libs qua commie-symps, etc., having been doing this for a rather longtime now, in fact, since Lincoln Steffens commented upon and praised the former Soviet Union in 1919:  (“I have been over to the future. and it works.”  And the reprinted version, “I have seen the future and it works.”)  And also the New York Times in the early 30s in the reportage of Walter Duranty, a rather obsequious, sycophantic, pro-communist sympathizer and Stalinist-apologist who knowingly and purposefully misreported the Ukrainian Holocaust, also know as the Holodomor, of which at first, he denied its very existence, and then when it could no longer be denied or minimized, he then sloughed it off as a matter of faulty economic planning, mismanagement and policy. 

Oh, where have I heard that line before (a thousand times over by American ‘libs’ and ‘commie-lib’ apologists)?  But that was not enough for the New York Times which helped him earn a Pulitzer Prize only to learn that he had like a good, typical ‘commie-symp’ and true believer ideologue, that he had falsified many of his supporting and evidentiary documents.  (There is more to this ugliness, but suffice it to say the “old grey lady” has consistently been a mouthpiece, supporter, promoter and apologist for communism and Marxism both here and abroad for almost a century to date.)

But to continue.  This liberal solidarity with radical, anti-Americans combined with its long-standing history of Stalinist pro-apologia-ism for all socialist, communist and Marxist dictators, spans a wide spectrum of the usual true-believer suspects of the liberal-left, again both here in America and abroad, especially in Western Europe.  For instance, when they immediately sided with the Arab nations surrounding Israel in the aftermath of the Six Day War.  (By the way, Egypt and Syria were both quasi-socialist nations at the time; Egypt under Nasser and Syria under the Baathists.)  As well as their giving aid and succor and their solidarity to every third world, screaming mee-mee, peasant thug, pseudo intellectual, Marxist tyrant and tinhorn dictator armed with an AK-47:  from Castro and Che Guevera, to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh, the Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge; to the Red Brigade and the Bader Meinhoff to the IRA and the Black Panthers to the Symbionese Liberation Army to the Sendero Luminoso.

Why?  Because as goofy and as improbable as this may seem to both liberals and conservatives alike, and again, I can anticipate much howling and popping of spastic liberal, kneecaps; they (the commie-libs and Jihadist terrorists) are on the same intellectual, philosophic and ideological wavelength.  Allow me to explain:

Eric Hoffer defined this fanatical, true-believer, mass-movement, totalitarian, police-state spectrum in 1951.  And I maintain he did so clearly, lucidly and with great accuracy and presence of mind.  The point I wish to make here is that this spectrum he described and delineated has the liberal lefties and commies, i.e, the International Socialists, on the one extreme end of the spectrum; and the fascists, i.e., the National Socialists, on the other extreme end.  Although they appear to be polar opposites, in actuality they are quite similar and share the very same spectrum. 

In addition Hoffer assigned the autocratic, theocratic Muslim and Christian, true believer, mass-movement, fundamentalist, fanatical religious zealots historically to the center of this very same spectrum. Fortunately for us and the rest of the world, all of Christianity for the most part and with very little to no exception whatsoever has far transcended and gone far beyond that sort of solipsistic, self-righteous, true believer, religious fanaticism and I maintain has attained the most civilized, advanced and humane and compassionate and enlightened elevation of any religion in the annals of history.  Unfortunately, much of Islam is for the most part still mired in the backwardness and primitivity, superstition and extreme religious intolerance of the seventh century.

(Now I anticipate that the liberals in their typical and de rigueur sophistic, moral relativist fashion will cite the IRA and Timothy McVeigh to disprove my thesis.  Well, point not well taken.  Even though the IRA consisted of Christians, of Catholics in particular; they were in fact Marxists, i.e, were international socialists whose cause was thoroughly more local and nationalistic than it was religious.  The same could be said for McVeigh too.  Both were thoroughly secular and not at all that religiously driven or motivated.)

There is yet another salient and seminal, defining feature to Hoffer’s thesis on these mass movements throughout the ages, but in particular of those utterly destructive and genocidal movements of the past century – simply stated, all of these positions on his true believer spectrum, from the very right, to the theocratic center, to the extreme far left – all of these loci are incredibly and extraordinarily – interchangeable.

I first read The True Believer in 1956 at the tender age of 11 and readily admit that I only understood it superficially and viscerally.  I also admit, that as a product of the liberal, governmental, public-shool system; that I was rather ignorant, gullible and stupid, and intellectually, academically and scholastically ill-educated and woefully ill-served.  And as piss-poor as those schools were then, they were vastly better than today’s.  

(And yes, I also admit that some, nay, much of the fault lies with myself and especially with my parents:  But neither I nor my parents were paid to educate our children and entrusted to manage our educational system, and or make phony claims that they were either well-educated professionals who made the even phonier claim that as such they possessed a special knowledge or ability to teach anyone, anything.  Well, before one can profess to know how to teach anything, one must know something!

And these monumental, intellectual fools and professional clowns were [and still are] absolute monumental know-nothings and ignoramuses.  And overall, they were also intellectual, academic and scholastic frauds, charlatans, louts, morons, cretins, imbeciles and idiots with bogus college and university degrees from bogus schools of education which only prove and certify what vast and monumental, intellectual, academic and scholastic know-nothing, loutish morons, cretins, imbeciles and idiots they truly were and still are.  Save for a very few minor improvements here and there nothing has changed since my day over fifty years ago, other than we pay these worthless frauds and charlatans much, much better than they are truly worth.  But enough of this digression.  But to continue.)

Nevertheless I followed Hoffer and much of his writings for much of my early life and read many of his books and essays until my thirties at which point, after having finally, formally studied the Classics somewhat successfully; I turned my attention and intellectual pursuits to other writers and in particular, to the Great Books beyond the Classics, such as:  Shakespeare, Dickens, Cervantes, Rabelais, Twain, Faulkner, Melville, Sartre, Camus, et al, just to name a few.  I also at that time rediscovered Ayn Rand and immersed myself in her novels and essays with a passion.  What I wish to say, is at that point in time, the midway locus of my life, I abandoned Hoffer.  But not completely, for unbeknownst to my conscience mind, his ideas still stirred and sloshed about in my head.  What occurred is a sort of epiphany for me.  I readily confess and admit that I am rather slow on the uptake, but after only 20 years or so I pieced this one together and got it fairly quickly.

While I was in my senior year of college I had a course in Medieval Latin which proved to be one of my most intense, for you see, the more I did the more my professor pushed me, and the more she pushed me, the more I did – a truly rather delicious, vicious cycle in which I learned vastly much more than I would have normally have.  (And by the way this occurred at least once and sometimes twice or more per semester, in all subjects, but mostly in my Greek, Latin and French course work.)

Consequently as part of my Medieval Latin course, I was compelled to read and study authors such as Ausonius whose Latin was grammatically and stylistically equal to the best and greatest of the Classical Romans (e.g., Vergil, Catullus, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, Petronius, Aurelius, et al) and just as difficult if not more so.  However I was also forced to read the Latin of the early Christian converts who were essentially Germanic and Gothic barbarians whose Latin was godawful bad, in effect grammatically and stylistically “piss-poor.” In addition I did a paper on Fredericus Secundus, also known as Fredericus Barbarosus, literally, Freddy the Barbarian. 

 The reason he was called that is because of the rift between him (as the Holy Roman Emperor) and the Papacy.  This conflict between vying claims to temporal supremacy, dominance and hegemony had its roots in the First Nicene Creed (in 325 A.D.) and the Emperor Constantine all the way to the Napoleonic period and in my estimation has not been fully resolved as of yet to this very day.  For close to two millennia the Papacy has laid claim to both spiritual and temporal supremacy, and this struggle; first with the Roman Emperors, then with the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, then with the vernacular, Divine Right Kingship, nation states, lasted up to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods; and literally engulfed the temporal powers of Europe in internecine conflict, literally in rivers of blood, again, for almost two thousand years.   

(If one scrutinizes the Papal Bulls and Encyclicals and the intent of the Ecumenical Councils of the past two hundred years, one will see that the Church has only gradually ceded temporal sovereignty and supremacy to secular, nation states.  However this has been in name only for in the same breath the Church has reserved its right, power, prestige and natural prerogative to reassert its claim to both temporal and spiritual leadership, with its ultimate goal of complete and total sovereignty and supremacy of both over the secular powers that be.  In truth, it does not cede nor yield this ages old issue entirely, but rather, simply defers it to another time and place of its own choosing.)

Well, as part of my research I was compelled to read (in the original Latin) a shitload of Papal Bulls and the diplomatic correspondence of Papal Nuncios amongst many other document sources.  Not the easiest nor most satisfying of reading.  But I was intrigued not so much by the content of the material which was quite germane toward the writing and research of my paper, but by something else which caught my eye.  At first it seemed I had read the content and the intent of the epistolary and communiqués elsewhere but the precise knowledge of it was ineffable and somewhat nebulous.  I also noticed, as in my study of Greek history, of Thouydides in particular, that there was a basic, underlying pattern, a basic blueprint which repeated itself over and over again, but was not necessarily, specifically germane to my study at hand, but yet also seemed to pertain to my many other studies and to my many life experiences in general as well.

The boiler plate nature of the rhetoric, the language and its style seemed eerily and uncannilly familiar.  Again, the words might be different as well as the names and the particulars, but the blueprint itself was remarkably similar and familiar.  But exactly what was it which piqued and aroused my curiosity so?  What was the who, what, how and why of it all, I asked myself.

Well, I noticed the language of the Church was no different than the language of the modern day communists and Marxists, and the latter no different than the fascists.  All three fell into the same language and fanatical true-believer, paradigms and patterns, the very same blueprint which Eric Hoffer had so accurately described.  They were all interchangeable, just simply supply words like “capitalist” and “imperialist” for “Godless atheist” with “heretic” or “blasphemer” or “rightwing reactionary” and “corporatist” for “communist commissar” and “politburo” and “people’s autonomous republic” of this or that, etc., etc..  Again the boiler plate rhetoric and the titles and monikers were different, but the underlying templates were uncannilly and eerily similar – and incredibly, all were totally and completely interchangeable!

(Now I readily confess and admit that I am hard pressed to come up with many exempla which thirty years ago I could readily and easily supply.  But that’s a long time go and memory is short and to be brutally honest, that’s just a mission for me which I abhor and detest; as far as I am concerned, it is nothing more than a form of tedious and dreary drudgery, and a monumental bore and outright waste of time.  Instead I will let the so-called, supposed professionals, you know those battened hens in a coop and second and third-rate monks in ivory cloisters, carry my water for me and do the heavy lifting for me, and do so with a great deal of dull and insipid, not so magical pettifoggery to boot.        

(For the sake of clarity here and so that you, my dear readers, who because of your worthless, substandard, liberal, governmental, statist and collectivist public-school education, just might not get the metaphor, I am of course speaking of academics and of so-called, supposed scholars.  All of whom are woefully overpaid and underworked, and also extremely spoiled and pampered; and most of whom also do not speak in clear, precise, simple and direct language, in highly lucid English to be absolutely precise; but rather are subject to speaking in esoteric, arcane, undecipherable and incomprehensible tongues of bombastic gobble-dee-goop and highly pedantic gibberish.)

