A Conservative History of the American Left

By Daniel J. Flynn

I've had Daniel J. Flynn's blog in my conservative blogs listing for quite some time, and today, I found out he has just published a new book, "A Conservative History of the American Left."

Here's an excerpt from an interview he did with FrontPage Magazine.

The Left counts on Americans to forget history. When Americans don't, they whitewash their mistakes and crimes through attempts, usually successful, to rewrite history. I view it as my job to conserve the history the Left obscures. One needn't go back hundreds of years for successful rewrites of history by the Left. Let's get an example from our lifetime. In the late 1970s, Mother Jones and The Nation fawned over Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution in Iran . "What kind of state might result if Khomeini or his followers take power?," Mother Jones asked in 1979. The magazine answered by citing "democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government." The prediction couldn't have turned out more wrong. One can see from such examples, and there are many of them in "A Conservative History of the American Left," why radicals run from their own history.

Throwing history down the memory hole enables the Left to detach itself from past failures, appear forever fresh and new, and perpetuate an ideology that by virtue of natural selection should have perished long ago. The Left's amnesia is convenient, but it is also part of its makeup. Who has time to look back when there's a glorious future to be made?

The transition from the Old Left to the New Left is a perfect example of old wine in new bottles. Initially, with a pox-upon-both-your-houses Cold War sensibility, the New Left, through documents such as the Port Huron Statement, seemed to be blazing a separate trail from the Old Left. But by the end of the 1960s, the New Left--with its worship of foreign tyrants, factionalism, and Marxoid jargon insider language--merely re-enacted dramas that the Old Left had performed decades earlier. With the American Left, everything new is old again.

[...] The most enduring and dangerous delusion on the Left, and perhaps in all history, is a secularized religious idea--that it can be, as the Lord's prayer states, "on earth as it is in heaven." Only men narcissistic enough to see themselves as gods could dream of such nonsense. Soviets, Nazis, and jihadists all killed large numbers of people because they thought that they were ushering in the millennium, perfecting man, or instituting Allah's Kingdom in the temporal world. This is idealism run amuck. Americans witnessed such millennial delusions inspiring carnage thirty years ago, when one of San Francisco's most prominent left-wing activists, Peoples Temple "comrade leader" Jim Jones, embarked upon "revolutionary suicide"--Huey Newton's phrase--in which more than 900 people were killed or took their own lives. "Nobody's going to come out of the sky!," Jones had earlier told his flock. "There's no heaven up there! We'll have to have heaven down here!" Like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Jonestown never attained the glorious ends but instead suffered under the vile means.

I would never even begin to compare Barack Obama to any of these deluded idealists, but it's worth noting Obama's heaven-on-earth delusion to demonstrate how little the Left has learned from its most horrific errors. "We're going to keep on praising together," Obama preached from the pulpit of a megachurch in Greenville, South Carolina last fall. "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on earth." I'm confident that people who truly believe they can create heaven on earth will harm people who impede their designs.

Read the full interview here. Buy the book "A Conservative History of the American Left" from Amazon. See also Flynn Files, Intellectual Morons and Why the Left Hates America.

A Tribute to Communism

A tribute to the glorious accomplishments of communist governments from around the world. By Blair Erickson

Reagan Killed Us

How Ronald Reagan Destroyed the World (Three Times).
By Bruce Kelly

1. Ronald Reagan Appointed James Watt Secretary of The Interior.
James Watt believed that destroying the environment would bring back Jesus. He supported the development and use of federal lands by evil corporations. They cut down all the trees and killed the oceans and we all died... except the Beach Boys. [source]

2. Ronald Reagan Ignored The Aids Epidemic.
Ronald Reagan was too old fashioned to understand how important having unprotected anal sex with strangers was to Americans. Aids mutated from a homosexual disease to a heterosexual disease. The heterosexual aids epidemic swept the world and everyone died... except James Watt. [source]

3. Ronald Reagan Started Nuclear WWIII.
Ronald Reagan wouldn't talk with our enemies, he thought America should stand up to bullies. He scared the communists so bad when he started putting more and more missiles into Europe that riots broke out. When the Russians went in to try and calm things down he bombed them and they bombed us back and everyone died... except some people in Lawrence, Kansas. [source]

More: Bullshit From the 80's

Can Diversity Destroy Us?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On the Great Seal of the United States, first suggested by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, there was to be emblazoned a new motto: E Pluribus Unum Out of many, one.

It was in their unity, not their diversity, that the strength of the colonies resided. So Patrick Henry believed, as he declared, The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.

National identity must supersede state identity for America to survive.

