January 29, 2013

The Demonization of Liberty

Bill Wilson, President, ALG, writing in the Daily Caller:

Individuals enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces must swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But what happens when the only crime perpetrated by the “enemy” is supporting and defending the Constitution?

Such is the dilemma facing future military officers at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point — who are being taught to view freedom-loving Americans as violent, racist terrorists-in-waiting. As part of the federal government’s ongoing jihad against common-sense fiscal conservatism and constitutionally limited government, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) has issued a new report making some dangerously irrational generalizations about the “far-right.”

Entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” the West Point report provides a stunningly one-sided demonization of conservative ideology — and simultaneous embrace of “progressive” liberal thought.

Written by Dr. Arie Perliger, director of terrorism studies at the CTC, the report warns of the rising militancy of so-called “anti-federalists” — or Americans who embrace radical notions like “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” In other words, anyone expressing support for the fundamental democratic ideals upon which our nation was founded could be a terrorist.

Look, I know we’ve commented on this before here, but I thought it deserved another rehearsal:  at West Point, the poison of leftist activism is being drilled into the heads of future officer candidates as a way to infiltrate the military ideologically, in the same way the Gramscians have previously infiltrated journalism, popular culture, primary public education, academia, and both the soft and hard sciences.  That is, this is part of the long march through the institutions, and as we’ve seen with political animals borne of the military’s PC dynamic — Colin Powell, Stanley McChrystal, Wesley Clark — we are facing a very real attempt to undermine the military from within, not only by way of onerous funding cuts, but in particular by installing into leadership roles those figures who are steeped in progressivism and who are more willing to answer to a charismatic despot than they are to uphold the Constitution, which is increasingly painted as antiquated and irrelevant.

Soldiers are taught to follow their chain of command.  To follow their leaders.  So the left has determined that to control the military, you control the military leadership.  It is the very formula relied upon by leftist despots, who look for loyal military commanders.  Particularly when what they are doing is attempting to finish off a bloodless coup that may or may not remain bloodless in its final stages.

I know it’s unpopular to voice such things — unhelpful, if we’re to win over the trust of low information voters, in its alarmism — but the truth is the truth, and we do ourselves no favors by pretending not to see what is happening before us so as to appear willing to embrace comity with those who are actively working at “fundamental transformation.”

Forget the political implications of telling the truth.  Just tell it.  Confidently.  And make it clear that you are prepared to fight to retain your liberties, no matter how the left tries to shame you into subservience and docility by labeling you fringe, or trying to paint you as a dangerous sub-human, mentally unstable and perhaps best suited for some sort of gulag refigured as a mental health facility.

In the end, the left will rely most on compliance to achieve its end game.  It will rely on having beaten us down, having demonized us, to create the impression that we are viewed as the enemies of the state by those “moderate” and “common sense” advocates of progress and compromise and peace.

But it will fail if we refuse to accept the premise and stand strong.  Because their power is such that it exists only so long as we allow it to.  Which is why they so desperately, nearing the finish line, are hoping to disarm us in a significant sense, while militarizing police forces and government agencies.

Continues Wilson:

According to Perliger, these “anti-federalists” are dangerous because they “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”

Wait — government isn’t corrupt? And warrantless wiretaps, forced participation in a Social Security Ponzi scheme and Barack Obama’s health insurance mandate aren’t intrusions on our liberties?

Of course they are — but apparently exercising one’s First Amendment freedom to speak out against these assaults on liberty is a one-way ticket to a government watch list. However, advocating vociferously in support of these anti-American policies is completely permissible.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive-oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report claims. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

In case those racial undertones were too subtle, Perliger’s report proceeds to put a much finer point on it.

“While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power,” he writes.

Translation? “Extreme right wingers” aren’t just terrorists, they’re racist terrorists.


Like so many myths propagated by the far left — i.e., “gun control reduces violence,” “tax cuts must be paid for” or “government spending stimulates the economy” — the whole “right-wing radical” myth is easily debunked.

In fact, according to a DHS-funded study released last year by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism, America’s militant left is far more likely to engage in acts of violence than its militant right. According to the report — entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008” — the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorist attacks in America have been “extreme left-wing” in their ideological origins (364) followed closely by single-issue groups whose ideologies were classified as “other” (337).

By comparison, “extreme right-wing” groups accounted for far fewer (58) attacks.

In other words, it’s not tea partiers we need to watch out for, it’s people like Obama’s terrorist buddy Bill Ayers.