Well, to re-iterate and re-emphasize the point, the template fits; the reason why the libs qua commie-libs, et al, et al, are such constant and consistent Stalinist apologists, sympathizers, defenders and protectors of Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-fascist terrorists:  is because, one,  they both share the same ideological, fanatical, true-believer, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police state, spectrum; and two, because libs qua commie libs et al, et al, have a natural affinity and predilection for such psychopathic, deranged bomb throwers and murderers.  In sum, they are simply true believer, ideological soul-mates.

In addition there is also a certain degree of solidarity and psychotic and delusional hero worship which takes the form of “projection” and “transference.”  (Yes I admit that I am not a “professional psychobabbler,” quack, quack; so I can’t say “transference” for a certainty; but I can say “projection,” that I am sure of.)  So that this mindset manifests itself in psychotic and delusional thinking:  “If only I could be as dedicated and devoted to my “cause” and intrepid and courageous enough to kill the enemies of the “people” and if necessary, myself in the process.  Ohhh, if only I could be that brave!”  And of course, do not discount the rationale of “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend (and ally)” either.  For it is also a major contributing factor in this sort of delusional and psychotic, true-believer mindset as well.

 One last point to further flesh out the true-believer, fanatical, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police-state spectrum.  I first intimated and inferred this in Hoffer’s writings, but it wasn’t fully revealed to me until after I had formally studied Greek history and in particular, the works of Thoucydides.  In my study of history, I have concluded that there are only two, basic and essential, prototypical forms of political, social and economic governance in all of history.  If one culls and separates out all of the convergence and conflation, crossover and overlap, and all of the extraneous forms and matter, one will see that there are only these two master, archetypical forms.  Ironically, one is almost universal while the other is quite rare.  

In fact the rare form of political, social and economic governance has only occurred twice in all of recorded history, and only on a  limited basis while the other has appeared in one form or another as a universal and pandemic constant.  The rarity is what Frances Fukuyama has phrased “liberal, democratic capitalism” and what I call liberal democratic/representative/republican, free enterprise/free market/entrepreneurial, enlightened capitalism (a mouthful, n’est-ce pas? I’ll stick with Fukuyama).  Liberal, democratic, (enlightened) capitalism has only occurred twice; once in Athens and the Greek city-states of Greece proper and Asia Minor, and once in America and Western Europe to a lesser extent.  That’s it.  The rest fall under and comprise what I call and term “feudal socialism.”

As I see it there are essentially three forms of “feudal socialism.”  The first is primitive feudal socialism which I have entitled “Pharaonic feudal socialism.”  The use of the word pharoanic might appear to be somewhat misleading since I use it to describe societies and civilizations which are the most primitive imaginable while that of the Pharaohs was arguably one of the most advanced.  But that is exactly the point, the Pharaohs represent the absolute zenith of the most primitive of societies; the Egyptians are in fact a culmination and end point of stone age society and as such represent a plateau which was never exceeded and transcended by them.

Likewise the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs would also be representative of primitive feudal socialism at its highest point, but essentially all of these societies, as complex, sophisticated and advanced as they appear, were all comparatively speaking quite primitive; they might be squarely rooted in the Bronze and Iron Ages, but their progression was still solidly arithmetic and their roots and overall ethos, their culture and epistemology and their thought and cognitive processes were still quite rooted in the Stone Age.  

In fact feudal socialism itself begins squarely in the Stone Age with small tribes, clans and families living in caves, tents, yurts, communal long houses and raised, stilted houses on lakes.  Language and the transmission of knowledge from one generation to another is vested and manifested solely through “orality” while science and technology are vested and revealed in primitive tool-making, animal husbandry and domestication, combined with rudimentary, scientific farming in addition to the ancient, paleo means of of hunter-gatherer activities (such as scavenging and the hunting of high-quality protein, as well as the gathering of low-quality protein, e.g., fruits, berries, edible seeds and grasses, grubs, worms, frogs, lizards, snakes, etc.).  Art and human spirituality are also manifested in cave paintings, ritualized burials and funeral mounds and biers.  Consequently I again maintain the Pharaohs represent the natural progression from and the absolute high point of the former Stone Age Societies.  

Now as for the advanced civilizations of Mesopotamia and the other great river valley civilizations of India and China; they of course were contemporaneous with Egypt; but are more representative of the conflation and overlap of primitive feudal socialism with the dynamism and geometric progression of the more advanced Greek civilization of liberal, democratic, capitalism which followed them; with its economic, dynamic growth rate of geometric progression, and its equally dynamic growth in cultural and intellectual attainment, human progress and enlightenment.  But India, China and Persia were ultimately quite resistant to Greek dynamism and civilization and have remained such for the most part, or at least throughout much of their societies, essentially feudal socialist enclaves even to this very day. 

I am purposefully going to skip over the Hellenistic and Roman periods and jump directly over to the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages, which begins roughly in the 5th century A.D. so that I might introduce the second form of feudal socialism which I have termed, “Medieval Moslem and Christian, Feudal Socialism.” 

Albeit this form of feudal socialism appears to be much more advanced than Pharaonic feudal socialism; nevertheless I maintain, not by all that much.  It has two distinct features, it is deeply rooted in Divine-Right Kingship, and a similar Moslem form of faith-based governance; and it is deeply rooted in religion, in particular, in a form of Judeo biblical and middle eastern religiosity as especially rooted and seen within mid-eastern and far-eastern influenced Manichaeism, Kabbalism, Mysticism, asceticism and Gnosticism as well as early Christian Arianism.  Indeed there is scant little which is remotely secular in this form of feudal socialism.  For it is a union of both religion and the state where, to paraphrase Will Durant (cause as usual I can’t quote anyone to save my life) “the word became more powerful than the sword.”

(And also in my view, once having been built upon this rock of superstition and orthodoxy, it became more powerful and compelling than pure reason, rationality, logic, science and empiricism.  To wit “the word” became more subjective than objective.)

And the third form of feudal socialism is what I term and call “Modern Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist, Feudal Socialism.”  This of course is the feudal socialism of the far left.  It might be the most advanced form of feudal socialism but it still is feudal in nature and socialist in character, and as such is innately and inherently backward and primitive.  It also is dependent upon an arithmetic progression which constitutes one of the many nails in its very own coffin.  In addition, it shares a religiosity in common with the other forms of feudal socialism which is just as intense, just as zealous and intolerant, just as solipsistic and self-absorbed and self-centered, just as dogmatic and orthodox, and just as flawed and ruinous as any mass movement, true-believer religion; only here this religion is one  based upon atheism, steeped in ignorance and agnosticism, intolerant secularism and moral relativism, nihilism and logical positivism, as well as social-scientific determinism and Social-Darwinism.  

Well, feudal socialism in these three forms, is my addition to Eric Hoffer’s mass-movement, true believer, megalomaniacal, totalitarian spectrum. Moreover I maintain that those on “the left” are feudal socialists, which by logical necessity, means to say, they are not legitimate, intellectual, philosophic and epistemological progressives; for indeed if anything is true they are in fact quite the opposite, are in fact quite regressive and primitive reactionaries; for again, if anything is true they do not advance civilization and human progress one iota, but rather they arrest, diminish and retard it.  I base this upon a lifetime’s observation of the left and upon a rather simple and straightforward premise, also based in historical fact:

If all their theory and ideas, once having been translated and actuated into actual policies and programs, create and ultimately impose a feudal-socialist form of  governance, no matter how advanced and scientific they claim their form of feudal socialism be; but yet their feudal socialism eventually, inevitably and ultimately and ineluctably leads to tyranny; which I maintain is the natural progression, culmination and consequence of their true-beliver feudal socialist intentions:  well then, no matter how one slices it, their tyranny by definition, in fact any tyranny whatsoever, must and will be retrograde, regressive and reactionary.

Which makes them a dangerous threat to all of us, for, sic tyrannus -so goes the tyrant.  Again, very simply stated, the path from liberal-progressivism qua liberal-socialism qua socialism qua communism qua Marxism (whether full blown or Neo or New Age), as Hayek so clearly pointed out, is not only the “road to serfdom” but it is also a clear and direct path to tyranny, dictatorship and slavery, all of which go hand in hand.  

And as one of America’s greatest philosophers and social commentators once said “iff dee shoe fitt, wear itt.”  (I am of course speaking of and citing Archie Bunker here.)  Or just as Lesbians must needs be, reveal and study their own “inner bitch,” so thusly liberal, lefty, media-elitists must also recognize and admit to their feudal socialist, primitivity and backwardness, as well as to their vacuous and vapid caveman ignorance to their very own elitist, left-wing biases and prejudices.  But alas, the liberal-lefty-pinko boys and girls jess can’t help themselves.  Cause it’s in their genes and I don’t mean “designer.”  Let’s face facts, the libs and commie-libs et al, et al, ad nauseam; and the violent, mindless, Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-fascist terrorists ; are both rather primitive, backward, true believer, fanatical and zealous, megalomaniacal totalitarian, mass movement, feudal socialists.

So that again I must reassert and declare that there is a natural affinity between them, so that the liberal media-elite is fast to apologize for and defend the former – no matter how brutal they be and no matter how intensely the Islamo-fascists absolutely hate and wish to kill them.  The liberals look upon the Jihadists as allies (again, the enemy of my enemy, is my friend and ally) while the Islamists look upon the liberals as “useful idiots” to be tolerated so long as they are to be usefully exploited for the sake of the cause.  After that they are simply fair game for their fanatical, true believer, feudal socialist holy war.

And likewise, after the lefty, pinko feudal socialists have gained their utopian workers’ paradise, the former autocratic, totalitarian, true believer, theocratic fascists will become ripe for absolute, political repression and prime candidates for Gulags and extermination.

And what pray tell is a Gulag?  Well it’s a place where lefties send the hopelessly intransigent and incorrigible and those who are determined and deemed to be totally impervious to “change” let lone “hope.”  Or, to be blunt, simple and crude as possible; a Gulag is like a “cockroach motel” — you check in but you don’t check out.  Vizsh-stay-ah-vooh?   

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Jay

    This entire article is founded on a ridiculous and dishonest premise.

    Liberals do not defend terrorists. You listed no examples, probably because there are few if any solid examples. Sure, there’s always some nutcase somewhere to say something, but a liberal defending a terrorist would be considered crazy and extreme.

    It is a patent lie that liberals “almost unanimously defend, excuse and apologize for” Islamic terrorists. The statement is not even one percent factual.

    Do liberals think everyone should have a fair trial and not a show trial? Yes, by and large, they do. But that is not the same thing as defending the terrorist or his actions. It is, in fact, defending the U.S. Constitution, an approach to justice that has made us a beacon to the world.

    Do liberals oppose torturing terrorists? Yes, by and large. Torture is illegal, and nobody is above the law. This, too, is not the same thing as defending a terrorist or his actions.

    So the next ten pages of your wild fantasies and loose associations are completely irrelevant. You are trying to explain a phenomenon which simply does not exist. You may as well write 10 pages about why Wal-Mart has the highest prices. Just because you can write 10 pages about it doesn’t make it so.

    As a side-note, it is beyond doubt that hard-right Republicans (who refer to themselves incorrectly as “conservatives”) are the real, natural political allies of Islamic terrorists. The greater power the hard right has in the U.S., the more al Qaida influence grows in the world. American Islamophobia, torture and other abuses are teh greatest recruiting tools the terrorists have against us.

    You are supporting terrorism with every vile lie you tell about Americans — including American liberals.

  • Baronius

    Irv, I’ll bet that there’s a really interesting article buried in there somewhere. But I couldn’t find it, and that’s your fault.

