Standing Athwart History Spouting Profanity
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
There was a time when National Review had standards and vauled decorum. No more. In his zeal to take down Ron Paul, David Frum has approvingly cited and linked to a piece describing Ron Paul as “this little anti-semitic c*nt,” interspersed with repeated uses of “f*ck” and “f*cking,” “as*,” “cr*p,” and “sh*t.”
Frum also quotes the author’s description of Paul as a “hick,” which is, of course, a slur against Americans who live in rural areas. Such slurs obviously do not bother Frum, who has spent his American sojourn in Manhattan, New Haven, and D.C. But it shows a bit of ingratitude, since Americans from rural areas are providing a disproportionate amount of the manpower for our armed forces fighting the war Frum agitated for in Iraq. If Ron Paul is to be held accountable for the contents of ghostwritten newsletters he has repudiated, Frum should be held accountable for endorsing such a vulgar and vile screed.
Frum’s actions should come as no surprise, though. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to lie about and defame anyone who disagrees with his agenda. His endorsement of a profanity-laced diatribe is small stuff compared to that. But it is indicative of the man and his character.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Jeffrey Willoughby on 10 January 2008:
Hahaha. Reading Ace of Spades rant was actually entertaining.
Who know that non-invertionalist foreign policy and Austrian economics were simply thinly veiled anti-Semitism?
Is this what the neocons have sunk to? Is that the best they’ve got?
2 Comment by David on 10 January 2008:
Dear Tom Piatak,
Of course! I sent a note to Paul Gottfried a few weeks ago and stated that it was only a matter of time before Dr. Paul would be labeled with the ultimate smear. This charge is fast becoming the last refuge of scoundrels.
DAvid
3 Comment by Red Phillips on 10 January 2008:
Frum is a shameless and shrill hack. He supports Giuliani. Even if all this reflected Ron Paul’s true beliefs, which is doesn’t, would it be worse than thinking it should be legal to kill babies in the womb?
Have we really turned the moral universe so upside down that transgressing PC right think is worse than being complicit in the death of babies?
4 Comment by Tom Piatak on 10 January 2008:
Dr. Phillips is exactly right, as usual. Not only does Frum support a pro-abortion candidate, he is pro-abortion himself. And the moral paragons at NRO have no trouble with Frum’s support for abortion.
5 Comment by Red Phillips on 10 January 2008:
“And the moral paragons at NRO have no trouble with Frum’s support for abortion.”
Now there is some guilt by association for you.
6 Comment by Jack on 10 January 2008:
The NR contributors read like a group of college sophomores with all the goofy, profane, and non-conservative temperament that goes with that.
7 Comment by Alexander Coleman on 11 January 2008:
This only reaffirms what we all knew: David Frum has no shame and is a filthy political scavenger.
I will always remember this: about one year ago, Laura Ingraham (to whom I almost never listen for more than ten seconds) was having Justin Raimondo on her radio show to discuss foreign policy. Of course she rarely allowed him to get a word or two out and proceeded with great vim in disagreeing with him. For “balance” she had David Frum on in a separate interview.
Frum, who received the unjust introduction by Ingraham as “a very good person” (Raimondo had called him a leftist, which she could not understand for some reason and she wanted to counter the claim), immediately attacked Raimondo.
Frum repeatedly told Ingraham that Raimondo was essentially a “no-good,” and before too long she said of Raimondo to her, “You have to be very careful of people sneaking in.”
In other words, it was Raimondo sneaking in to the “conservative movement,” such as it is. Not Frum. Not his fellow “ex”-Trotskyist neocons.
Frum’s remark was almost worthy of the Devil.
8 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 11 January 2008:
Miss Crittenden, along with the rest of the pack of Jewish-Republican jackals that dominate the respectable “Right”, hate Middle-American whites almost as intensely as the Left does. Middle-American whites are to provide votes for approved candidates and to provide soldiers to fight and die for Jewish-Republican foreign policy goals. It’s as simple as that.
9 Comment by MGB on 11 January 2008:
Great comment: “Frum also quotes the author’s description of Paul as a “hick,” which is, of course, a slur against Americans who live in rural areas. Such slurs obviously do not bother Frum, who has spent his American sojourn in Manhattan, New Haven, and D.C.”
Perhaps you should have put the word “American” above in all caps to distinguish it from Monsieur Frum’s Canadian roots. What do they call those who live in rural areas of Canada? Mr. Frum, the new American citizen and poster child for immigration reform, could enlighten us there even as he fails to convince us of his utopian quest for global war.
10 Comment by D Simmons on 11 January 2008:
Instead of the usual shrieks directed at these American hating goons (it seems the neo-cons all have an “alienation” problem with middle America) ask them instead what it is they wish to conserve. It would be a short list mind you, and I derive that observation from years of wasted time on FreeRepublic with its hard line zionist minders constantly on patrol and never failing to try and trip someone up with PC dogma if they sensed any deviation from the Likud party line. Till conservatives learn to ask the right questions this cult like force shall stay firmly planted atop the conservative movement deflecting the usual shrill complaints with the usual tactic of questioning the sanity of the complainers.