Yet it has lately become fashionable to say that America is great not because she is united, but because she is diverse. It is because America is a multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual nation that she is a great nation. A corollary is that the more diverse America becomes, the better and greater she becomes.

After the Los Angeles riot of 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle was asked by his Japanese hosts if perhaps America did not suffer from too much diversity. I begged to differ with my hosts, Quayle retorted. I explained that our diversity is our strength.

And so our rulers, marinated in the myths that we are a nation of immigrants and our diversity is our strength, continue to embrace mass immigration the more the better. But are the myths true?

America was settled by colonists from the British Isles. In 1789, two centuries after Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, we were 99 percent Protestant. Until the Irish came in 1845, there was almost no immigration. Even during the Great Wave of 1890-1920, the number of immigrants was a fraction of the 38 million here today. And all had come from Europe. By 1960, we were almost 90 percent European and more than 90 percent Christian - of one nationality, American, one language, English, and one culture.

That America is gone forever.

Last week, we learned that in the last seven years 10.3 million people, almost all from the Third World, entered the United States, more than half illegally. The nation that was one-tenth minority in 1960 is now one-third minority. European-Americans will soon be a minority in the nation, as they are today in California, Texas and most large American cities.

And when that day comes, what then will unite us as a people?

Certainly not religious faith, for the last 40 years have seen a large influx of Muslims, the rise of a rabid secularism and the break-up of Christian churches the Episcopalians most recently over issues of morality: abortion, civil unions, homosexual bishops, assisted suicide, stem cell research, Darwin, creationism. No longer are we united by a common language, as the fastest growing radio and TV stations are Hispanic. And certainly not culture, as we are in a cultural war over history, heroes and holidays.

And how can we say diversity is a strength, when the most diverse nations of Europe, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, shattered into 22 nations as soon as they became free, and Slovaks and Czechs divorced? Ethnic and linguistic diversity is now pulling Belgium apart, as they tore Cyprus in two.

Since World War II, diversity racial, religious, ethnic, cultural has pulled Malaysia, the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan, Indonesia and Ethiopia apart, and is today pulling Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon apart. How, when tribalism is everywhere ascendant, is diversity a strength?

When Islam arose in the 7th century, our world became more diverse. Fourteen centuries of war followed. When Catholic Europe became more diverse with the Protestant Reformation, a century of war followed, ending in a Thirty Years War that carried away a third of all the German people.

There came a new diversity when the English came to the Red Man's continent in 1607 and Africans were brought as slaves in 1619. From that diversity came the near annihilation of American Indians and a racial divide that led to the American Civil War, bloodiest in the West in the 19th century.

Our racial diversity has ever been the most divisive issue in America and remains so, as we see daily from Jena, the Imus affair and the Duke rape case.

Britain is more diverse than in the time of Victoria and Churchill. Is Britain a better, stronger nation now that London is Londonistan, madrassas defend the London bombers and race riots are common in the industrial north? If diversity is a strength, why do Scots wish to follow the Irish and secede?

Has Germany been strengthened by the diversity the Turks brought? Is France a stronger nation for the 5 million to 8 million Muslims concentrated in the banlieus? How have the Japanese suffered from their lack of diversity?

The Melting Pot language, law, culture worked to make us one nation and one people. But that Melting Pot, cracked and broken, is rejected by multiculturalists as an instrument of cultural genocide, crafted by white Europeans to annihilate native cultures.

This generation is witnessing the Deconstruction of America. Out of one, many.

Primer on Islamic Imperialism

By Greg Richards - American Thinker

One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism - which has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden's fatwa issued in 1998 in London - is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass - so far.) Israel is allegedly an outpost of European imperialism.

The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom? From the Muslims.

But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But if they controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in 1100?

Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic imperialism - the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war: jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).

Let's review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The Prophet's death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was the Caliph - "the shadow of God on earth."

The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian Empire with a different religious tradition.

At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is Persia. Neither of these are Arab; neither of them are Muslim. But within 100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain is controlled by Muslim Arabs. How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country. It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years!

What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history.

Here's a Brief Timeline...

Jimmy Carter's Disaster in Iran

In the mid twentieth century, US-Iran relations prospered. Many Americans celebrated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a model king. President Lyndon B. Johnson pronounced in 1964: "What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world".

read more digg story

Restoring A Nation

By definition, a democracy can only function if its basis is a demos, a group of ordinary people who share the same language and general values. Read More...

Morally Paralyzed

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them. Read More...

Democrats and Genocide

"Since the first of the year, I've been working on a project dealing with the connections between liberal policies and mass mortality - the easily demonstrated (though somehow never mentioned) fact that, since at least the 1950s, liberal policies taken to their logical conclusion tend to create large piles of bodies." Read More...