It's awe inspiring how much absurd crap mainstream politics is able to generate.

In the 1960s, radicals began their march through the institutions of American society. They marched through them, stayed long enough to find the exits, and now end up right back where they started: on the outside, in a state of powerless, clawing anger, hurling pies at "establishment' figures and wishing death upon congressmen and presidents.
Right off the bat 'liberals' are conflated with 'radicals'. Liberal opposition to the Vietnam slaughter came about well after prominent capitalists had begun to consider it too costly. Even then liberal opposition was reserved and never questioned Pax Americana, or, god forbid, capitalism and hierarchy generally which any decent critique necessitates. Of course liberals wouldn't properly analyze or oppose such things: 'Liberals' are essentialy no different than 'conservatives', in fact their track record might just be worse. Certainly there are strategic differences aswell as a few other irrelevancies, but essentialy they are identical. Asuming we've ignored that, then bthis alleged 'liberal cycle' only exists if we also ignore the fact that liberals were already 'part of the establishment', are necessarily so, and have always been so. The radical student movements of the 60's, for all their flaws (holy fuck were there flaws) cannot be faulted for resistance per se. The first 'argument' advanced against protests, demonstrations, etc. is a sneaky ad hominem equating resistance with whiney children. The arrogance is unmistakebly rich, white, and imperial. The second doesn't fare much better. The writer suggests that protest is intrinsically irrational, because, apparently, opression is a myth and legitimate grievances do not exist. Certainly protest is moribund and, more often than not, a distinctly liberal affair inasmuch as it has become synonymous with that privileged fantasy world. This is not, however, the critique being made.

The left's feelings of impotent 1960s-style rage can be measured in Drudge Report headlines, such as: "Website sells 'Kill Bush' T-Shirts," and in Drudge's now weekly links to stories about pundits pied by liberals who clearly regard their victims as members of a new establishment. Like children who hurl their baby food as a form of protest, liberals in a state of infantile, frustrated rationality are reduced to tossing sugary and oily products at Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan and stomping their feet at Ann Coulter.

Underneath the robes, vestments, and suits they collected during their march through the institutions remained the grubby attire of radicalism only now visible as they return to their posture of primitive protesting -- a wild, speechless style of protest that throws light on liberalism's essential hostility to reason and morality. Why do liberals who regard themselves as apostles of Enlightenment reason resort so quickly to intimidation and primitive exertion of will? Because fundamentally liberalism is based not on reason but on force. It is a willfulness writ large that becomes more vivid as liberals lose power and fail to control a people unpersuaded by claims that find no basis in reality and thus cannot be calmly demonstrated by reason.
There must be an argument dispenser in this gentleman's asshole. Quickly rip off Washington and there is no need to justify or explore the situation (particularly the double edged nature of the charge).

The only part of human nature that liberalism can appeal to is the part God didn't create -- man's inherited tendency toward irrationality that Western philosophers used to call original sin or concupiscence.

Liberalism is concupiscence intellectualized -- think about how often it ends up telling people to take the low road, feel good about being bad, renames raw selfishness and greed "justice," encourages nihilism and cruelty in one form or another and then calls it self-expression. Because of its basic appeal to an irrational love of self, liberalism can always find an audience eager to hear a justification for letting wayward desires trump reason, but most people know that this will produce too much chaos to sustain a civilization, and so they rush back to conservatism once the yoke of liberalism grows too heavy and they return to their senses.
It's amusing how elastic these 'philosophies' are, I suspect it's because they are marketing tools. "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" may have some kind of precedents and traditions (in some cases these may even show up vaguely in rhetoric and image), but they are largely irrelevant to the contemporary American Scene let alone reality.
ihateapplesandsalt Reviewed by ihateapplesandsalt on . Pie in the Sky Liberals(How soon before they begin throwing bombs again ?) Pie in the Sky Liberals (How soon before they begin throwing bombs again?) The American Prowler ^ | 4/14/2005 | George Neumayr Posted on 04/14/2005 12:40:50 AM PDT In the 1960s, radicals began their march through the institutions of American society. They marched through them, stayed long enough to find the exits, and now end up right back where they started: on the outside, in a state of powerless, clawing anger, hurling pies at "establishment' figures and wishing death upon Rating: 5