11 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
Mr Holler
Are you totally ignorant of the fact that “that great patriot, Pat Buchanan” marched with Dr. King? He frequently brags on that point. Know your facts before making yourself, and by association all conservatives, appear to be racist dumb asses.
That said, you’re quite right on the rest of it, except for Romney being even marginally more palatable than the rest of the rotton bunch (except for Dr. Paul).
Bottom line? Conservatives need to wise up to the fact that we are going down the toilet as a culture and the whirpool is probably irresistable. I only take solace in two thoughts. One, the American electorate is going to get what precisely what it richly deserves…either a Marxist leftist from the Dems or a Trotskyite neo-con puppet of his Tel Aviv masters from the establishment Republicans. In that, at least justice is served, and I take some consolation in seeing useful idiots abused for thier stupidity. Two, before America is totally unrecogniziable as the nation in which I was born, and which I love above all else, I will likley be dead.
So, the practical choice is this: which candidate will destroy America at the slowest pace? Depressing, isn’t it?
12 Comment by robert m. peters on 11 January 2008:
Frum is an adroit neo-conservative like his fellow traveler Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg has managed to label “liberalism” as fascist. Ironically, liberalism, if by that Goldberg means “the current manifestation of social democracy in the West, including America” indeed does have common root and origin with communism and fascism.
All three – three ugly sisters – were conceived with the Jacobins raped (usurped) the French Revolution. They were born in the labor of the left-wing Hegelians who kept Hegel’s dialectic but turned his understanding that Consciousness precedes being on its head.
All three are parasites on free markets, free enterprise and classical capitalism. The decay default of communism in all of its forms and social democracy (modern liberalism) in all of its forms is banal fascism.
Communism, of course, destroys or attempts to destroy free markets with a brutal frontal attack. Communism’s morph into its fascist sister at her most banal comes thus rather quickly.
Fascism has its own decay from the classical definition given by Mussolini, namely corporatism, which is a symbiotic relationship between the state and corporations in which they are parasites on wealth producing free markets, free enterprise and capitalism. Once this “classical” fascism has sucked the life out of its host, it can only exist in its most brutal and banal form – a gray militarized bureaucracy, ultimately embracing the cult of personality.
Social democracy, like her two sisters, is a parasite on wealth producing individuals and institutions. She drains the life out of the host more subtly and more slowly than her siblings. Her mantra is social justice, equality, etc., whereby she creates entitled classes, protected classes and special interests to which she transfers the wealth through taxes -income, interest on debt and inflation – to her “constituents.” Again, like with her ugly sister communism, there comes a time when she has so weakened or killed her host that she must morph to the banal form of her fascist sister.
The most effective weapon which the three ugly sister use or have used against societies, cultures and traditions is “equality,” that ultimate Jacobin trait.
For the communists, the call for equality was the means of class warfare; the implementation of the dialectic in order to achieve the goal of static equilibrium known as the “condition of being in commune.” (Note the usurpation of a Christian term.) Millions of people died as the communists compelled them to pursue the Fata Morgana of equality through class struggle.
Fascism also plays this game. The Nazi version thereof sought sameness with a double-edged sword, to eliminate the tribal, linguistic, political, federal and cultural differences among the German people =Gleichschaltung, and to create one uniform almost clinical “same race,” eliminating all that was “other.”
Social democracy is well known for its mantra of “equality.” While the Nazis wanted “one race,” at least in theory; the politically correct social democrats (liberals) want to bring about equality by having us deny that racial, ethnic, religious and cultural differences matter at all: all religions have the same value, gender differences are meaningless, all definitions are relative, etc.
All three ugly sisters must employ the monopoly of state power in order to succeed. They all three use welfare and warfare to further their cause.
What does this have to do with Frum and Goldberg? The three ugly sisters hate one another. They also know intuitively that they will all end in the most banal form of fascism. That is why they call one another as well as their enemies fascist. Ultimately, in the end game, that will be true of them. Hence, Frum so attacks Ron Paul- an enemy of the three sisters, and Goldberg so attacks “liberals.”
The irony is, of course, that the neo-cons have their roots deep in communism – the Trotsky wing of the neo-cons as in Irving Kristol and David Horowitz, and in classical fascism – the Straussian (think Heidegger) wing of the neo-cons as in Wolfowitz and Feith.
The enemies of the Republic are, among others, the New Left, these Neo-Cons and the Rockefeller Republicans. They are well ensconced in our universities, our media, our foundations, our political institutions and our professional organizations.
Sometimes I wonder if I have the courage to gather my five smooth stones and walk out onto the field! Hopefully, Ron Paul has his. He certainly has the courage, and he is on the field!
13 Comment by Tom Camp on 11 January 2008:
When did Pat Buchanan march with MLK? I never heard that. He covered some of the marches for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, but I had no idea that he marched with King or any other Bolshevik puppets.
14 Comment by Bill Wilder on 11 January 2008:
Mr. Kamka,
Actually, Mr. Buchanan attended the March on Washington as a journalist, not a marcher. That qualification aside, I do wish the Stormfront people would go back to their mother’s basements and leave this forum for intelligent discussion.