    Somewhere around page 4 you wrote, “allow me to explain”. And I realized that you wouldn’t explain. If you wanted to, you would, but you’d rather not for whatever reason. So yes, Irv, I’ll allow you to explain your very interesting thesis when you decide you want to. But I won’t allow you to take up any more of my afternoon doing the exact opposite of explaining.

  • Irv, I’ll address the substance of your article, but first I must (like Baronius in #3) object to its style. You deride “so-called, supposed scholars … most of whom do not speak in clear, precise, simple and direct language.” Yet once again you’ve lavished upon us an overlong, overstuffed 11-page blog in a literary morass that itself pugnaciously defies being described as “clear, precise, simple and direct language.” To communicate effectively on the Internet, you really ought to distill your thoughts, which are simply too discursive and digressive for this medium.

    Apparently the gist of your piece is that liberals and jihadists “share the same ideological, fanatical, true-believer, mass movement, megalomaniacal totalitarian, police state, spectrum,” which explains why liberals are “constant and consistent apologists” for Islamist terrorists.

    Jay (comment #1) is correct that it would’ve been helpful for you to name some present-day examples of such misguided apologists. It does seem improbable that liberals in the United States (apart from anti-Semitic ideologues such as Amiri Baraka) have publicly defended terrorists–except, as Jay points out, to support their right to be tried under law for alleged crimes.

    You charge that “Islamists look upon the liberals as ‘useful idiots’ to be tolerated so long as they are to be usefully exploited for the sake of the cause.” You know this how, Irv? In what sense have Islamists usefully exploited liberal idiots? Again, a couple of examples would’ve been helpful here.

    Due to your disdain of clarity and characteristic infatuation with prolixity, I can’t tell whether or not I agree with your argument, although I suspect I do. But I honestly don’t understand whom you expect to reach with such badly written material.

  • Jay, in Irv’s defence, this feature section is entitled “There, I Said It!” The idea of the feature is to give writers an outlet; a place to let off steam and generally get people’s wild up. (Admittedly, most writers manage to do this in no more than a page or two, but Irv has a bigger head of steam than most.) There’s no requirement for him or her to have a rational point, although obviously it makes their argument more effective if they do.


  • There’s no requirement for him or her to have a rational point …

    Are you insinuating that Irvin F. Cohen wasn’t trying to make a rational point here? If so, I think Irv himself would very much disagree with you. It may not be required for this feature, but that doesn’t mean it’s precluded. If a writer such as Mr. Cohen attempts to make a rational point in spite of your “rules,” he or she ought to be held accountable to rational standards of discourse, whether you like it or not.

  • Are you insinuating that Irvin F. Cohen wasn’t trying to make a rational point here?

    I would never, ever do such a thing…

    If a writer such as Mr. Cohen attempts to make a rational point in spite of your “rules,” he or she ought to be held accountable to rational standards of discourse, whether you like it or not.

    Naturally, Alan. That’s what the comments space is for.

  • That’s so typical (#6). Time after time in these threads, you say something and then coyly back off when called on it. You never stand up for what you plainly meant in the first place. You implied that Irvin F. Cohen was irrationally “letting off steam” to “get people’s wild up.” That’s insulting. I happen to know he worked very hard on this article.

  • Doug Hunter

    I disagree with the premise and can sum up the apparent contradiction more fully and accurately in one sentence than the author did in 11 pages.

    The left’s morality often shifts much of the blame for a problem from the party most directly responsible for it to the party they believe can most easily solve it, leaving themselves open to critisim that they’re siding with the former.

  • Alan, it’s obvious that he did work hard. Steam engines generally do.

    I’m also sure that Irv believes that he has a rational point. That doesn’t mean he does.

    In fact, as Jay pointed out, he offers no evidence to back up his assertion that liberals (etc) universally give aid and comfort to terrorists. The best he can do is to offer a few historical examples of Western leftists who expressed approval of communism; he then goes on to accuse hunter-gatherer societies, Pharaonic Egypt, the Roman Catholic Church and practically everyone else who has ever existed of being socialists.

    Not exactly the epitome of a rational argument.

  • Doug, there are four regular BC commenters whom I consider to be the clearest thinkers on this site, and you’re one of them. Your #8 deftly demonstrates why.

  • Wait, don’t tell us! Let me guess the other three regular BC commenters whom you consider to be the clearest thinkers on this site: STM, Christopher Rose, and Dr Dreadful. Am I right?

  • “Thucydides” still stares out like a sore thumb.

  • Don’t forget yours truly.

    You’re clearly being prejudiced here, Alan. Whether good ol’ Irv worked hard or not is immaterial. Are we now in the business of awarding high grades for effort?

  • I’d like to think we could magnanimously give credit where it’s due. Meaning, do not belittle someone for “irrationally blowing off steam” just because you fault his thought processes and contest his conclusions. Whether you approve of him or not, Roger, Mr. Cohen is a rational being, not a raving lunatic.

  • Mark

    To the heavy handed idiot who censored and deleted my comment on this thread — which in no way violated the comment policy —

    power trip much?

    thanks for the reminder about why to avoid your domain

  • Doug Hunter

    #10 Thanks. I have a tendency to try and oversimplify things, works great for math and programming where I’ve made my living, not so much for complex human problems. Add in all the angry venting I do on here and I’m as surprised as Alan I make anyone’s top four.

  • Mark (#15), that was no heavy-handed idiot. That was Dr Dreadful, one of the four clearest thinkers on this site.

  • Alan (11): Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

    Mark (15): There was nothing objectionable about your comment. However, Chris deleted it as part of the “Thucydides” incident.

    Both Alan and Roger know full well that the comments space is not the appropriate forum for editorial notes. We will be deleting all such comments as we see them, and unfortunately yours (along with a couple of mine) had to go because Roger’s did.

  • Ruvy

    Irvin. Eleven pages? What are you writing – War & Peace? I can write the answer to your question in two sentences. Scratch a liberal, and you will find a fascistic butcher. Under the skin Wahhabi terrorists and liberals are blood brothers – so liberals adore them!

  • Yes, Roger knows. But why the hell is everyone so sensitive about small shit?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Categorizing people is so easy, isn’t it? Makes them easier to hate.

  • Changing the topic, Jordan, you devil you, as though reasoning with good ol’ Irv was a reasonable proposition.

  • {Mr. Cohen is a rational being, not a raving lunatic.”

    It’a for him to prove and for me to find out.

  • Doug Hunter


    Categorizing and stereotyping are the brains natural way of dealing with information overload and are very useful processes. It may make hate easier, but it also makes just about everything else easier as well… that the whole point. People generally argue against it when it’s convenient for one of their favored groups and often in a very hypocritical manner even within the space of a single comment. Something like ‘You can’t stereotype groups… Republicans are always doing that’ would be typical.

  • Roger (#23), he doesn’t have to prove a damn thing to you. You’re not the be all and end all that you flatter yourself to be.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Doug, categories are sometimes useful. I absolutely agree. I don’t think it makes “just about everything easier,” though, as in my experience people are more prone to defy their categories than to live up to them.

    But in discussions that require slightly more nuance than “all Republicans are pro-life and hate gays” or “liberals adore terrorists,” they’re just obstacles to rational thought. Sooner or later, human beings should theoretically mature beyond the categories and stereotypes, don’t you think?

  • You’re not the be all and end all that you flatter yourself to be.

    Oh, the irony.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “Under the skin Wahhabi terrorists and liberals are blood brothers.”

    and that’s reality. the dream is over. what can i say?

  • You (#27), however, are the be all and end all that you flatter yourself to be. How so? Why, because you have that delete key on your console that gives you life or death power, beyond appeal, over our comments. But we protest not. How could we? You are the finest mind of your generation. You are imbued.

  • zingzing

    truth is that people like ruvy are the “blood brothers” of the terrorists. they both seem to want this shit. anyone who says “be reasonable” to either side becomes the enemy of both, because they’re attempting to stop something neither idiot party wants to stop. both of these parties are as bad as the other. they’re stupid sides in a surreal war. if either of those sides would step back and look at what they’re doing, they’d find out they’re the problem. but they’re so wrapped up in their own psychosis, they don’t even recognize reality when it blows up their own streets.

  • zingzing

    how’s that brick wall, alan?

  • STM

    Al writes: “You are the finest mind of your generation.”

    No, that’s you Al. If in doubt, just ask yourself.

  • John Lake

    Plunging through Mr. Cohen’s contribution at “There, I Said It” which I might mention is no easy task leads me to one inescapable conclusion. Mr. Cohen believes that anyone who feels justice, fairness, and compliance with established precedent in the courts, is in fact un-American, and should himself be brought up on some charges thus far undetermined. Mr. Cohen knows in his heart of hearts that these commie-marxist Moslem Jihadists and Islamo-terrorists, since they have clearly been arrested and charged, are clearly guilty. And their clear guilt makes them ineligible for any of our American-only thank you conventions of justice, and/or jurisprudence. There, I said it!
    lt occurs to me that the article might even be aimed at me, or at least at my ilk. And I say that not without substantial reason. The truth of the matter, and in this instance, this is an admission I must make with some caution, … the truth of the matter is that at this EXACT MOMENT IN TIME (!!) I have an article fresh and available at BlogCritics in which I admittedly pursue and petition fairness, and judicial justice – whew! – for an actual TERRORIST! I swear. I am not making this up. Skeptical? I direct your attention to Terrorist Bomber/Conspirator Guilty of One Count in Civilian Court written by me, John Lake, good American, and there I said it, LIBERAL!

  • Baronius

    I don’t think I agree with Doug’s comment #8. (Actually, I’m mostly jealous that he got nominated for a Crittie and I didn’t, so I’m lashing out.)

    The Iranian president was reelected under suspicious circumstances. But the Left was quiet about it. How does that fit Doug’s model? The people who could most easily solve it were the leaders of Iran, but they were largely uncriticized. Instead we were told that we didn’t have a great record running elections in this country either.

    Cat Stevens played at Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity. That fits Irv’s proposal better than Doug’s.

    A student demands prayer time in public school. It makes no difference in the power relationships or degrees of responsibility if he’s Muslim or Christian. But the Left will sympathize with the Muslim and take the Christian to the Supreme Court.

  • Irvin, your statement that “Liberals qua ‘commie-libs’ et al, et al; essentially are soul mates with these Moslem terrorists and Jihadists” is probably the truest one I have ever read on Blogcritics regarding the challenges which our nation faces in combating those who wish to destroy what is the foremost beacon of light and freedom for those oppressed around the globe. While, as I have written ad nauseam, it is incorrect to blame “liberals” as a whole for conspiring with America’s enemies, as many self-described ones which I know personally are of the classical variety, and therefore not “liberal” at all in the modern sense, you managed to peel the onion, so to speak, by revealing the ideology of many who today masquerade behind the liberal banner, which is hardline leftism. It is undeniable that the vast majority of leftists have absolutely no problem in associating with Jihadists as they both wish to see the United States as we know it cease to exist. What the leftists do not realize, however, is that once the Jihadists have reached their goal of total world domination, then they will be the first to be thrown under the bus, and this will undoubtedly be done in only the most horrifying of fashions.

  • zingzing

    “The Iranian president was reelected under suspicious circumstances. But the Left was quiet about it.”

    are you kidding?

    “Cat Stevens played at Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity. That fits Irv’s proposal better than Doug’s.”

    are you kidding?