As the Obama administration ramps up its assault on our liberties, we must not forget that these intrusions affect Americans of all creeds and colors. It’s also important to remember that taking a firm stand against these intrusions doesn’t make one a radical, a right-winger or a racist — just an American exercising your right to free speech.

This is why West Point must immediately fire Perliger — and publicly repudiate his reckless statements.

That’s one way to handle it; me, I advocate something else entirely.  Namely, that he be ordered, as part of an Army outreach program, to deliver public seminars — complete with Q & A sessions — at town hall meetings across the country.   Let him explain to those Americans who identify with the founding principles and the framing of laws that protect individual sovereignty and were intended to prevent centralized governmental tyranny by way of a stable legal framework, how their identification with the very history of American exceptionalism relegates them now to would-be terrorist and “far-right” extremist status, while a rejection of those founding principles, articulated in the progressives’ Fabian socialist / liberal fascist ideology, is “future-oriented”.

If its a Great Leap he wants, then let him step outside his bubble and sell it to the simpering bitterclingers.  Otherwise, he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions — nor is he willing to open his scholarship up to any serious public consideration.

Which makes him like most leftists a coward of the worst sort.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:30am

Comments (45)

  1. The great discovery of modernity is that the novel is wise, the old or ancient of necessity folly. Nice work and easy to get, in other words. Pay no attention to that old stuff: in fact, don’t even bother to read it. This is the path to sapience.

  2. This is what happens when you let Dave Neiwert lead the narrative.

    Thank God there aren’t any violent clingers to the rights of free speech and protection against unwarranted search and seizure. THOSE people are all thoroughly hinged.

  3. – What are you trying to do, give cowards a bad name?

  4. Perhaps, like the rest of us, they are trying to make their officers criminals in a manner that can be used to weed out those that won’t play ball.

  5. Which makes him, like most leftists, a coward of the worst sort.

    I’ll pick the bitterclinger over the coward, every time.

    It’s ironic, really, that all of this talk about gun bans and unstable racist bitterclingers is resulting in a massive expansion of the well-armed bitterclinger contingent. One begins to think that the 2nd Amendment is somewhat akin to the Arnhem Road Bridge. (Perhaps somebody at the Academy should explain to Dr. Perliger just what that means.)

  6. IIRC, Monty still thought it was a good idea, just poor execution.

  7. *** “. . . failed and exhausted conservative era . . . the weaknesses of a stale, pale and predominantly male party . . . the central challenge to this progressive coalition is not dispatching the old . . . reclaim the American Dream from an extreme and corrosive economic inequality . . . ” ***

    That’s just from the first couple of paragraphs. Guess who.

  8. Karl Rove?

  9. Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity?

  10. Chris Cristy?

    Come on man! give…

  11. I’m guessing Father Franklin.

  12. Come on, people! Look closer. You’ll find a silly bint.

  13. Katrina vanden Heuvel.

  14. The Limbaugh – Rubio interview.

  15. I’m thinking Rubio needs to do a “Scholarly study on the make-up” of the illegals invading the country. He don’t get it, I’m afraid.

  16. I now need to draw a heavier line through Rubio’s name on my “will not vote for” list.

  17. Jeff Flake seems to be maintaining a strategic silence despite throwing his name in with the other six chiselers plus Rubio, or maybe I’ve missed his statements on the immigration plans.

  18. Rubio may surprise you before the end of this

    for certain values of surprise you

    but either way he’s too smugly wugly smarmy to be helpful as a Team R nominee for the presidency I think

  19. Mr. Flake, despite his unfortunate surname, is anything but.

  20. I’d be content with Flake if only occasionally while accompanying McCain down some hall of Congress he’d shift his foot ever so slightly into McCain’s stride so as to put McCain on his face. He doesn’t have to do it every day, or such that McCain would not longer walk alongside him. But certainly more than once would be required.

  21. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive-oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo

    aren’t the people who want to keep the failshit status quo in this failshit little country the ones what are still using the same fucking budget from four years ago?

    Chris Christie lurvs him some porky status quo but I don’t think he really counts

  22. VDH:

    There are two general types of leaders: the vast majority who talk in banalities while they offer tokens in lieu of solutions, and the rare tragic statesmen like Lincoln and Churchill who tell the truth, endure odium in their lifetime, find solutions, and do not live to see the full appreciation of their courage.

