One Lone Conservative's Reality in a Sea of Liberal Delusion's
...and want America's downfall
Published on February 11, 2005 By couchman In Politics
After doing some surf'n I ran into this intresting (at least in my opinion) little article and thought I'd like to see whats everyones take on it. (By the way to all my fans on the left (who hate me for some reason, come on you know you do) I am back-Couchman)

Why the Left Loves Osama
By Nelson Ascher
Europundits.blogspot.com | February 11, 2005


Maybe we, or at least many of us, were too busy commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall in late 1989. Thus, we overlooked all those people who weren’t exactly happy with the outcome of the Cold War. Well, perhaps “overlooking” is not the appropriate term.

I, for instance, had an acquaintance (deceased since then), a hardliner Trotskyite who should have felt partly vindicated by the failure of the system erected by his hero’s archenemy, Stalin. But he didn’t look vindicated at all. It wasn’t easy for him, in that climate of euphoria, to give full vent to his disappointment, but still he managed to mutter a few words about the “wrong” turn events were beginning to take in Eastern Europe, and he was not talking about the looming shadows of the Balkan wars (which were clearly visible by then). No: he complained that those societies, instead of using their newly conquered freedom to correct their course and head full-speed towards the socialist utopia, were rather turning to Western style “alienated” consumerism.

But there were probably, no, not probably, but surely, those who felt utterly defeated at the time. They just didn’t think it was advisable to go public with their anger and frustration. Also, in the late 80s and early 90s, Western Europe was at the top of its economic and social performance. Western Europeans were then almost as affluent as the Americans and, so, some could console themselves with the appearance that the whole thing wasn’t basically an American victory, but rather a Western one - and that Europe would anyway soon eclipse the USA.

For Western Europe however, the next 15 years were a unidirectional stroll down the slope. It became less and less competitive compared to the US and both high levels of unemployment and low growth rates came to stay. And the growing, alienated, Muslim minorities didn’t become any more assimilated in the meanwhile. But, on the other hand, Bill Clinton asking non-stop the world to forgive his country’s sins and his reluctance to take decisive action after many terrorist attacks projected a re-comforting image of a repentant, humbled and weakened America.

Those whom the fall of the Berlin Wall had left orphans of a cause, spent the next decade plotting the containment of the US. It was a complex operation that involved the (in many cases state-sponsored) mushrooming of NGOs, Kyoto, the creation of the ICC, the salami tactics applied against America’s main strategic ally in the Middle-East, Israel, through the Trojan Horse of the Oslo agreements, the subversion of the sanctions against Iraq etc. I’m not as conspiratorially-minded as to think that all these efforts were in any way centralized or that they had some kind of master-plan behind them. It was above all the case of the spirit of the times converging, through many independent manifestations, towards a single goal. Nonetheless we can be sure that, after those manifestations reached a critical mass, there has been no lack of efforts to coordinate them.

And so, spontaneously up to a point, anti-Americanism became the alternative ideology that came to fill in the vacuum left by the failure of traditional, USSR-based communism and its Maoist or Trotskyite satellites. Before 1989, the global left had something to fight for: either the strengthening of the communist states or the correction of what they called their bureaucratic distortions. To fight for something is simultaneously to fight against whatever threatens it, and thus, the leftists were anti-Western and anti-Americans too, anti-capitalistic in short.

Now, whatever they wanted to defend or protect doesn’t exist anymore. They have only things to destroy, and all those things are personified in the US, in its very existence. They may, outwardly, fight for some positive cause: save the whales, rescue the world from global heating and so on. But let’s not be deceived by this: they choose as their so-called positive causes only the ones that have both the potential of conferring some kind of innocent legitimacy on themselves and, much more important, that of doing most harm to their enemy, whether physically or to its image.