  • zingzing

    joseph, your statement that “It is undeniable that the vast majority of leftists have absolutely no problem in associating with Jihadists as they both wish to see the United States as we know it cease to exist” is probably the silliest one i have ever read on blogcritics regarding the challenges our nations faces in combatting ignorance and hyperbole. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, but you’ve come to an irrational, wrongheaded conclusion that has no relationship with reality.

    both of us think the other side is deluded, but from my side of the argument, i can certainly disprove your argument. i don’t like terrorists any more than you do. i just think the way you want to get rid of them does nothing except produce more of them and prolong the problem.

  • Baronius

    Zing, you can be more articulate than that.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear Joseph,

    Thank you for your kind comment # 35. Essentially you got it 100 % right. Actually there are many more other issues involved in my article which I didn’t detail or delve into, one of which you raise here. The question of what a true, classical liberal is as opposed to what the current moniker and title of liberalism has devolved and degenerated into. The true liberals as we know them in America historically, were the founding fathers, e.g., Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton of whom most would be considered conservative and a few libertarian today – but all of whom believed in, supported and promoted individual, personal liberty and property rights, but also individual responsibility and accountability; and especially small, non-intrusive government.

    However this leftward move to liberal-socialism and worse, and I maintain that the “worse” consequence is almost always inevitable, has been around since the 1830s with the communitarians, the Fourierist Utopian Socialists and the transcendentalists – even before the progressives and the socialists and communitarians and communists came into existence.

    However this is getting out of hand, so let me cut to the quick if that is humanly possible for me.

    The point I wish to make here is, that with little to no exception, today’s liberals have devolved and degenerated into politically correct fascists and liberal-progressive-socialists and worse, in a word, there are no true liberals extant save for us conservatives and libertarians.

  • Irv, in your hands, as in so many others here on Blogcritics, all these labels are just another form of name-calling. Liberals, fascists, progressives, socialists, conservatives, libertarians … these words are nothing more than convenient ladles (word is correct as spelled) for mud-slinging. This approach is a godsend for lazy writers and sloppy thinkers. But it sure does get tiresome.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Zing, you can be more articulate than that.”

    as can you. you just said some things that are supposed to draw people to certain conclusions, but obviously didn’t read up on any support the iranian riots engendered, nor did you say anything except cat stevens played at the stewart/colbert rally. he’s muslim. so what? he condemned the 9/11 attacks and spoke out against violence by and against muslims, yet he subsequently denied entry into the united states by the bush admin.

  • zingzing

    “The true liberals as we know them in America historically, were the founding fathers, e.g., Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton of whom most would be considered conservative and a few libertarian today…”

    they’d also be about 275 years old. things change, people change, hairstyles change…

  • Hairstyles change? Who knew! I’m still wearing the same ducktail that I first demanded in 1958. I guess that makes me a conservative. But at the time it made me a J.D. (juvenile delinquent), which was then something akin to an anarchist. Which proves zingzing’s statement, I suppose, that things change. A classic hairstyle, though, is meant to last. My ducktail has stood the test of time. To paraphrase Barbara Fritchie, “Burn, if you must, our country’s flag. But spare this old gray hairstyle.”

  • You’re still a juvie.

  • zingzing

    maybe you were a greaser?

    not too terribly long ago, in my more strung out days, i had a mohawk AND a rattail at the same time. the guy who cuts my hair now seems to have an ability to mask a mullet. my hair looks fine when it’s cut, but then about three weeks later, it looks like i’m in a deathmatch with a mullet. and the humidity is giving me this alfalfa thing right now. sigh.

  • Baronius

    Zing, you’d be livid if The Fred Phelps Five played Glenn Beck’s rally. But as far as I know, Fred Phelps never called for a specific person’s death. Cat Stevens called for the death of Salman Rushdie.

    The state of mind that would allow a person to invite Cat Stevens onto a stage is something worth considering. It is a statement, in and of itself, that time can wash away violent disregard for the law. It is a statement that such things shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But more to the point, it doesn’t mesh with Doug’s theory of blame as much as it meshes with Irv’s theory of whatever.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    As the pre-socratic philosophers were wont to say, “????? ???” with the acute accent on the penult of “panta” and a circumflex over the dipthong “ei” of “rhei” – literal translation, all things flow (or popularly translated, “all things” i.e, the universe ” are in constant flux”). Therefore I must conclude, comrades, Kurtz and zing-zing – BFD and SFW which are euphemistic acronyms for “big fucking deal” and “so fucking what!”

    These comments of yours are truly not within the ream and domain of great thinker-stinkers. So kiss off and eat my dirty, putrid, foul and disgusting and noxious, nausea-producing filthy shorts. You unintelligent, fornicating jackwads. So there I said it, jess couldn’t help myself. Are you happy now that you got me to revert back to character?

  • Doug Hunter


    You’re right, one sentence can’t possibly explain every one of the many motivations shared by a group, but I think I described a valid tendency that is a partly applicable to this subject. It wasn’t meant to be insulting either, it’s actually rather pragmatic.

  • zingzing

    “Cat Stevens called for the death of Salman Rushdie.”

    he was being badgered by that interviewer and said some stupid shit. he also said that he would abide by british law concerning the whole thing. what he said was controversial, but i think you oversimplify what he said.

    he’s a musician. what if lou reed had played? that motherfucker has done far worse, but he’s lou reed, so you know, whatever. i love lou reed.

    “But more to the point, it doesn’t mesh with Doug’s theory of blame as much as it meshes with Irv’s theory of whatever.”

    how would you ever know… i’m pretty sure doug could have better gotten at the truth had he spoken of where the left likes to make their appeal or shift their focus. you can’t really talk to the terrorists themselves. but you can talk to the right and try to get them to see that they’re approaching the problem the wrong way. address the roots of terrorism instead its symptoms.

  • Irv (#47), if nothing else, you are an ingrate. As my foregoing comments #5, #7, #14 and #25 show, while you were so happily indulging your mandatory 12 hours of televised NFL action yesterday, I single-handedly defended you on this thread. What is my thanks from the ungrateful Mr. Cohen? Why, another ladle of mud slung in my direction, of course. As I said, Irv, it’s tiresome. And, oh, so predictable.

  • zingzing

    i have no idea what irvin is trying to say up there.

  • You’re not alone. Neither does he.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Kurtz,

    If that is “single-handedly dedend(ing) (me)” I’d rather walk into a hale of lethal and deadly, friendly fire.

    So ingrate, am I?

    WEll with so called defenders and friends like you who needs enemies?

    Oh yes, I forgot, I have nothing but enemies in Blog-o-critter-land-o-world for the crimes of not conforming to their rather bland and insipid leftist and New Age Marxist tripe and or pablum, and oh yes, of the even greater crimes of still breathing and of having a pulse, as tenuous and weak as that be.

    So my question to you comrade Kurtz, is:

    Et tu? [Edited]

  • For the record, Irv, I do not consider you a criminal for failing to conform to their rather bland and insipid leftist and New Age Marxist tripe and or pablum. Nor do I consider you a criminal for breathing and having a pulse, as tenuous and weak as that be. Fact is, I don’t consider you a criminal at all. Just a lousy writer. Don’t get me wrong. That’s a serious artistic offense. But it’s not a crime.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    To all of you commie-lib, commie-symp, politically-correct, intellectual and ideological fascists out there in blog-o-critter-land-o-world in cyber, blagospheric-dementia-land-netherworld;
    I would hereby like to bring this controversy surrounding my spelling of Thoucydides to a rest – as in dead, final, finie, done with and totally and completely over.

    Yes, I must admit that Thucydides is the most common and most acceptable spelling of the great historian. But remarkably, comrade doctor dreadful’s got this one right. Furthermore I am also quite impressed with his basic knowledge of Greek. So kudos to you doctor comrade dreadful. However it appears your comment # ??? and a few others have already been erased and obliterated out of existence for which I see no good reason whatsoever; other than mindless and capricious and arbitrary, sort of Red Queen at the Madhatter’s tea party, petty and misbegotten thinking and logic, and of course, typical politically correct, fascistic censorship. Again, wow what a fucking mouthful!

    Now as for comrade rodger [Edited] dodger’s comment # 12, which in light of the outright censorship out of existence of the other comments, makes absolutely no sense to me. Nevertheless, his overall ignorance and the intransigent nature of his ignorance is truly remarkable to me.

    Yes, Thucydides is the correct spelling in English, but as comrade doctor dreadful so wisely and intelligently points out, it is also a matter of transliteration from one language to another, here, of Greek to English. My computer cannot or I have not figured as of yet how to use RTF on this particular page so my worthless Greek script won’t work on this page. But I will still make the effort. What a truly noble and heroic trooper I fucking be!

    First off, of the dozen or more professors of Greek whom I studied under, not one, that’s zero, ever complained of my transliterated, what I call, Antiquarian spelling of Thoucydides which I constantly perpetrated. Partly, because most of them used it too.

    But secondly, since I assume comrade rodger the not so etc., etc., artful dodger will neither accept my nor doctor dreadful’s explanation, allow me to employ the “A New Introduction To Greek” by Chase and Phillips which is the standard Greek primer used at both Phillips and Phillips Exeter Academies in America, and of course at many other prep schools and also most of our colleges and universities. It’s really very easy so I suspect even roger should understand it.

    The first letter is “theta” pronounced like ‘th” in theater (which I will not mention is a fricative consonant lest I be overly pedantic); followed by the dipthong “ou” that is, “omicron, upsilon,” pronounced like the “oo” in “moon;” then “chi” and not “kappa” which is pronounced like “ch” in German “machen;” then “upsilon,” pronounced like the “u” in French “tu,” when short; when long, like the “u” in French “sur,” German ü in “hübsch;” then “delta,” pronounced like “d” in “democracy;” then “iota,” pronounced like the”i” in “geranium” when short; when long, like the “i” in “police;”
    then another delta, op. cit.; then the vowel “eta” pronounced like the “e” in “fête” or the “a” in “paper;” and finally the consonant “sigma” pronounced like the “s” in “semaphore.”

    From whence my spelling Thoucydides naturally is derived from and which also more accurately reflects the actual Greek, rather than the English-Latinized transliteration of it. See how simple that is. Geez rodger, you’re so goddamn brilliant that should be a piece of cake for you. And I know you’re the most fucking brilliant dude in all of blog-o-critter-world, and you know why? Because you say so! And who am I to question your utter, empyrean, intellectual brilliance?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Correction to # 55: first graff, should read “fini” pronounced (fanh-knee) not “finie,”

    in the last graff I also left out “super” which should be inserted between “intellectual” (add a comma) and “brilliance.” Or just hyphenate it to “super-brilliance.”

    There, that deep, deep, deep, most profoundest intellectual issue should keep you superior intellectuals busy for at least the next decade or two.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Actually, to show all of you blog-o-critters out there how serious and legitimate the issue raised in comment # 56 is, and how nuanced and sophisticated and complex it also is; of whether one should add to roger the not so artful (note: a rather pre-emptive silly and arbitrary and capricious very much anticipated, ontologically certain piece of censorship is duly expected hereat) dodger’s “utter, empyrean, intellectual brilliance” with the addition of “super” or not.