15 Comment by JoeMorgan on 11 January 2008:
“Anti-Semite” is simply a propaganda term used against Gentiles who are engaged in ethnic conflict with Jews.
We are a predatory species, which means a normal race will openly promote their ethnic interests, which includes creating propaganda that depicts the other side as bad or inferior, and ones own side as good or superior.
A race that is encouraged to discriminate, often rewarded for discriminating, is an alpha race.
A race that fears discriminating for fear of punishment is a beta race.
16 Comment by Marty on 11 January 2008:
To the guy who says he’s voting for Romney because Ron Paul praised ML King, get a clue, dude, Romney is always talking about how his dad George marched with Dr. King. Though it appears he really didn’t. But he wanted to! Or something like that.
I don’t understand some people’s obsession with King. The guy has been dead for 30 years. Yes, it is bad that a minister cheated on his wife. Yes, if he did have some friends who were commies, that’s not so good either.
But saying that people should be judged not on the color of their skin but the content of their character, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Too bad the civil rights movement went the way of quotas and set asides and all that.
And non violent resistance to government oppression, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that either.
Yeah, and just wanting blacks to actually be able to have the rights of all American citizens in the Constitution, what’s wrong with that? Rights that actually come from God, not from the government anyway.
I just don’t get this obsession one sometimes finds on here about race. I am more worried about our crazy foreign policy and from what I can see, the jackbooted thugs tasering innocent citizens to within an inch of their lives, or sometimes killing them, are usually white. The guys kidnapping people and rendentioning them to third world hell holes to be tortured are white. The guys spying on us are usually white. The Idiot in Chief who says the Constitution is just a “g-d piece of paper” is white.
Ron Paul is the only guy who sees a problem with the government running our lives. The other Republicans talk about small government, low taxes, yadda yadda, but they don’t really mean it. Remember Romney as gov. of Massachusetts passed a law requiring everyone to have health insurance. Paul is the only one who is against our insane foreign policy and the warfare-welfare state. Until Huckabee glomed onto Paul’s idea to stop birthright citizenship for anchor babies, he’s really the only one with a real plan for the immigration mess.
And since when do we decide who to vote for by who has a chance? If that’s the case, you might as well make up your minds to vote for Hilary or Obama because pretty much any Republican is going to be TOAST in November. Not that it matters, all the Republicans except Paul and the Democrats are really one party, the Big Government Stupid Foreign Intervention Party.
I think voting for some jerk because you don’t want to “throw your vote away” is wasting your vote. In 2000 I wanted to vote for Pat Buchanan, but I didn’t want to throw my vote away so I voted for Bush. Not having learned my lesson in 2004, I thought about voting for Peroutka or Badnarik, but voted for Bush again! Well, we saw how that turned out!!!!!!!
17 Comment by Rob on 11 January 2008:
Tom writes :
“Frum also quotes the author’s description of Rep. Ron Paul as a “hick,” which is, of course, a slur against Americans who live in rural areas.”
Yes, and as the Kingfish once said, “There ain’t nobody that cares about a hick, accept a hick his-self !” The good news is that with National Review finally and openly aligning themselves with ” the gentlemen in grey “, the hicks can start taking care of themselves and quit caring water for these public liars and calumniators who love expensive wars abroad while hating and deprecating their fellow Americans who fight them. I doubt, however, that Frum has spent much time with those twist, tobacco types shouting troop instructions from a Marine Corps firing line.
18 Comment by Bede on 11 January 2008:
Mr. Piatak,
Another excellent post. Mr. Frum so dislikes “hicks” because he knows that a country of proud yeomen would have deported him long ago.
“Have we really turned the moral universe so upside down that transgressing PC right think is worse than being complicit in the death of babies?”
Red, I agree. The rigor with which PC is enforced, and how zealously it is cheered on by certain “mainstream conservatives,” perhaps scares me more than any other contemporary phenomenon.
19 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 11 January 2008:
Those who are part of the New York-Washington neo-conservative axis do not often venture out among their fellow citizens. Virginia south of the Rappahannock is probably a foreign land for David Frum and his compatriots. Foreigners in the country they reside, neo-conservatives are ill at ease in the company of Red State Americans they are so politically dependent on. Actually, neo-conservatives seem to fear Red State Americans.
20 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
Yes, I trust the “Hicks” with the welfare of my beloved America. Many of these “Hicks” are evangelical “stalwart conservatives” and have told me to my face that we must support Israel because god is on their side and the Book of Revelations makes it clear that those that side with Israel will be on the winning side. I cannot tell you how comfortably I sleep at night knowing that the future of my country is the hands of such voters! Voters such as this will support Mr. (Rev.) Hickaboob because he is an evangelical Christian. That we will soon be worshiping EN ESPANGOL under El Presidente Hickaboob be damned, for he is bible believing Christian. In my mind, evangelicals are as big an enemy of my country as neo-cons, for they merely replace Trotsky’s ideology with one of Judeomania formulated on their interpretation of Revelations. Either way, their true allegiance is to something other than the US Constitution. And these evangelical nit wits are the same that had the audacity to accuse Kennedy then and Catholics today of having allegiance to Rome rather than America.