We, well, at least I was wrong to dismiss the pre-1989 leftists as dinosaurs condemned to extinction by evolution. While I was looking the other way, they were regrouping, inventing new slogans, creating new tactics and, above all, keeping the flames of their hatred burning. The history is still to be written about the moment when the left made its collective mind up and decided to strike an alliance with radical Islam. It had been tried before, in Iran/79, but, threatened by the USSR to the north and by its Iraqi client to the West, Khomeini didn’t have much time for the local leftists, nor did he need them. The idea of such an alliance was probably (re)-born in several different minds and in several different places, and it would be as difficult to say exactly where it took place first as it is to say which grain of corn is the first to pop when one’s making pop-corn. All that can be said is that, right now, we have a “fait accompli”.

This newly ever-growing Western left, not only in Europe, but in Latin America and even in the US itself, has a clear goal: the destruction of the country and society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Thanks to this, all our leftist friends’ bets are now on radical Islam. What can they do to help it? Answer: tie down America’s superior strength with a million Liliputian ropes: legal ones, political ones, with propaganda and disinformation etc. Anything and everything will do.

In the same way as the murderers of 911 used the West’s technology against itself, the contemporary left will do its best to turn democracy into a suicidal pact. This is already being done, obviously. The fight for Guantanamo Bay is, in many ways, as important as that for Baghdad. And, whenever a British born terrorist is released and sent back to the UK, to be joyfully acclaimed by the pages of “The Guardian”, “The Independent” or through the waves of the BBC, that fight is being lost. Radical Islam is being given one more tactical victory and the left’s strategy is being vindicated.

There has been some talk recently about the probable inevitability of a nuclear attack on the mainland US in, say, the next ten or fifteen years. The Berlin Wall’s orphans are already busy creating the slogans, formulating the dogmas, writing down the articles and books that will allow them, when the worst happens, to lay all the blame on the victims, making retaliation as difficult as it can be. They’re carefully preparing their case and the court is already in session.


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 11, 2005
can't make your own flames so you have to break copyright laws to do it?

how droll
on Feb 11, 2005
Kind of harsh, but in some ways it does contain some truth as well.  A shame really, but we see it with Mikey Moore and Ward Churchill.  They are trying to do what the USSR could not.
on Feb 11, 2005
can't make your own flames so you have to break copyright laws to do it?how droll


One, I wanted to post the entire article as it was written, Two, the writter and his site is listed...., Three, grow the fuck up....geez...did I say I wrote it..no....and since I thought the article spoke for itself..it didnt need me to rewrite it....now go back to your cubby hole Myrr
on Feb 11, 2005
And so, spontaneously up to a point, anti-Americanism became the alternative ideology that came to fill in the vacuum left by the failure of traditional, USSR-based communism and its Maoist or Trotskyite satellites.


which trotskyite satellites? the project for a new american century may include among its august membership more trots (former or current, they're still trots right?)per capita than any other enclave on the planet.
on Feb 12, 2005
a British born terrorist is released

Hmmm..........so this gentleman in question was convicted of a terrorist crime was he?
on Feb 13, 2005
I rather liked the article....somewhat critical of Europe but then again they have brought it upon themselves....never thought I'd see Germany handing over their balls as it were to France, France playing big man when they are only a pre-teen, but the reason being prob lies in the fact that they have let the eurosocialist trash run their lives and thoughts....Europe thy name is Cowardice!
on Feb 13, 2005
I'm glad I'm a Commy bent on the destruction of America because I happen to be on the left.
on Mar 02, 2005
I'm glad I'm a Commy bent on the destruction of America because I happen to be on the left.


Actually if one bothers to examine many of the left-wing groups protesting the war on terror, the current US administration, etc, one finds they hide under the blanket cloak of "peace-activists" but in fact support the very terror groups and dictator nations who have a floodlight of focus on them now....go figure
on Mar 02, 2005
I'm happy to be a communist. It's fun.

in fact support the very terror groups and dictator nations


Man, have you read some US history? The US government has propped up plenty of dictators and used death-squad terrorist groups throughout the world, especially Latin America.

grow the fuck up indeed
on Mar 02, 2005
I'm happy to be a communist. It's fun.


Get a new flashlight, Myrr.