    In fact I also suggest the further addition of “duper” which would make his full appellation read the “utter, empyrean, SUPER-DUPER, intellectual brilliance.” Now I also assume and anticipate that this additional point shall also continue the controversy surrounding it another decade or two which should keep all of you super-duper brainiacs at blog-o-critter-land-o-world quite busy for at least the next 20 to 40 years at which point in time I should be dead a few or more years. So I’ll close on that I assume, very, very rather happy thought for all of youse.

  • Baronius

    Yeah, I recall another one of these a while back. You spelled Virgil “Vergil”. Unusual but legitimate. Still doesn’t tell me anything about why liberals adore and defend Moslem terrorists.

  • Coh’n. Artfulness is hardly required to deal with you. A blunt instrument, sledgehammer for instance, is all that’s needed.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    At 6:00 pm this evening I responded to # 59 which I took as a not so veiled threat to do me great bodily and physical harm and injury. Was I wrong to take exception and offense to this? To what I believe, is a gratuitous threat which has no place on Blogcritics? Yes, I admit some of my language was a bit on the foul side, but SFW, which again is an acronym for “so fucking what!.”

    And guess what boys and girls my comment # 60 was expunged entirely, erased, wiped out, caput. But guess what, boys and girls, guess what offensive comment still remains untouched? That’s right not mine, but that of comrade rodger the not so artful, rigorous discourse and reasoned debate dodger’s # 59!

    I’m sorry, this is not only a matter of a brazen double standard of pure hypocrisy by the comments editor; but it also is just simply a rather obvious form of pure intellectual, politically correct fascism. Again, allow me to make myself perfectly clear – pure intellectual, politically correct fascism. Alright, perhaps I misspoke and it’s not at all politically correct fascism. So let’s discard the “politically correct” part. Which means to say, it’s only just pure, intellectual fascism.

    Which brings me to the main point of this plea to my fellow blogcritters, yes I would very much like to defend my article and explain my logic of my arguments and their epistemology etc., but why should I, when I must face the arbitrary and capricious nature of this comments editor? This is not the first time he has arbitrarily and in a rather petty and mean-spirited manner stifled my voice, my intellectual freedom, my effort at every attempted rebuttal.

    So therefore I cannot in good faith respond to let us say Baronius’s # 58 which requests me to further explain “why liberals adore and defend Moslem terrorists.” I cannot because of the chilling effect this comments editor has consistently used and beaten me over the head with, again, to stifle my voice, my intellectual freedom, my many efforts at rebuttal and rigorous discourse and reasoned debate which most of you will never have the chance to read, respond to or agree with or disagree with – because of this comments editor has gone far beyond that which is merely arbitrary and capricious, but has stooped to the lowliest, sleaziest, gutter depths of pure intellectual fascism.

    And you might ask yourselves, why should I care? It’s only Cohen and everyone knows he’s an asshole. Fuck him, he deserves everything he gets. Well, OK, but what happens when I disappear off the radar screen, who’s next?

    You know that was the same sort of attitude many of the German people had about the Jews and the Nazis. They’re only Jews so why should I give a rat’s ass? But then when they ran out of Jews, they went after all the others. How does the quote go? (Well, I’ll just have to paraphrase here as usual.) “All that evil needs to thrive and succeed, is for good men to do nothing (or something thereabouts).” So it is in your own vested self-interest to fight back, not to allow this fascist scumbag to ride sway over me or anyone else, whether you like that someone else or you detest him as you do so vehemently and passionately lil’, ol’ moi, me, myself and I.

    But the further irony of all this is that he, the scumbag, fascist, comments editor will probably not let this see the light of a day either. Which I suppose makes him a fascist scumbag to the nth degree.

  • OK, Irvin, I’m with you on this. We should all get together to fight the fascist scumbags. Please tell us what you want us to do, Sarge. Don’t spare the details. Just lay it out for us. What is step one?

  • Baronius

    Wonderful. By the way, why do liberals adore Moslem terrorists?

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Sorry, dear comrade Baronius, but until this stifling veil of fascism is lifted off my voice and intellectual freedom, I cannot answer as much as I truly wish to and of course to which I have much to say. But as long as this scumbag fascist comments editor reigns unchallenged, this petty tyrant, this would be totalitarian. I cannot and will not.

    Believe me that is not a copout, but rather a voice crying out in the wilderness for my fellow writers to take courage and man up and fight back and not allow this mean-spirited petty tyrant to ride roughshod over me. over Alan, over you, over anyone. Including his favorites and pets as in teachers pets, because they too can be his victims. That or his willing accomplices which makes them scumbags too.

  • “which I took as a not so veiled threat to do me great bodily and physical harm and injury. Was I wrong to take exception and offense to this?”

    Yes. Did you really think Roger was coming after you? If so, it says something about your critical-assessment skills

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    However dear comrade Baronius I will respond to your thread # 58:

    According to “Lemprière’s Classical Dictionary of Proper Names mentioned in Classical Authors.” It’s Publius Virgilius Maro, which would make it “Virgil.” However according to Wikipedia the Anglicized Latin is either Vergil or Virgil. Both are acceptable. However, I as an antiquarian prefer to stay as close to the original Latin or Greek as is humanly possible.


  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Wonderful. By the way, why do liberals adore Moslem terrorists?

    Gee, why do conservatives adore pedophiles?

    You don’t adore pedophiles, and we don’t adore Muslim terrorists, but my question makes every bit as much sense as your question…and as much since as Cohen’s article.

    Back in the 90’s bin Laden stated that it was his goal to draw America into an unwinnable war that would destroy our economy. Thanks to Dubya and your Republicans, he did precisely that. Frankly speaking, in the historical view bin Laden’s plans succeeded every bit as brilliantly as the English longbows at Agincourt, as Spartan courage at Thermopylae, and England’s Swordfish biplanes at Taranto. With the possible exception of Thermopylae, I don’t think there is a single example of warfare in all of history that has cost the aggressor so little and the defender so much.

    Yes, if we capture bin Laden, he needs to die. But the real advantage bin Laden held wasn’t in his faith or his financial resources or his family’s connections. Osama bin Laden’s greatest advantage was the team of Bush and Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress whose idiotic (and illegal) reactions have cost the American taxpayers trillions and the American nation our international reputation and thousands of our soldiers’ lives.

    George Washington refused to allow torture. So did Lincoln. So did FDR…and our WWII interrogators spoke out together against Dubya’s torture policies! Dubya and Cheney belong in front of a war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

  • Baronius

    Glenn – You misinterpret my statement. I think there’s some affiliation that liberals feel toward Muslim extremists. I don’t think they adore them. Irv does, although he won’t clearly flesh out that idea. I’m trying to prod him to do so.

    Personally, I think the answer to why there’s an affiliation lies in the paradoxical credo of modern liberalism: “There are two kinds of people in the world, those that group people into categories and those that don’t. We don’t.”

  • zingzing

    baronius: “the paradoxical credo of modern liberalism: “There are two kinds of people in the world, those that group people into categories and those that don’t. We don’t.””

    yeah. i wonder who made that shit up.

  • Baronius, as someone who has been liberal all their life, although not a liberal, I am baffled by your assertions in #67.

    I for one feel no affiliation with Christians or Jews, both of which have been around longer, never mind Muslim extremists.

    If it wasn’t for the fact that your remark is so blatantly and laugh out loud ridiculous, I would be offended.

    As it is, I just think you are talking nonsense for effect. If you think you aren’t, how about putting some factual meat on those bare bones?

    As to your “credo”, again, where do you get that from?

  • And just when one would have thought Baronius had come to represent voice of reason, he comes out with a typical Baronius gem. Not to mention the patent contradiction, “we” versus “them.”

  • Baronius

    I figured you guys were sufficiently familiar with the conservative critique of liberalism to follow that second paragraph of mine. As for the first paragraph, I’m not sure why Christopher should be baffled by it, considering it’s much weaker than the title of this very article. I can handle someone disagreeing with it, but one should at least be able to anticipate that the subject of liberals and Muslims would come up.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    I think there’s some affiliation that liberals feel toward Muslim extremists.

    And you base this on…what, exactly? Other than the conservative creed that You Just Know It?

  • Baronius, I am as familiar with “the conservative critique of liberalism” as I am with the liberal critique of conservatism, which is not at all.

    Personally I don’t subscribe to such superficial distinctions nor find them particularly relevant to describe or understand anything.

    I note you didn’t actually respond to my statement about liberals and faithists, just added some waffle about the title of the article.

    Are you going to actually defend your remark or, like some commenters, simply engage in pointless rhetoric?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing and Baronius –

    baronius: “the paradoxical credo of modern liberalism: “There are two kinds of people in the world, those that group people into categories and those that don’t. We don’t.””

    zing wondered ‘who made that #$%^ up’. Baronius might be referring to the posts I made saying that the two major political parties of today are generally made up of those who are obviously very uncomfortable with those who are different (the Republican party), and those who truly welcome those who are different (the Democratic party)…and I pointed to the racial makeup of the political rallies of the past few years as my proof.

    I stand by what I said…but such is NOT the ‘liberal credo’. I don’t speak for all liberals. I simply say what I think is right, what I believe is provable or at least very likely based on the available data.

  • Baronius

    I didn’t have Glenn’s comments in mind when I wrote that, but I think they serve as good examples. Also, some of Cindy’s comments come to mind. The phenomenon I’m referring to is also sometimes called “the intolerance of the tolerant”.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So prove me wrong. Show me the Republican political rallies that are truly multiracial and multicultural and multiethnic. Show me the weekly race-baiting by the most influential among the Democratic politicians and pundits. Show me the tolerance among the Democratic rank-and-file for Democratic politicians and pundits who use race-baiting.

    You see, Baronius, unlike the Republicans we don’t tolerate racism or race-baiting. If you think that’s “the intolerance of the tolerant”, then so be it. I’d much rather hold a person to a higher standard of conduct towards his fellow man than to tolerate his racism or race-baiting.

    If this is “the intolerance of the tolerant”, are you then saying it’s okay to be racist or use race-baiting…but it’s not okay to reject those who are racist or who use race-baiting?

  • Baronius

    Glenn, that’s nonsense. Note that I didn’t say anything about race, but you read it that way. Then you played the race card by saying that Dems never play the race card. If you want to defend the Party of Race, we can deal with that separately. But I’m thinking mostly about tolerance of ideas. Nothing exemplifies this better than the resistance to Republican Allen West joining the Congressional Black Caucus.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    ‘scuse me? The Republicans elected one – count ’em, ONE – black guy to Congress. That, sir, does NOT nullify the weekly race-baiting by Republican pundits and politicians…and you know it.

    I ask you again, if this is “the intolerance of the tolerant”, are you then saying it’s okay to be racist or use race-baiting…but it’s not okay to reject those who are racist or who use race-baiting?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    So comrade Glenn, does that mean that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Minister Jeremiah Wright et al, et al, are NOT race baiters, pimps and hustlers and extortionists who have self-promoted themselves earning big bucks to the tune of millions of dollars for themselves and their cronies?

    And that even you now by your own vicious slanders and libels of the Republican party and of the Tea Party of intimating and calling all these people “white racists” is not a form of liberal McCarthyism which in fact is a form of intellectual, philosophic and polemic FASCISM?

    So which is it, comrade?

    The point is, you are not representative of the “intolerance of the tolerant” but rather you are guilty of the “intolerance” of the so-called, supposed tolerant and faux tolerant. And oh by the way, “faux” is a fancy french word, which here clearly means “PHONY!