What is richly ironic is that the conservative pundits forever rail that liberal Dems want to introduce the nanny state because they believe the average American is not smart enough to govern himself. The conservative pundit always has supreme faith in the ability of Joe average to decide for himself. Well, in my view, given the choices that Joe average keeps making on either side of the aisle, the Dems may have a point.
21 Comment by John C. on 11 January 2008:
“Frum’s actions should come as no surprise, though. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to lie about and defame anyone who disagrees with his agenda. His endorsement of a profanity-laced diatribe is small stuff compared to that. But it is indicative of the man and his character.”
Let us not forget that these are the same guttersnipes that welcomed the vile Christopher Hitchens into their fold based on his pro-war views, and it was NRO that published a column by Michael Novak titled “Hitchens Is a National Treasure”. But this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the neocon’s lunacy over the years. Their endorsement of this trash is par for the course because morality is not a strong characteristic amongst their ranks. The war is THE issue, and anyone who supports it is an ally while those who oppose it are foes. Paul has found himself in National Review’s crosshairs because he has the audacity to question the fearless leader; hence their link to this profanity-laced screed.
Years back I may have been hesitant, but now I’m more than willing to suggest that the neoconservatives are doing the devil’s work. And while they often try to portray themselves as morally superior to the rest of us, their true nature is hard to suppress, and exposing itself from time to time. This incident is simply the latest in a long list of questionable judgments. And much like an alcoholic who insists that he doesn’t have a problem, only to undermine his argument when he falls down the stairs or urinates in a closet instead of the proper facilities, National Review has once again surrendered the moral high ground in their support of this childish filth.
22 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 11 January 2008:
A more fundamental question, it seems to me, is how did these nasty, talentless little foreign creeps become national celebrities to begin with?
23 Comment by johnt on 11 January 2008:
IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT DAVID FRUM AND OTHER NEOCONSERVATIVE JEWS HAVE AN INTENSE LOYALTY TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL. THE GREAT PASSION OF THE NEOCONS IS TO USE THEIR POWER AND INFLUENCE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO ADVOCATE EXHAUSTING THE BLOOD AND TREASURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO INVADE NATIONS WHO ARE ENEMIES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. DOMESTIC ISSUES ARE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. NOT UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTYS’ EXPLOITATION OF BLACK VOTERS, THE NEOCONS USE WHITE GENTILES AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THEIR ENDS. THE MORE INTERESTING QUESTION IS WHY THE CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT HAS BECOME SO FANATICALLY PRO-ISRAEL. THERE IS NOW A TABOO AGAINST CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF JEWISH INFLUENCE AND OUR POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I SUSPECT THAT AS KEVIN MACDONALD ARGUES, BEING PRO-ISRAEL IS A LITMUS TEST TO ENTRY INTO THE POLITICAL AND MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT. APART FROM PAT BUCHANAN, CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH FINANCIAL REWARDS AND SOCIAL ACCEPTABLILTY THAN PRINCIPLE.
24 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
Part of the reason that these talentless creeps become celebrities is that they are able to play to a significant segment of the “conservative coalition.” Remember, the “conservative coalition” has no identifiable ideology. It’s much easier for liberal Dems who only have to decide if their candidate is Marxist enough. Not so easy for the “conservative”…whatever that term means today. Is it the fellow that wants lower taxes and bigger profits and loves illegal immigrants if they will work more cheaply? Is it the social conservative evangelical that will follow anybody that will fight Tel Aviv’s proxy wars because the Book of Revelations says so? Is it the old line Democrat from the “greatest generation” that is repulsed by the 60’s cultural icons but love big government welfare nonetheless? Or is it the neo-con global imperialists like Bush and McCain? Or is it a true constitutionalist like Ron Paul?
The Reagan coalition was exactly that, a coalition of disparate ideologies and single issue voting blocks that came together under the banner of the Republican Party because it was only place that was willing to least provide a partial forum. That is why the constitutional purists like Ron Paul are a hopeless case. They will never appeal to the mainstream average Joe because they are not ideologically, intellectually and emotionally bound to the principles of constitutionalism as the left is to Marxism. Conservatives will have to live with the fact that they will get and be grateful for whatever scraps the coalition compromise candidate will throw them, just as the evangelicals and all the rest will have to be content with their scraps. Such is the nature of democracy.
25 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
Note the fact that today the “evangelicals” are nearly unanimous in claiming that Hickaboob decisively won the debate yesterday. I could have sworn it was Obama speaking when Hickaboob was answering. But hey, we have to vote for our fellow evangelical least we have god angry with us. Everyone else goes for Thompson, and Paul is simply laughed at.
26 Comment by Rob on 11 January 2008:
From Clyde Wilson :
“A more fundamental question, it seems to me, is how did these nasty, talentless little foreign creeps become national celebrities to begin with?”
Answer :
By aligning themselves with the spirits of Greed, Fornication, Avarice, Wrath, Melancholy, Depression, Conceit, and Arrogance.
And the failure of the opposition to adequately enlist the spirits of Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Counsel, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of God and Grace.
And of course the inherited trait of our first parents to lie, hide and blame their neighbor, than to admit to God we have sinned against Him and have been eating golden apples from a poisonous tree.