Man, have you read some US history? The US government has propped up plenty of dictators and used death-squad terrorist groups throughout the world, especially Latin America.
----Myrr

Yeah...this is true, and one of the worst coddlers of dictators and tyrants is Jimmy Carter. He was (and is) so far to the Left and such a terrible president that Reagan crushed him in '80. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
on Mar 02, 2005
This is an intriguing perspective; one would have thought that writers like Fukuyama, Huntington and their ilk were predominately conservative - it's most surprising to see someone arguing that those left most confused by the end of the Cold War were on the left. The left had largely abandoned the USSR prior to Glasnost; surely it was the right, with their convenient theories about balance of power and international security who were most befuddled.

Yeah...this is true, and one of the worst coddlers of dictators and tyrants is Jimmy Carter. He was (and is) so far to the Left and such a terrible president that Reagan crushed him in '80. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Really? Reagan wasn't much better. What about the sale of crack to school kids in order to pay for Contra weapons? It was a symptom of the times more than a right/left thing. All the US presidents did it during the Cold War, and Carter was far from the worst. At least now he seems to be dedicated to peace efforts (unless of course you agree with the conspiracy that the pursuit of peace is anathema to the US).
on Mar 02, 2005
What about the sale of crack to school kids in order to pay for Contra weapons?


What are you, cacto, a Black Panther? Last I heard, the old "The CIA invented crack to subsidize the war in Central America and get blacks hooked so they could be controlled" story had been shown to be just that....a story. Concocted by conspiracy theorists in the black community to explain the appearance of the drug in their neighborhoods, and to explain why.
Yes, all American presidents did it in the Cold War, in the search for anti-commie allies. Carter, however, loves to snuggle up to anti-American dictators and politicians, a very well-documented fact.http://www.nationalreview.com/20may02/nordlinger052002.asp
on Mar 03, 2005
Carter, however, loves to snuggle up to anti-American dictators and politicians, a very well-documented fact.http://www.nationalreview.com/20may02/nordlinger052002.asp Link


whether reagan (unwittingly or not) facilitated thru his proxies the shitload of coke that showed up in america during the 80s may never be known. most likely crack was a market-driven media-abetted phenomenon (the cbs news magazine '48 hours' came into being ostensibly as an expose' of the newest drug horror scene; it was truly the best infomercial for drugs i ever saw).

however crack figures into the equation, load up your straightshooter and have a couple hits...cuz thats the only way your linked version of reagan vs carter regarding nicaragua is gonna make sense.

whatever your opinion of ortega and the sandanistas, they displaced a tyrant regime as despicable as saddam's--one with very powerful friends in the us (the hunt family for one)--that had been supported for years by the us in return for permitting us companies to pillage their own country.

when the somozas were gone, and despite of a concerted effort on reagan's part to keep nicaragua destabilized, it didn't take the sandinistas long to organize the first democratic election in their country in nearly 80 years.

you can go on all you want bout fighting terror but the real terrorists in central america during the 80s were the contras, the us-backed military in honduras that carried on a campaign of genocide and the us-armed-& trained death squads in el salvador.

you'll find a much more objective and accurate summary of nicaragua's recent history here Link

any american who reads it without feeling ashamed would be best off hittin the pipe a lil more. being stoned to the zone aint much of an excuse for not seeing things the way they are, but its better than having no excuse at all for thinking anything america did in those three countries during the 80s was even the least bit justified.
on Mar 03, 2005
Really? Reagan wasn't much better. What about the sale of crack to school kids in order to pay for Contra weapons? It was a symptom of the times more than a right/left thing. All the US presidents did it during the Cold War, and Carter was far from the worst. At least now he seems to be dedicated to peace efforts (unless of course you agree with the conspiracy that the pursuit of peace is anathema to the US).


Do you have *any* proof of this?
on Mar 03, 2005
I think the title should have been "Why the right loves Osama". It wasn't bubba or Carter who supplied Osama with weapons during the 1980's.

Geez...I wonder who it could have been?

Also, who was it who supplied weapons to BOTH sides during the Iran/Iraq war?

Answer: Ronald Wilson Reagan.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last