    Must I remind you diversity Nazis, that citizenship and intellectual and philosophic diversity is not measured by skin color or race, but by “content of character!” It appears you never learned that lesson, or rather if you did, you learned how to sophistically and ideologically subvert, pervert and distort it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Irvin –

    NONE of the three you mentioned are in the top ten, not even in the top twenty of the most influential liberals in America. Limbaugh and Glenn Beck regularly score in the top FIVE of the most influential conservatives in America. Furthermore, I’ll challenge you this – for every racist or race-baiting comment by any of those three in the past ten years, I’ll show you at least five by EITHER Beck or Limbaugh.

    Looks like the odds would be greatly in your favor – care to take me up on it?

    The difference, Irvin, is this: the rank-and-file of the Republican party TOLERATES race-baiting by some of the most powerful and influential of all conservatives…whereas the rank-and-file of the Democratic party does NOT tolerate it at all.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, Irvin, but you’re not entitled to your own facts…even though facts more and more these days have a strongly liberal bias.

  • Jordan Richardson

    diversity Nazis

    Now that’s an oxymoron.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Glenn,

    You are rather remarkably typical of the hysterical, true believer, ulta-orthodox, doctrinaire and dogmatic left who quite religiously and zealously create straw men assumptions, which fall into the category of; again, to borrow from the Greeks who invented sophistry and intellectual bullshit; and in fact created an entire mood and conjugation for that sole purpose, known as the “potential optative” which deals with statements contrary to fact, or more accurately and aptly described as the realm of “should have, could have, would haves.”

    I therefore must conclude that you are so perversely and adamantly ingrained and entrenched within your very own leftist qua commie-lib qua commie-symp leanings, biases and prejudices and phobias, and by your very own purblind and myopic rhetoric, spin, sloganeering and propaganda; that you are simply beyond reasonable disputation and argumentation and reasoned debate.
    So that the latter fine and noble, intellectual attributes are just simply beyond your ken or ability to fathom, or your willingness and or lack of open-mindness to make the attempt to do so.

    In fact you remind me of the former Stalinist-apologists within the former Soviet Union and within the American liberal, media elite and within the college and university intellectual, liberal elite as well; who in a very long tradition of Stalinist-apologism from Lincoln Steffens and Walter Duranty, defended, justified and apologized for the former Soviet union, communism and Marxism to the very instant the Soviet Union imploded, collapsed and came a-tumbling down.

    So therefore I must also conclude that there is no reasoning nor arguing nor disputing nor reasonable debating with you; because as you have consistently demonstrated time and time again, most clearly stated and evidenced by your very own rhetoric, sophistry and propaganda, you have a steel reenforced, closed mind; which is thoroughly impervious to legitimate discourse and reasoned debate. To attempt to debate with you, in fact, is a rather pointless exercise in futility.

    But irony of ironies, I expect if you remain true to form and personal MO, I expect your response to all of this shall be twofold. First, you will in essence say, “yes, maybe, perhaps…but this evasion or that justification or…just plain ol’ but.” Which of course is a form of denial. But then your second response will be in a true sophistic, moral relativistic piece of fallacious reasoning and argumentation. You will say in effect (and I garr-ranh-tee it) that all Republicans and conservatives also do it, and in fact, are even worse. Well, that’s no legitimate argument. I also see it being tantamount to saying. “so there,” as you stick your tongue out in the most childish and puerile manner.

    Well this sort of reasoning reminds me of my teenage and adolescent nephews and nieces when they say, “why can’t I do xy or z (no matter how patently foolish and stupid xy of z happens to be), everybody else does it!” Well, first off not “everybody else does it.” And secondly, even if “everybody else does it,” it still doesn’t make it right.

    So that indeed what you claim to be fact, is in fact a matter of that good ol’ Greek potential optative of statements contrary to fact, i. e., of “could have, should have, would haves.” Furthermore, what you claim to be fact upon further scrutiny is usually a matter of partisan and or factional, and I must add in your particular case, a matter of narrow ideological and partisan dogma, orthodoxy, desire, wish, whim, caprice, dictate, demand, behest and command. And all such partisan and factional and ideological desire, wish, whim and caprice never rises above what it actually and truly is, and that is mere opinion, speculation or false accusations and unsubstantiated allegations.

    Yet you constantly and consistently create these house of cards, straw man arguments comprised solely or almost entirely from opinion and the slender reeds of partisan and ideological bias, prejudice, dogma and orthodoxy, rhetoric and propaganda; and then translate and interpret these aforementioned slender reeds of biased opinion into fact, and from thence into absolute truth. And then you conclude in the tradition of the Catholic theologians (St. Anselm in particular) of the Middle Ages, who reasoned in elaborate arguments such as you do, that God exists because I reason that God exists so therefore God must exist.

    Well likewise from that base of yours, you go on to say that your opinion must therefore be fact, therefore it must be true, therefore as such, it must needs be thoroughly incontrovertible and beyond scrutiny. Well no, dear comrade dude, opinion is not and will never be fact, but rather it will always be mere opinion, whether learned or based on ignorance or whim and caprice, or solely upon the potential optative of “should have, could have, would haves.’

    And that dear comrade Glenn is the truth whether it conforms with your leftist epistemology, biases and prejudices, dogma, orthodoxy and doctrine or not.

    And lastly all of this reasoned argumentation and analysis for you will be just like water off of a duck’s back or casting pearls at swine. So what’s the use? Well to be perfectly honest – there is none. Cause reasoning or debating with you is a thorough fucking waste of time. You’re like Plato’s Meno, neither truth nor the better, more solidly logical argument will deter you from your beliefs, biases, prejudices, orthodoxies and other ill-founded opinions. So again, why bother? You’re just an incredible fucking waste of time.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Glenn,

    How can facts have a liberal bias? Aren’t facts and especially truth itself supposed to be neutral? And especially truth, isn’t it supposed to be indivisible and exist independently of whatever you demand or command it to be?

  • Jordan Richardson

    If Glenn’s arguments constitute a “waste of time,” just what in the hell do you call #82?

    Oh right, it’s just pretentious tap-dancing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Mr. Cohen –

    In all your wondrous verbosity in #82, I see an abundance of flighty rhetoric but absolutely ZERO data. No numbers, no hard historical fact used to bolster your grand exposition of high vocabulary.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m actually jealous. It’s not often that I can frankly compliment someone on having a greater vocabulary than I, but you certainly do…and please understand that I am always sincere. The other BC writers will tell you (often in varying levels of scorn) that I always mean what I say and I never patronize.

    That said, your exercise in rhetoric above, with all the rank condescension and alliterative insults therein, contained no real meat. It’s just like the old Wendy’s commercial: “Where’s the beef?”

    Or, to put it in words that someone with your education would better appreciate, it was “all sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

    Concerning your reply #83, the phrase, “facts have a liberal bias” is a rhetorical way of pointing out that the hard, cold, provable facts strongly support the Democrats and the liberals. I’m surprised you didn’t grok that.

    P.S. I’m not at all offended by your insults – retired Navy men like myself rarely are. In fact, I really try hard not to use insults. I defy you to find even one insult that I’ve EVER made towards a private individual. I’ll insult public individuals at the drop of a hat, but I see no real need to insult private individuals…for insults often say less about the intended recipient than about the one who makes them.

    P.P.S. – You’ve also obviously got a much greater knowledge of classical history than do I. But I strongly suspect you suffer from the same weakness as does Dave Nalle: hubris. A man may be so very aware of the wealth of knowledge that he has of a subject, but that knowledge means little if he doesn’t have the understanding with which to truly comprehend the ebb and flow of that knowledge, and how it fits with the greater world around us.

    Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you do have that understanding. We’ll see.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Glenn,

    As to your # 85:

    Spoken as a true, typical, leftist true believer, yes but, apologist…and ideas do not count unless they support my particular jaundiced, leftist biased view of the world. So there, I will not be swayed as a true believer by anything which questions my questionable facts.

    And if you misconstrued my rather extensive arguments as offensive and insulting, me thinks you thinketh-stinketh too much of yourself. As in the song, “you’re so vain, you think this song is about you…don’t you?”

    And by the way I’m really getting tired by your 20 or whatever you served in the Navy. I spent four in the Corps and a year of that in Vietnam in real live combat in which I was seriously wounded. But I do not make a point of lecturing everyone at every chance I have. The point is you’re not the only one who served, so cease and desist, stop lecturing us and or bragging about your service.

    PS. How many bullets did you take for the “Gippur?”

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Richardson,

    as to your # 84:

    Your pithy commentary seems to have a rather anarchic ring and anti-intellectual resonance to it. I am sure you take yourself and your nihilistic vision of the world rather seriously, perhaps too much so. So why not try to write something substantive or meaningful, cause then you could either waste everybody’e time or waste just your own.


  • Jordan Richardson


  • Irvin F. Cohen

    As to # 88:

    What the fuck, pray tell, does the cryptic message “TL;DR” stand for? Is that some sort of esoteric joke?

  • Toodle-Loo;Done Responding


  • Jordan Richardson

    Haha, Cindy. I think I like that better!

  • Irvin F. Cohen, I politely asked you (comment #3) to name some present-day examples of Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death.

    Since then, you have contributed a staggering 3,408 words of commentary on this thread–plus who knows how many other well-chosen words that were deleted by BC’s comments editors (whom you label fascist scumbags in #60)–such as calling me a motherfucker in #53?

    Yet nowhere in this inchoate mass of 3,408 words do you cite liberals who exemplify the title of your article. Unless, that is, you mean Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Minister Jeremiah Wright, whom you mention in #79.

    I realize you don’t care what I think, Irv, but I’m expressing myself here anyway. It strikes me as significant that the only alleged liberal apologists for terrorists whom you name are African Americans. Aren’t there any WASPs, Hispanic/Latinos, Asian-Americans, Jews or Muslim-Americans who might provide a representative cross-section of Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death?

    When you wrote this article, if you had in mind only Sharpton, Jackson and Wright, your title ought to have been “Why Black Preachers Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death.” That would’ve made your racism explicit.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irvin –

    And by the way I’m really getting tired by your 20 or whatever you served in the Navy. I spent four in the Corps and a year of that in Vietnam in real live combat in which I was seriously wounded.

    You saw and did things I didn’t and will never see or do…and I don’t belittle your combat experience one whit.

    BUT you spent only four years in the military, perhaps as an enlisted, or perhaps as an officer. Either way, there’s many things I saw and did that you never did and never will…and I did it from a supervisory level on the enlisted side that you cannot have experienced due to your limited time in service.

    Does this insult you? It shouldn’t. What you should take from it, sir, is that just as you obviously feel I should respect your service, you should in turn respect mine.

    Part of that respect, Mr. Cohen, is to remember that I also served in the Cold War for the Gipper – and I’ve defended him several times on BC as being one of our five greatest presidents (despite the lasting damage that Reaganomics is still doing to our economy).

    So you are combat-wounded. So you saw the elephant and have the thousand-yard stare. So did tens of thousands of good men – conservative AND liberal. But just as there is a great deal that I don’t know, there’s also a great deal that YOU don’t know…and your insults above make it apparent that you’re not aware of that fact.

    The appreciation of this fact is a good first step towards that crucial virtue called ‘humility’…but then that’s not a virtue that’s much appreciated among American conservatives these days.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan #84 –

    That’s a wonderful example of Shakespeare’s observation that “brevity is the soul of wit”, for you said in two sentences what took me an hour to write.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, and Irvin –

    And if you misconstrued my rather extensive arguments as offensive and insulting, me thinks you thinketh-stinketh too much of yourself.