27 Comment by Rob on 11 January 2008:
#26 Dave Kamka :
““evangelicals” are nearly unanimous in claiming that Hickaboob decisively won the debate yesterday. I could have sworn it was Obama speaking when Hickaboob was answering. But hey, we have to vote for our fellow evangelical least we have god angry with us. Everyone else goes for Thompson, and Paul is simply laughed at.”
Rep. Paul said to the questioner : ” It is you who call me a Republican. That is why I am running — Lower Taxes, Less Government, State’s rights, more Republic and less Empire, etc..”
And the crowd replied : ” He is not our Republican !! We have no Republican, other than Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb !!! Give us Hickaboo !!! Give us Gulliani !! ” And then they tarred and feathered him, and sent the Republican away, etc., etc ….
28 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
Rob
And the debate moderator said of Paul, I find no fault in this man that warrants death. But the crowed only replied the louder “let his blood be on our heads and on our children’s.” And so it was that the crowed received justice from generation to generation.
29 Comment by Dave Kamka on 11 January 2008:
And it seems, as I recall, that a another terribly bloody, needless and unjust war began in 1861 largely by the instigation of religious fanatics who, doubtless, believed tat they had enlisted the spirits of Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Counsel, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of God and Grace. Terrible swift sword, etc., and all that. It’s all a matter of personal interpretation of the word guided by the spirit I suppose. Or as King James put it: In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25. Ahhhh the freedom to interpret the inerrant word according to ones own understanding.
30 Comment by Nash on 11 January 2008:
What little credibility Frum did have is now vanquished. I tried counting the number of swear words in the original author’s oh-so eloquent tirade, but lost count after 20. A pro-abort supporting a pro-abort whilst hiding behind the shadow of Ronald Reagan–hmm. A little curious, isn’t it? But not surprising.
Arrogant, seemingly above reproach, elitism isn’t strictly reserved for the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.
31 Comment by Rob on 11 January 2008:
“And so it was that the crowed received justice from generation to generation.”
Yes, and it will be the same for us. If it were not for the love of ones own children, these elections would be hillarious parodies of 1984 or Brave New World. As it is, it is like watching your neighborhood turn into a toxic waste dump full of crack houses run by thugs or watching your daughter sold into prostitution and led away by “good christians” who are sorry but ” just doing their jobs.”
32 Comment by Rob on 11 January 2008:
“by the instigation of religious fanatics who, doubtless, believed tat they had enlisted the spirits of Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, Counsel, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of God and Grace. ”
No . Abe Lincoln was no religious fanatic he was a calculating lawyer and a coniving politician. It was the religious believers on both sides who fought the war, but they didn’t instigate it. We must be clear that Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of man is the beginning of the servile state — started as you say usually by fanatics. But not necessarily religious fanatics, although it has become customary since the enlightenment to say so.
33 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 11 January 2008:
(Re. comment #24)
“… BEING PRO-ISRAEL IS A LITMUS TEST TO ENTRY INTO THE POLITICAL AND MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT …”
Not to mention the top U.S. academia and other major U.S. scientific and engineering research organizations, where this situation is indeed terrible.
34 Comment by Steve M on 11 January 2008:
Well said Tom!
I find Frum to be a loathsome little hypocrite, but I got even with him by praising him for writing “The Real Anita Hill.” He corrected me by saying “That was David Brock.” I knew that! So forget it dude you’ve written nothing praiseworthy in my opinion.
He lives on Foxhall Rd, NW in the house with the collapsing stone steps in front. He’s probably looking for cut-rate illegal immigrants to fix them at bargain basement prices, but is too cowardly to drive over to Home Depot on Bladensbrug Rd., NE which is indeed a pretty scary place even in broad daylight.
You can call that anti-Semitism, too, if you want.
35 Comment by Bill North on 11 January 2008:
Frum should return to canada where he’s frUm.
Used to be patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels. Then was added national security, and finally it’s plummeted to the anti-semitism smear. Meanwhile everyone else has license to be anti-Christian, anti-European, anti-White etc. And since white european christians have been so cowed as to no longer even have access to any kind of significant portion of the nation’s mainstream media. Now they’re supposed to accept that this anti-Christian, anti-European, anti-White condition is not only normal, it’s salutary.
What Frum really now means by “anti-Semitism” is – if you don’t accept your lot as described above with a smile we are so in-charge of daily life then we’ll make it worse for you with the anti-Semitic smear. Very bad.
Dr. Ron Paul is actually the ONLY real agent of change, the vaunted theme running throughout this campaign. The rest of them are clones including FrUm of the distant ever fewer members of the establishment. One day Frum may just be the only one there looking in the mirror yelling at his reflection as being ‘anti-Semitic.’ (which it probably no doubt is – whatever it allegedly ‘means’.)
He tends to project a lot – what he myopically doesn’t notice about himself, is projected Out there/here. I’ll say it, even not knowing what it means, but it’s just Fun: “Frum is anti-Semitic, i’m sure of it.”
