----- Original Message ----- From: kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: The heart of a leftist
> At 07:15 PM 7/5/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >sent to another list, from a poster who sees himself as libertarian
leaning
> >conservative. he gave it the subject heading.
> >
> >http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz.html
> >
> >
> >What he's saying here is basically the same thing that he always says:
> >anyone who is even slightly left, say a vegetarian pacifist democrat, is
> >really a stalinist. What is the proof of this? David Horowitz used to be
a
> >stalinist, or maybe it was maoist, and so he would know. qed. Moderate
> >progressivism is just a big front or cover for these raging pathological
> >lunatics. If someone counters this argument, to Horowitz, by pointing out
> >a right wing or capitalist atrocity causing hundreds of thousands of
> >deaths, his retort is that you are trying to censor him, and indeed the
> >calm language you are using is really a front as well because as soon as
> >the binds of society hypothetically were lifted, you would be shooting
him
> >in front of a firing squad with your khmer rouge buddies. This is what he
> >said to us at his book talk when we mentioned East Timor. (because if you
> >are in the 10-15% most 'left' side of society, just look at what has
> >happened historically is so many countries that were in great turmoil
> >during various wars of the 20th century. You would be one of them if you
> >had been there). So don't go and even associate with any people who are
> >slightly into progress who use the deceptive terms of 'civil rights', or
> >'justice' or 'peace', because it's on a steep road of no return.
>
>
>
> heh. i know. i couldn't help but think of freudian psychotherapy.
you're
> fucked either way.
>
> i was curious tho if you and others agreed with his characterization of
the
> left critique of hillary. i see it as quite a bit more sophisticated than
> he presented it. but hell, i don't give a bat's eyelash about mainstream
> politics and so the clinton's "betrayal's" don't phase me a great
> deal. wotevA.
>
> at any rate, because of my job i've had to subscribe to lists where there
> are libertarians and cons and i'm finding it just fascinating how often
> "the left" or the "dems" or the "liberals" are trotted out as the
> definitive evil against which cons/libertarians define themselves. i
don't
> know why this is news to me. i guess i hadn't paid much attention
> before. but it was so striking to notice that the rhetoric invovles an
> incessant harping on the evils that liberals do. i don't see it among
> liberals/leftys so much, but i started to wonder if i just couldn't see it
> and that maybe we spend a lot of time defining ourselves against the evil
> cons/libertarians. i know we do in a certain way: we accuse each other
of
> not being radical leftists and suggest that our claims are really bourg
> lib, etc. but that's not quite the same thing as this/
>
> oh beats me, blathering. but curious what others thought about this
> phenom. what is it about conservatives who want to perpetually seek out
> the evil liberals/lefties. why do rush and other commentators spend so
> fucking much time looking for evidence of how evil lefties are? do we do
> the same?
>
> okay, end blabbering mindlessly now. hope some of the conservative
> watchers on the list could tell me more from their more "objective" and
> "systematic" observations.
>
> kelley
>