    So…you didn’t say anything meant to be taken as an insult? Like this?

    I therefore must conclude that you are so perversely and adamantly ingrained and entrenched within your very own leftist qua commie-lib qua commie-symp leanings, biases and prejudices and phobias, and by your very own purblind and myopic rhetoric, spin, sloganeering and propaganda; that you are simply beyond reasonable disputation and argumentation and reasoned debate.

    Methinks one of us is off our meds. I’ll go take mine so that maybe I’ll understand exactly how your quote above wasn’t meant as an insult….

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    My God, now you’re accusing me of racism on rather slender reeds thoroughly taken out of context. If you go back to those comments with the three race-baiters, hustlers, pimps and extortionists. I clearly did not use them as examples of liberal-lefties who simply adore Moslem Terrorists. But I actually used them as an example of the hypocrisy of comrade Glenn’s arguments accusing all Republicans and conservatives and Tea Party adherents and followers of being WHITE RACISTS, his words not mine, and evidently your words and sentiments as well.

    You know what you just said is also in the same league of liberal McCarthyism as that which most of the pinko-lefties on the blogosphere generically employ and unfortunately what you and most of the pinko-lefties on Blogocritics likewise employ.

    Now I have steadfastly and repeatedly said very clearly why I felt that such an effort that you demand of me, to name names, was simply not possible. Or rather, that I would simply not do because of the chilling effect the comments editor has squarely and deliberately placed upon my shoulders, and has in effect singled me out for complete and total censorship, of a both deliberate and rather capricious and arbitrary nature.

    Now I made the connection with the liberal-left and its affinity, predilection and love affair for all anti-American terrorists no matter what their political or ideological stripe might be from Lincoln Steffens and Walter Duranty and the New York Times to the present day; through a shared true believer ideology as evidenced by Eric Hoffer almost 60 years ago. I also advanced these theories and theses of mine through the idea of feudal socialism which was a term that I thought I alone had personally coined, but actually I am at most only the third to use it. Do you know who was the first to use that term? Smarty pants.

    I suspected that you didn’t know but nevertheless you shut me down and ran off at the mouth just like the rest of the blog-o-critter McCarthyists. Well according to http://www. thefreedictionary.com; the term “feudal socialism” was first published in the “Communist Manifesto” of Karl Marx and Friedrich (Freddy) Engels in 1842 albeit it existed as a political movement throughout the 1830s in both France and England.

    Well somehow you and most of the other blog-o-critters either didn’t make the connection or didn’t understand it or were rather unwilling to understand my theses and theories as articulated in the article. Now I am not going to quibble whether it is my fault for being a lousy writer as you claim, or for the rest of youse for being rather thick in the caboose and limited in the grey matter department as well and therefore either unable to understand or more likely, unwilling to understand it because of your biased and pinko-lefty conventional thinking. But let’s not quibble over that.

    You want more recent examples, look to Bill Ayers and his interviews with the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, literally just days before the 9/11 attack. Now granted, that controversy may not be as black and white as I and the New York Times and many others have made it out to be, but is there any doubt whatsoever that he doesn’t support and defend the Moslem terrorists in any shape, matter or form to this very day? And then there is Joyce Behar and Whoopi Ginsbergersteinowitz on the popular front. I saw their behavior as a refusal to condemn moslem terrorism and as an admission of their solidarity with the former. But what about Secretary Janet Napolitano, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder and many of their national security apparatchiks, who until just a month ago refused to even call it a war on terrorism or the moslem terrorists as terrorists. If you all recall, all this was couched in stunningly Orwellian, euphemistic, politically correct language.

    Acts of terrorism were referred to as “man caused disasters” rather than acts of war, and the actual war itself against terrorism was called an “overseas contingency” rather than a real, live war. Well, in addition to sheer philosophic pusillanimity and personal moral cowardice, I also see this as the natural continuum of the natural affinity and predilection of libs, commie-libs, lefty-pinkos and other assorted leftist true believer, megalomaniacs; for the three loci of the mass movement, totalitarian, police state, true believer, fanatical spectrum. If you recall the far left of the spectrum was inhabited by National Socialists, by fascists; the far left by International Socialists, i.e., communists and Marxists; and the center by autocratic, theocratic, totalitarian, police state, true believer, religious fanatics and zealots, i.e., moslem terrorists, Islamic-fascists and Jihadist suicide bombers and murderers. And if you recall I pointed out Eric Hoffer’s observation that all three loci on this true-believer spectrum were similar and interchangeable, and I also pointed out that as different and dissimilar as all three might appear at first glance, all three shared the same spectrum and all three were ideological and intellectual and polemical soul mates who shared the same totalitarian, true believer epistemology. Which thus makes of rather strange and rather disparate bedfellows, rather stranger and odder allies who both hate America and who both wish to destroy her/us. Now what is so fucking difficult to understand about that?

    My God, in the very first days following the tragedy of 9/11, beginning with the New York Times, one lefty-pinko after another came up with the rather insane and insular notion of “blame America first” and “America as the root of all evil in the world.” What they severally opined as they immediately asked the question, what America had done to compel these Moslem terrorists to hate us to such a degree and extent that they would kill us en masse; was that we were essentially at fault and to blame. They both implied and said outright that It must have been our fault for someone to act so barbarically as the moslem terrorists did. We must have done something wrong and thoroughly evil for this to have happened.

    And how did the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, you know that far right, reactionary, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, knuckle-dragging neanderthal, conservative, white-racist, Christian murderer with even more additional “Y” chromosomes than me; how did he characterize it. Was it? “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki…and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. AMERICA’s CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST.” And who will ever forget, “…and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America…”

    How many more exempla do you people need? Will ten suffice? Will a hundred? A thousand? Well, I’m done here, do your own goddamn research if any of you have an iota of curiosity. Do a lousy google search. Go to the liberal media-eite, to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, the Huffington Post, Media Matters, Moveon.org and a host of other left-wing media sites funded mostly by fatcat billionaire lefties like George Soros and or other commie-lib, commie-symp and commie-lite billionaires. For I garr-ranh-tee you pinko-lefties will find all the examples I have outlined and intimated in my article than you could possibly shake a stick at – and more.

    I have raised the issues and ideas, now it is your turn to do a little homework on your own and take a little personal responsibility if you are truly interested in the debate, in its worthiness or unworthiness, in its merit or lack of merit, in its truth or fallacy and error. Now it’s your goddamn turn and I’m not going to to do your homework for you or your obligation to investigate, scrutinize, think and ponder over what I have raised. And if you’re too intellectually lazy and purblind by your own conventional biases and prejudices to make the effort, well that’s not my fault – that’s your problem. And if you don’t give a flying fuck, then that’s also your problem, but only compounded even more so.

    Now comrade Kurtz is keeping a record of all these “over-stuffed turkey” comments of mine on this subject and this very comment itself, for if it is allowed to remain and is not censored either in part or in its entirety, it will undoubtedly add to his petty, carping, caviling and quibbling accounting. But if one were to add in all of the threads I have written in the past few days which have been “aborted with extreme prejudice”, that number would be increased substantially perhaps by another 1,500 to 2,000 words. Which is a lot of time, work and effort on my part; so why should I trust this comments editor any further NOT to stifle my voice and defense of my article and my rebuttal to its many and myriad detractors, naysayers, opponents and attackers?

    Well, nuff said pahd-ners. I am exhausted and have already missed four or five quarters of footbal. In addition got to take me medicine and me spin-itch too, so tout à l’heure and you can all go fuck yourselves.

  • Thank you, Irvin F. Cohen (#96), for finally naming names of Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death. If, as you fear, your comment should be expurgated or expunged by BC’s comments editors, at least it stood long enough for me to learn that Bill Ayers, Joyce Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Janet Napolitano, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright exemplify Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death.

    Interesting, isn’t it, how the majority in your list (four out of seven) are African Americans? Since this is so disproportionate from the representation of black people in our population, blacks must constitute a special threat among Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death.

    This is good to know. I pledge to be on my guard against these very bad people, blacks and whites alike. I shall never again vote for Barack Obama, watch The View, heed terror alerts issued by Secretary Napolitano, trust in the integrity of Eric Holder, or attend any church where Jeremiah Wright occupies the pulpit.

    In exposing these evil men and women, you have performed an important public service, Mr. Cohen. For that I commend you.

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Kurtz.

    With so-called defenders like you, who the fuck needs mortal enemies or expert character assassins so very well heeled in the not so fine art of trial by false accusation and tenuous allegation, smear and innuendo? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Now four out of seven of my rather incomplete list are black and only three are white. Well, doesn’t content of character matter more to you than skin color – and doesn’t that mean you’re the one who is keeping score by race and skin color, and doesn’t that actually make you the racist, for you are so purblind by your own racial accounting that you cannot see past skin color and to character, and to intellectual, philosophic and spiritual diversity?

    Call me a racist all you want, but I do not and have never judged diversity by skin color and or race, rather for me diversity is solely a matter of content of character and of philosophic, intellectual and spiritual pluralism.

    Now as for the those seven measly exempla perhaps, admittedly they were not the best representations of my theses and theories
    – my bad. But before you belittle my efforts and smear my character, don’t you have some intellectual responsibility to at least attempt to be fair-minded and opened-minded and tolerant of my ideas and at least make the effort to understand them before you begin to distort them and personally slander and smear me?

    I still cannot fathom how you cannot understand the general thesis and theory of my ideas which are not fully mine, I just borrow and add to those of Eric Hoffer and Ayn Rand and several other historians and philosophers. I essentially observe, analyze and conceptualize and synopsize and draw my conclusions from those observations, analyses and intellectual inquiries and investigative pursuits. Again, what the fuck is so difficult to understand about that?

    Or are you so small-minded and petty, and downright mean-spirited that big ideas and concepts are just beyond your ken? Is it that you’re just too ingrained and embodied in the realm of the petty and small-minded to grasp anything greater than your pettiness and small-minded, mean-spirited weaselly nature?

    Or are you perfect and all of us mere mortals just always wrong and imperfect in your perfect eyes?

    I am rather disappointed in you, I thought you were a voice of reason and fairness and principle, toleration and personal intellectual integrity and honesty. Boy, was I wrong!

    I now reserve the right as a true misanthropic motherfucker, to consider you amongst the ranks of the common denominator of the human experience, that is to say, thou art now no different than the other fucking scumbags who populate this planet, this earth of ours.

    And PS, by the way even though Lincoln Steffens and Walter Duranty were only Stalinist-apologists, nevertheless they fit the mold I was describing quite well. So the actual score is five white and four black, but who is quibbling, caviling, carping and or counting in so petty and small-minded a manner?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Irvin –

    You still haven’t straightened me out on my confusion as to how your insults weren’t insults. I figured you’d appreciate some help, so I reprinted my post from above:

    And if you misconstrued my rather extensive arguments as offensive and insulting, me thinks you thinketh-stinketh too much of yourself.

    So…you didn’t say anything meant to be taken as an insult? Like this?

    I therefore must conclude that you are so perversely and adamantly ingrained and entrenched within your very own leftist qua commie-lib qua commie-symp leanings, biases and prejudices and phobias, and by your very own purblind and myopic rhetoric, spin, sloganeering and propaganda; that you are simply beyond reasonable disputation and argumentation and reasoned debate.