As an aside the five major european countries have just given neocon Frum’s – president Bush on a scale of 100% – single digit ratings, as low as 3% approval in France. Italy gave him something like a 5% approval rating. And they all voted the neocon run u.s. as the nation Most dangerous to world peace.
would that frum would return to canada, where he’s frUm.
36 Comment by Dwright on 12 January 2008:
Now it’s anti-semitism again. How did Sobran describe it? Anti-Semite: one who is hated by jews.
As far is Frum is concerned, people like him represent all the worst characteristics that fuel the fire of the real anti-semites.
What a loathsome creature.
37 Comment by jmcnulty on 12 January 2008:
If this a comment site for “Chronicles” or “Stormfront”? I really could not tell from all the commentors who seem to be cranks, cultural nostalgists (back to a time before blacks and women got “uppity”), racial-purity promoters, Jew-haters, conspiracy theroists, and ranting crazy uncles locked in the attic. I used to like “Chronicles” for its description of the reality of our cultural decline. Even then, I worried about the whiff of right-wing extremism that I sensed there. “Paleo-conservatism” is not the half of it apparently. I am old enough to remember when Pat Buchannan wrote columns on “Captive Nations Week” and argued for a rolling back of the Iron Curtain. What would the “anti-imperialist” Dr. Paul say about that? It is rediculous to argue, as he does, that he did not know what was in and was not responsible for articles appearing in HIS newsletter and under HIS name FOR TEN YEARS! Reading him and the dotty commenters on this site out of the “movement” would be an act of political hygiene for conservatives.
38 Comment by Tom Piatak on 12 January 2008:
Yes, there are a number of distasteful comments, as well as some insightful ones. Any internet forum open to general comments is likely to bring forth both the wheat and the chaff. But many of the distasteful comments are anonymous or pseudonymous, and none are made by commenters I recognize. In my experience, if such commenters are ignored, they tend to go away. They certainly are not representative of Chronicles magazine–the latest, predictably excellent issue arrived in my mailbox today, and I am going back now to enjoy reading it.
39 Comment by Aussi Fairdinkum on 12 January 2008:
I agree with Tom Paitak. And would add life is too important to be taken seriously. So few have the humor gene or if they do allow themselves a sense of humor. As to who is persecuted and who is not remember the wisest know that there is enormous power in the victim Role jmcnulty, no power in being the Actual victim. So always do your homework as it sounds like perhaps you yet are doing so, before deciding which is which. Lastly the wisest may know ongoing usually on a daily basis which is which – but only the good don’t use it nefariously. Most of the really bad shills in this world are wise. Did you understand that jmcnulty? If not start again with chronicles magazine, in my humble opinion. And it doesn’t hurt to end there as well.
_____
40 Comment by G.S. on 12 January 2008:
How many rednecks support Ron Paul vs. the number of rednecks who support the Republican Party?
Is there any instance in history in which a political organization so continually denigraded the very people who comprise their base?
The Religious Righters & hicks who get routinely sneered at in the pages of NR are the very two categories of folks whom Frum & other assorted GOP parasites should be thanking for their posh lifestyle and the fact that neocons have any political status at all.
However repugnant their principles, at least the Democrats don’t exhibit contempt for the various interest groups– blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, feminists, etc.– who put them in power. At least they have loyalty for their own constituency.
Sheesh — all the rednecks back Ron Paul, my foot. I wish.
“But it shows a bit of ingratitude, since Americans from rural areas are providing a disproportionate amount of the manpower for our armed forces fighting the war Frum agitated for in Iraq.”
True. The highest Army recruiting numbers are to be found in Edmondson County, Kentucky:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1553971/20070306/id_0.jhtml
How creatures like Frum can look themselves in the mirror, I have no idea.
41 Comment by Aussi Fairdinkum on 12 January 2008:
Ditto G.S. directly above. There’s a ‘notion’ that the folks have a wider swinish streak than the rest of us. No. What they are sadly is more maleable and subject to brainwashing. That’s a fact, sadly. The upside of it if their ‘betters’ are good (like G.S.) instead of shills for the dark side of G-d – they’re actually often eventually even better than their original betters. That’s the Actual level playing field.
There’s really no other real ‘utopian’ vision. … I know or sense G.S. is fond of the gnostics… that’s the Upside of it. all my wuv – you know me-?-i’m a bit cwazy. sorry. i hope folks still read chronicles.
42 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 13 January 2008:
“However repugnant their principles, at least the Democrats don’t exhibit contempt for the various interest groups– blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, feminists, etc.– who put them in power. At least they have loyalty for their own constituency.”
You forgot blue-collar workers, however, whom they betray with remarkable consistency.
43 Comment by G.S. on 13 January 2008:
As Homer Simpson puts it, “Doh!”
Mr. Moses is quite correct — I stand corrected.
44 Comment by Roach on 13 January 2008:
We need to amend O’Sullivan’s Law: Any Organization Which Is Not Explicitly Anti-Israel, Will Get Taken Over By Pushy Jews Before Long.
45 Comment by Kevin Riley O'Keeffe on 13 January 2008:
The neo-cons get so upset whenever anyone points out the obvious truth about them ie., that they seem more concerned with Israel than they do with the United States of America (they even go so far as to label the term “neo-conservative” as some sort of anti-Semitic slur). But then they go and use “anti-Semitism” as their blanket term of derision for seemingly anyone they dislike (and they sure dislike a lot of people).
