Liberals and Libya
(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Hunter --
Chris Moore comments:
The self-professed “liberals” who refuse to see the miniscule distance between the neocons, neolibs, and liberal interventionists obviously aren’t liberals in the classical sense at all, but rather statist-liberals, which is something very different.
And statist-liberal self-righteous posturing loses all credibility and authenticity once its interventionism is seen for what it truly is: a means of sustaining Keynesian (Marxist lite) Big Government spending and largesse by propping up the dollar as world reserve currency at gunpoint.
How many “backward” religious folk and societies are you “progressive” advocates of “democracy” willing to murder and shatter in order to support your anti-conservative, free-spending pork, largesse, and government union jobs programs? How much blood money are you “progressives” willing to bathe in?
The old-line imperialists were actually far more politically honest than statist liberals, neoliberals and neocons because they made few bones about the fact that they were engaged in what amounted to a vast smash and grab job, whereas “progressives” couch their murder and thievery in all kinds of humanitarian platitudes and artifice, and hold forth about how righteous their bomb dumps are.
What absolute rot.
Comment by "Chris Moore" on The Pale Male Paradox: How White Men Achieve Most and Are Vilified Worst, by Tobias Langdon - And it’s natural that whiteness would be most vilified precisely because it’s most valuable in maintaining the modern world and western hegemony. One rea...
1 day ago