  23. maybe I’ve missed his statements on the immigration plans.

    Hewitt, Hour 1, 28 Jan 2013

    Hewitt is hyperventilating over the wonderfulness of this latest Comprehensive idiocy (having vociferously denounced the last one). Granted, the missing Z Visa is a plus, but he seems to think that making the “nice” features of the bill contingent on mean old border protection is just the thing.

    And those of use who think differently?


  24. Kaus: 6 Simple Questions on Immigration:

    6. Why not “Enforcement First … Amnesty Second”? Preventing unauthorized immigration–i.e. having a working border–isn’t easy. We’ve made strides, and immigration flows have slowed significantly. But we still have ways to go –only a minority of employers use the E-Verify system, for example–and we don’t know if the unauthorized flow will resume if the economy, particularly the construction industry, picks up. Why not wait and find out if enforcement measures (including any new ones that would be part of “comprehensive” reform) work–and then, if they do, go ahead give the undocumented the legal status that would ordinarily encourage more uncontrolled border-jumping?

    Answer: Because they’re not any more serious about border control than they have been in the past. Actual border control involves icky things like soldiers and guns and waging war with mean narcotraficantes and being all racist and stuff by putting a limit on behavior that some people like to engage in and other people like to feel good about other people engaging in it.

    And because border control doesn’t fill the voting booth, doy.

  25. From that 1000 Green beret link:

    At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

    Someone should read that to Pears Morgan and suggest the British best worry about their own concerns. ‘Cuz of last time they got shot at.

    I must say, I can’t get on board with the bit on violent movies and games though. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the first amendment (and the rest of the constitution), and kids have an annoying habit of making finger guns and chasing each other around shooting like ammo is free.

  26. kids have an annoying habit of making finger guns…

    Even before movies and video games I mean.

    It’s probably those damn books…

  27. ** Such a pleasant woman, such a noble mien.

  28. “I mean, we were just talking about extremists who think it’s only their way, they are the ones who have the truth, none of the rest of us have any kind of claim on what is real in their views,” she continued

    See the slight of hand?

  29. what is clotty clotty tater head babbling about?

    she’s having an episode I think

  30. I must say, I can’t get on board with the bit on violent movies and games though.

    I can’t get on board with legislating against them. But if I had a boy growing up I’d be keeping a close on on what his entertainment looks like.

  31. Yeah Pablo, I’ve been horrified by what some parents let their little kids watch, but raising other peoples kids ain’t none of my bidnez…

  32. I don’t think he really counts

    – The Piggressives have a natural talent for not being able to count. Just look at the deficit, economy in gemeral, unemployment, etc. etc.

  33. Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing – Hartford, CT

    Sad but true that many imported Americans understand America better than many natives.

  34. True dat, Lee. This is an instance where the market could make the appropriate changes if parents were a little more interested in parenting.

  35. Many things which were only talked of, warned of, by those craziest of right wing bloggers are now praised to the heavens as the best policies ever by leaders on the left.

    Case in point.

  36. Hey, remember “eliminationist rhetoric?” Good times, good times.

    I do like the irony of “we think they secretly want to eliminate other people, so we’ll openly want to eliminate them.” That’s a nice touch, kind of “Brazil.”

  37. Ok, I’ve waded through the West Point study. It’s clear that y’all are extreme right wing terrorists – but not me.
    It would be interesting if the learned professor did the same study on the far left. Or the founding fathers.
    Lots of take-always including a defining characteristic as one of “normalcy.”

  38. It would be interesting if the learned professor did the same study on the far left.

    nah the proggtards are all about projection. these losers aren’t worth talking to.

  39. Figures…I had this Perliger nut pegged as a leftist Israeli even before I looked him up. These are the guys who get the Frankfurt School (hell, their ancestors founded it) injected into their bloodstream in utero. They are the worst of European Socialism without the tempering influence of American history and culture. They have no concept, not even a frame of reference for understanding, of the American model of government and society. There is simply no parallel in their cultural heritage. I hear the same shit on Israeli radio every day.

  40. * But if I had a boy growing up I’d be keeping a close on on what his entertainment looks like.*

    Wait, wait, wait, you mean parents, not the government, should be monitoring what their kids do? That is outrageous !!!

  41. Wait, wait, wait, you mean parents, not the government, should be monitoring what their kids do? That is outrageous !!!

    I agree! That’s just the sort of crazy talk that marks one as being too unbalanced to own firearms.