I can’t help but think that in 21st century America, if some guy wasn’t real fond of, oh, I don’t know, Poles, the Irish, Sicilians, Scandinavians, whatever, most people would regard it as a somewhat distasteful eccentricity, not a veritable Mark of Cain. Yet the way these neo-”conservatives” get so agitated at the thought of someone, perhaps, not particularly liking the Jews, it just doesn’t fit with any rational expectation of what an American political party ie., the Republicans, really ought to be about. I mean, we’re talking about 2% of the U.S. population, consisting largely of relative new-comers, right? I would expect the Likud, or some other political party based in Israel, to be dominated by people who loathe anti-Semites, both real and imagined (just as the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael parties in Ireland probably take a very dim view of people in the United Kingdom who look down upon the Irish), but how does it make sense for a U.S.-based political party to make strident and vociferous opposition to anti-Semitism (ultra-broadly defined, of course) its apparent signature issue? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense, as Rep. Ron Paul has suggested, to make Constitutional liberty our totem, rather than Zionism? What on Earth does Zionism have to do with me?
46 Comment by Dave Kamka on 13 January 2008:
No, liberal Dems have no contempt for blacks, they just want to keep them at an acceptable level of poverty, ignorance and cultural depravity so that they remain in constant need of the government dole and those who promote it.
Aussi makes a good point. The vast majority of people have no interest in anything that dos not result in relatively immediate pleasure or pain. Choosing a candidate because he or she is true to constitutional principles? Because he or she has a long range view of policy that will change our culture in 2 or 3 generations? Way too deep.
Which is why we need the Limbaughs and Coulters and Ingrahms that appeal to the “masses” of the “red neck ” rights as opposed to the contributors to Chronicles that appeal to the deeper thinkers. Those pundits are frequently denigrated in these columns, but without them and the “folks” they attract and influence, the readers of “Chronicles” would be lucky enough to amass enough votes to elect a couple of Alderman in Chicago or New York. Everyone plays their part. Wars are managed by Generals but fought by Soldiers. Generals and Soldiers are motivated by different things. All movements depend on leaders that have the ability to appeal to one or the other or both. That is how coalitions are built and why no one ever gets precisely what he wants. Democracy is necessarily a game of horseshoes.
47 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 13 January 2008:
Surely no more than 2% of the U.S. population have the slightest idea what “constitutional principles” are. Certainly the federal judges and law professors and media and congresspersons and Dittoheads don’t.
48 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 13 January 2008:
@43: Well, even as I typed it occurred to me that perhaps the betrayal is not so profound as it may seem, since the Reagan Democrats have been shunning their party for quite some time. On the other hand
@46: Mr. O’Keefe, I do recall we’ve spoken before, and I daresay you’re preaching to the choir. Not that I’m judging. Although, you neglect to mention that it was Irving Kristol, himself a Jewish ex-leftist, who is credited with articulating the anatomy of neoconservative thought (admitting himself that Strauss had played a role in this). The attempt by Frum and others to deflect criticism of their philosophy as “anti-Semitic” is not sneaky evasion at all; it is blatant lying. There is no mystery to behold, nor any profound and secretive cabal, Jewish or otherwise. They know what they are doing. And if the American people buy it, we have only ourselves to blame.
@47: If the horseshoe game of democracy requires Limbaugh, Colter and Ingraham, than I favor banning horseshoes. Let me know when there’s a halfway moral paramilitary plotting to overthrow the U.S. of A.
49 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 13 January 2008:
I didn’t finish my reply to G.S… and I forget what I would have said. My apologies.
50 Comment by Aussi Fairdinkum on 13 January 2008:
Little or no govt. governs best – because when down to earth and yet civilized/or with-culture that’s time-tested (i’m not sure we still are) – it all gets sorted then the Best, at that local level. Those are really for the most part the constitutional principles – which haven’t been able to be maintained. Why?
People want the worldly “Out” – of appealing to a higher authority (that’s really in effect) lower, in what it produces = the present. But that appeal to a higher Authority that paradoxically is ‘worldly’ is the way humans operate to dodge spiritual & emotional progress.
So they always will do that, won’t they? Evolution is so slow they/we ain’t going to change in our lifetimes are they? – No.
I’m reminded of Nietzsche who so astutely noticed if it hasn’t changed yet for all intents and purposes it never will. That’s also frankly speaking muslim resignation…which is not really understood in the west…In that we in the west see it exclusively as a try for the supRanatural. Which it also is to some extent. Hard for humans to ever get too far from their will to power – naturally enough?!
Rather than as in our tradition – worship of – and submission to the supernatural…within our judaic & christian transcendental tradition.