    Methinks one of us is off our meds. I’ll go take mine so that maybe I’ll understand exactly how your quote above wasn’t meant as an insult….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And one more thing –

    Since you claim you’re not insulting me, then when you call me ‘comrade’, you obviously wouldn’t mind us returning the favor, right, Comrade Irvin?

    I say that because in my experience, a man who cannot control his vitriol is almost always a very unhappy person…and that person’s words become a validation of the old saying that “misery loves company”.

    But there I am, off my meds again. ‘scuse me while I go take another dose.

  • Boeke

    Liberals allied with Muslims?

    Doesn’t seem reasonable. They’re ideologically opposed: flexibility and tolerance opposed to rigidity and intolerance.

    A better case can be made for an alliance between Christians and Muslims. After all, they are brothers in their religious histories, the muslims accepting jesus, and just adding on mohamed, while those infidel jews killed our lord.

    It would be easy for christians to turn against jews (again) and the dreadful rhetorical device of “judeo-christianity” because the jews represent such a small number of people compared to muslims and the Hero Status accorded from the Holocaust is dissipating as Israel commits it’s own genocides against palestinians.

    There are 2 billion muslims and only a few million jews. And there are many muslim coutries and only one jewish country. Christians have always had a nose for power (witness the hagiography of the “C Street” gang in DC) so it is a foregone conclusion that they will ally themselves with the most powerful: Muslims.

    The muslims even have nukes, which obviates the edge that Israel used to possess.

    Considering how easy it was for successive US administrations to convince the docile American citizenry that Iran was their mortal enemy and Israel our beloved ally, it’s no problem at all to reverse the propaganda machine and convince the sheep that Iran is now our ally and Israel our enemy. After all, Israel killed 39 American sailors on the USS Liberty and all that Iran did was hold 34 Americans hostage, without killing any of them.

    I foresee a great and powerful alliance between christians and muslims.

  • Irvin F. Cohen (#98), your article title uses the present tense (“Adore and Defend”), not the past tense. Lincoln Steffens died in 1936; Walter Duranty died in 1957. Therefore, they don’t qualify as Liberals Who Just Adore and Defend Moslem Terrorists – to Death.

    Also, you might as well stop sending me emails. As I wrote in comment #61 on this thread, I was prepared to stand with you in fighting fascist scumbags. However, now that you’ve revealed yourself as a racist, I want nothing more to do with you.

  • ????

    A sock puppet arguing with itself?

  • I’ve been writing for and commenting on Blogcritics for 12 months now. And unless memory fails, not even you, Cindy, whom I count among my greatest enemies, has ever accused me of racism. Don’t I get any points for that?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Dear comrade Glenn,

    In response to your threads #s 85, 93, 95, 99, 100 and whatever others you’ve had, got, and as God is my witness, will have ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    In the name of fostering humanity and the love of humanity, may I offer this suggestion, that when you take your “meds,” you think of me, even though I do not take “meds” for what I must ostensibly construe as your way of saying that I am a mental case and that therefore this is your way of insulting me in a rather sly and petty, and weaselly, snarky and smarmy fashion. Which to re-iterate again, is your way of not only questioning my mental condition but also of in essence calling me a “nut case” and thereby, again, insulting me.

    Well to show you that I am not at all so very thin skinned as you so very evidently are. And to show you how very magnanimous I am in spite of your not so very veiled insults, I say, I really don’t care. That’s right, I really don’t give a flying fuck nor a rat’s ass at your petty, snarky and smarmy insults directed at me, nor your mindless obsession with doing so. I mean, really, who the fuck cares whether your feelings got hurt or not? Sorry ’bout that, cause there comes a time in every man’s life when he’s got to grow up and show some spine and backbone and quit his ceaseless, unmanly whining.

    Well I suggest, that whatever “meds” you take, so that you may improve and enhance your own mental condition and peace of mind, that you increase these “meds” by a factor of let us say, tenfold, no, make that a factor of twentyfold, oh alright, be my guest, make that a factor of at least one hundredfold. I am sure that should improve your condition at least a hundredfold, if not cure you entirely. The only problem I can possibly foresee, and it truly is a rather minor and inconsequential problem, is that such a massive increase in your dosage will most likely prove to be extremely lethal and fatal.

    But look at it on the rosy side (of life), you’ll be completely cured of your insanity and you won’t have to feel insulted by so-called, supposed hateful, unhappy, crazy people such as myself as you have alluded to in many of your rather nasty allusions and intimations, in fact, in most of your comments directed towards me. Of course you’ll be dead, but look at all the tranquility and peace of mind it will bring you, and above all, you won’t have to deal with misanthropic motherfuckers like me who constantly question and disprove your thoroughly contrived and machinated facts taken solely out of context and or again, simply opinion, whim and caprice quite sophistically and deviously translated into non-fact, highly dubious and questionable, so-called, supposed facts. You know that pesky ol’ Greek potential optative again – of statements contrary to fact, to wit, a whole bunch of “should have, could have, would haves.” And once more again so very deviously translated into supposed facts and of course, the godawful truth as Glenn sees it, wants it to be, orders, demands and commands it to be.

    So comrade Glenn, do take your “meds” because just like you, I see your liberal ways and mindset to be the true shining path, you know the “la via luminosa” as in “sendero luminoso.” And so to that end, take your “meds” lots and lots of ’em, and to your heart’s content. Because now in my conversion to liberal-progresssivism, I as a true liberal just like, I only “want to help you.” So take them goddamned “meds” or else!

    PS. One last point. As to your displeasure with my calling and addressing you as “comrade”, and your consequent desire now to turn the tables, so to speak, upon me by also addressing me as “comrade.” Go ahead, be my happy guest. Because now, after having been converted by you into a true liberal qua liberal-progressive commie-lib, commie-symp quasi Marxist, I have seen the light hosannah, hosannah solely thanks to you. So you can freely address me as “comrade” for I too am now a bonafide, legitimate comrade just like you. So workers of the world unite and power to the people, right-on, right-on, right-on and praise be to Allah!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dear Comrade Irvin –

    No, despite your herculean efforts at poking through my oh-so-thin skin, I really wasn’t insulted by anything you said. You’ve got a long way to go before you truly insult me. Think back to your days in ‘Nam – were you thin-skinned then? No? So what makes you think that someone who spent five times as much time in the military is any less thick-skinned than yourself?

    So let me ask again the question that you’re trying so very hard not to answer:

    And if you misconstrued my rather extensive arguments as offensive and insulting, me thinks you thinketh-stinketh too much of yourself.

    So…you didn’t say anything meant to be taken as an insult? Like this?

    I therefore must conclude that you are so perversely and adamantly ingrained and entrenched within your very own leftist qua commie-lib qua commie-symp leanings, biases and prejudices and phobias, and by your very own purblind and myopic rhetoric, spin, sloganeering and propaganda; that you are simply beyond reasonable disputation and argumentation and reasoned debate.

    Either your first quote above is a lie, or the second quote (that you used the first quote to defend) is somehow not an insult. I keep asking you to explain the apparent dichotomy, and you keep using what we called back in nuke school ‘the shotgun method’, meaning that we’d try to answer a difficult question by writing everything down we could think of and hoping that either something stuck or the instructor would just throw his hands in the air and move on rather than actually reading the attempted (and usually dubious) answer.

    The ‘shotgun method’ didn’t work for us then, and it won’t work for you now. Just answer the simple question I posed above – that’s all I ask. Then we can move on, don’t you think?

  • Irvin F. Cohen

    Again dear comrade Kurtz, I used them as examples reluctantly stating as much, that both were only Stalainist-apologists, but even so, they both fully embraced the mindset and epistemology which makes the liberal-lefties so amenable and prone to adoring all anti-American terrorists of any stripe which is also clearly stated in explained in the article. I can’t help you to understand anything you read or disabuse you of your own biases and prejudices – but it would help, first to read what I said, and secondly, at least make the effort to understand it before you distort it, then smear and slander me based upon tenuous arguments of ignorance and your own personal biases and machinations, purposeful misunderstandings and prejudices.

    Now comrade Kurtz don’t you think it is rather silly to have or wage a “pissing contest” on who the biggest scumbag in the world is? Or do you take great pride in that dubious distinction? Well I’ll concede you that point, yes comrade Alan, I readily admit and yield to you, yes you are by far and without question and without equal, the biggest, greatest, fucking scumbag in the world.

    But perhaps you might take some solace in this, that in only the space of two months, I have become the most hated, the most detested, loathed and despised critter in all of blog-o-critter-land-o-world. Especially now that you have joined the chorus of my myriad detractors and critics who truly loathe, detest, despise and hate me. Et tu, motherucker? Well, perhaps to be expected, for perhaps that is your treacherous and perfidious nature? But I’ll cede the point and just let that rest.

    However I cannot allow this baseless, gratuitous charge of racism to rest. What is your point, comrade Allen? For this charge of racism seems so gratuitously convenient for you to make so gratuitously. Is it just the thrill of smearing someone who considered you to be at least friendly and above all, someone of common decency, and of the highest intellectual integrity and honesty, as well as someone devoted and dedicated to intellectual freedom and expression through unfettered and unencumbered discourse and reasoned debate, a true champion of truth, moral rectitude and common decency.

    Well, again, comrade alan, I must most reluctantly and begrudgingly and sadly so, confess that “oh boy, was I wrong!”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Still waiting for your explanation….

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear comrade Glenn,

    I hear you, I know it’s difficult and so very maddening to be so insanely obsessed with something; like a dog with a bone in its muzzle, or more precisely, like a pit bull who will not give it up, not until that pit bull is no longer breathing, and even in death it will still require a heavy steel crowbar to pry it loose.

    What do you want from me Glenn? Do you want me to appear before your Star Chamber, Catholic inquisition court and your Stalinist Purge, Show Trial; and in a Perry Mason moment break down and confess to all my many sins against humanity, and against God and county, and especially those against the party line I have committed, and in particular against all those conjured crimes and perceived slights and insults against you?

    Is that it Glenn? Do you want me to confess to all those sort of crimes as perceived by you, whether real or imagined? Will that appease you, will that give you satisfaction?

    Well in the meantime I suggest you take more of your “meds” and that you hold your breath as long as you can. And if that doesn’t work, then you ought try to rather petulantly pout or gesticulate angrily or stomp your feet. I know, why don’t you bang your head against a bulkhead or a wall, and especially a very, very hard one.

    Do you see how genuinely humane and compassionate I am and at how much I greatly want to help you; because I too in this manner am also a liberal, commie-lib, commie-symp, and just like you, I have seen the light and converted to “commie-lib-ism” and as such, “I only want to help you!”

  • APOLOGY. Mr. Cohen, between Oct. 17 and Nov. 21, Blogcritics published six of your articles, averaging one every six days. In the 18 days since then: none. I hope this is a short-lived sabbatical, rather than a departure. I recognize that you were received with hostility by BC’s commentariat, including me. Unlike others, who took issue with your ideas and/or off-color invective, I objected to your bad writing and racism.

    I did not, however, intend to drive you away from Blogcritics. If my remarks had that effect, I apologize. Your voice should not be stilled merely because you encountered resistance. If BC’s editors banned you, I urge them to reconsider. If the decision to stop contributing is entirely your own, I likewise urge you to reconsider. Please don’t deprive us of your uniquely colorful presence.

  • I doubt he has been banned but I too hope Irv will be back.