I think it will change though, I mean humans – not their religions necessarily. I think in evolution…it’s about to change again…it’s just my hunch. ? One never ‘knows’ does one? And two know less? Would i bet on it? yes. we’ve all seemed to outgrow ourselves – and found sadly and happily there’s no going back. I’d like to stop it – i’m an Actual conservative. that’s my schtick…delay, delay, delay always… if it’s not necessary to change it’s necessary not to change is the sentiment. But i’m a realist too – i navigate.
if the navigation is correct – ok so then i go… (new)
__________
51 Comment by robert m. peters on 13 January 2008:
Dr. Wilson at 48,
I do not know if you watched or perhaps heard about Russert’s “attack” on Ron Paul on the 23 December 2007. Russert was trying to make Dr. Paul to be a hypocrite on the Constitution because Dr. Paul has spoken of amending the Constitution, with Russert’s implication being that someone who wants to amend the Constitution is not a strict constructionist and does not honor “the founders.” (Actually, I prefer to consider the opinion of the ratifying conventions which gave the Constitution its authority.) One smiles which one notes that the only two amendments that Dr. Paul has proposed, to my knowledge, were to get rid of “birthright citizenship” spun into existence out of the 14th which itself is withershins the intentions of the drafters and the ratifiers and the 16th which is definitely contrary to the intention of most of our 18 century political ancestors.
52 Comment by D Simmons on 14 January 2008:
Jonah Goldberg wrote about a cross country drive from Seattle to NYC, and in this account he was explicit in his account of his fear of the white men of Montana. How is it that anything these people say is taken at face value is beyond me, but that anyone buys it is unspeakable.
53 Comment by formerbeltwaywonk on 15 January 2008:
Details of the when and by whom the anti-Paul smears were propagated on New Hampshire primary day:
The Orange Line: anatomy of a smear
54 Comment by Jagman on 16 January 2008:
Re: National Review and the “…vulgar and vile…” I did not appreciate the title of Mr. William F. Buckley’s latest book titled:
Cancel Your Own G–damm Subscription.
Actually I found it very offensive and totally unnecessary, moreover, aggravating the offense was the fact that Mr. Buckley was not even quoting someone else, but was quoting himself
in the title.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain has to mean something, does it not? If it does not forbid that word, what word would it forbid?
I have always distinguished between vulgarisms and profanity.
Neither are good, but profanity is, in my view, much worse.
I have tried to project myself into Buckley’s mind in an effort to come up with some reasonable justification for his selection of that title. No luck. Does anyone know one?
55 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 16 January 2008:
@55: This is a man who publicly stated, when the late Pope John Paul II was on his deathbed, that he did not honor his parish priest’s request for prayers for the dying pontiff and that he hoped His Holiness would not recover. Whether this is a senile old fellow just losing any shred of decency, tact and reverence he ever had, or an unraveling of a piety so carefully faked throughout the decades, is a question I do not have the right to answer, or probably even to contemplate.
Suffice to say, it is clear Buckley’s diabolical side has had the most influence on his intellectual descendants, and I pity Mr. Piatak for having to keep himself informed of these ongoings reading their malarkey.
56 Comment by Thomas Miller on 17 January 2008:
Mr. Buckley’s diabolical side probably originated in his brief career as a CIA agent. Personally, I’ve never understood why Buckley was such a popular figure with conservatives. He always came across to me as a pompous ass, with his affected, high-brow New England accent (he was originally from Texas, I believe).
And why he allowed these neocon twerps to take over his publication is anybody’s guess. Speaking of which, is the smarmy clown who hosts the Daily Show their number one fan, or what? Every time I’ve come across John Stewart’s show, he’s had one of these neocons on his program – Bill Kristol, David Frum and last night it was Jonah Goldberg.
57 Comment by Allen Wilson on 17 January 2008:
Concerning Buckley, I remember seeing him on his show back in the early eighties and thinking even then what a big fake and put on he was, right down to his annoying posh accent, an obviously concious attempt at appearing very very upscale. I remember my Dad getting mad, emitting a few cuss words of his own, and changing the channel because he simply could not stand Buckley’s pretensiousness. Way back then, as a fourteen year old, I never liked Buckley because I could sense something dark and deceitful about him, just in his demeanour. Nothing about how he has turned out, nor anything about the detestable character of his proteges, surprises me in the least, nor would it have surprised me back then.
58 Comment by Jagman on 17 January 2008:
Nicholas at 56 [and others]
Thanks for the info.
Re: Mr. Buckley. He has been acting a little strange of late. Perhaps the gentlemen has a touch of Alzheimer’s, which IS a
progressive affliction, and might cause one to do things one would not do otherwise~short of going bonkers.
It is, to say the least, unusual for a professing Christian to title
his book, quoting himself no less, Cancel Your Own__Subscription.
That book will be in the public square for many years to come, and
everyone who seriously considers it will be staring at the profanity in the title. Mr. Buckley has thousands, or at least hundreds, or at least dozens, of young coming-on conservatives who revere him. It was not a good example for an older Christian to set before the young men in the movement.
Nonetheless, I know we all have our own particular demons with which we must contend. Maybe Old Buckley’s is just different than mine.
59 Comment by Carl on 19 January 2008:
Four-letter words are not “obscene” or “dirty” in and of themselves. They become that way when used in a certain context. That was a point Lenny Bruce (R.I.P.) often made. And yes, I’ll take Lenny on a bad evening over Tom Piatak on a good one. Piety has its limits. Laughter shouldn’t.