November 14th, 2012

Krauthammer states…

what an awful lot of people have been thinking:

Of course [government knowledge of the affair] was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed.

Krauthammer isn’t usually a wild-eyed conspiracist, but perhaps he’s become unhinged by the election results. Then again, one doesn’t have to be a wild-eyed conspiracist to think as Krauthammer does, or even to be a cynic. The timing, as they say, is suspect (as was the original timeline on Benghazi).

Will we ever find out the truth? And furthermore: even if we do, will enough people care? I sometimes whether whether the level of cynicism in America has gotten so huge that any corruption would be okay with most people as long as it doesn’t interfere with their stuff or their TV shows.

59 Responses to “Krauthammer states…”

  1. jeff Says:

    No. We’ll never find out the truth. Too much time has passed, there has been too much misdirection. Too many careers are at stake if the truth comes out. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Obama and his team’s initial, primary concern was to get through the election. Now the inquiries can be characterized as political and stale; and Obama, if pressured, can always fall back on the protection that “classified information” can’t be revealed. Sad thing is that they knew all this on September 11 and devised their plan to manipulate. Mission accomplished. Sorry to be so glum, but we all know where this is going – nowhere.

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    jeff: my point is that if it goes nowhere (which I fear will be the case) it will be because we, the people have become corrupt.

  3. Mr. Frank Says:

    Who would have believed that Chicago style politics could be applied to the whole country?

  4. vanderleun Says:

    If they make a film out of this the title should be “Seven Days in Maybe”

  5. davisbr Says:

    McCain is making a powerful case for a Senate Select Committee (aka a Watergate or Iran-Contra type body) to investigate Benghazi.

    I think he’s going to get it.

    I hope he’s going to get it.

  6. jeff Says:

    Neo: Unfortunately, I agree. Most of the people have become corrupt, or have been corrupted. I know there are a lot of instances, but for me Hillary’s Today show appearance where she trotted out the “vast right wing conspiracy” was a big turning point for America. The Clinton team determined that the people were so partisan that all they had to do was float a plausible, alternate theory. Once their supporters “invested” in that theory they would be reluctant to believe anything to the contrary because it would mean that they were misled (i.e., hustled, conned) and wrong. No one wants their “beliefs” objectively invalidated. The conned become advocates for the con. This is no longer about 4 dead Americans, it is no longer about truth. It is about their guy “wining” and, therefore, they win. I think there is much less tolerance for this on the Right and I think politicians on the Right engage in a much different calculus – they’re not as confident that if they lie to their supporters and get caught that their supporters won’t tell them to take a walk.

  7. Artfldgr Says:

    irrelevent… a waste to bother with as the horse is out of the barn and oleary has already kicked over the cow.

    QEternity is getting steroids
    holder is now going after to get money from every country that dont have race proportions, with one group on the chopping block…

    i think the people dont understand that the three main groups of the left have had the argument of justification drilled into their heads and everywhere, especially in those papers we pay taxes to print and give out in their neighborhoods, one group is designated – even if they have to change the language from the source to make that designation and then ignore other facts to make it.

    if you ask people. is it morally ok to cheat to defeat hitler, what would they say?

    if you ask them, is it morally ok to kill the same group of people before they can do the same things, what would they say?

    you see.. this is the point of all that for so long and so on. minorities, women, and lgbt ALL think in terms of paybacks!!!

    so its not that they like corruption or have accepted it. but if your not going accept the actual condition, i guess that’s a good excuse to pawn off the real reasons.

    after all, to accept the real reason you have to accept that that group actually believes that white men are nazis, and oppressors and that their doctrines say its morally ok to remove them before they do what all those people do.

    and its made solid by the argument of disparate impact. i once put up the link to the german newspapers discussing it, but neo trimmed that off, and i was never able to find the college library that had it again!!!!!!!!!!

    we lost proof of methodology that day…

    so you have to get that they are not accepting amoral behavior, they are being moral under the ideas and things from their papers, books, and so on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    since you never read all that horrid stuff, or investigated those places you have said you rarely go, you dont know that. and so the only rationalization that is acceptable is they abandoned morals or dont care.

    no. they do care. if they didn’t care they would not have voted in a hero to destroy those scapegoats!!!!!!! [and in turn re-implemented the same doctrines they oppose. but would they look to themselves to see that? nope, they are too busy blaming the other for the outcomes they are creating. but the personal is political means never having to accept your responsible for outcomes]

    The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement… akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people… with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle.

    they are full willing, arent they?

    you knew where it would end up the minute Social Justice was back on the table.

    You would also know what is happening to israel is also part of it. just wait till the duped in that social class gets that they forgot the shoa, and now are doomed to repeat it.

  8. chuck Says:

    My level of cynicism has reached the point where I don’t quite see the government as legitimate.

  9. Artfldgr Says:

    “The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    “I believe that there will be ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think it will be based on the color of the skin…”
    ― Malcolm X

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
    ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

    “(…) when a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.”
    ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom: Autobiography of Nelson Mandela

    “Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people–they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”
    ― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

    Aung San Suu Kyi
    “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
    ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear

    “Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day. Fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man’s self-respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by fear under the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again, for fear is not the natural state of civilized man.”
    ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear

    “And when I speak, I don’t speak as a Democrat. Or a Republican. Nor an American. I speak as a victim of America’s so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy – all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream. We’ve experienced only the American nightmare.”
    ― Malcolm X

    “The ignorance of the oppressed is strength for the oppressor.”
    ― A.R. Bernard

  10. Artfldgr Says:

    Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. MLK

    To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor.
    MLK (or as evil as they believe the oppressor was)

    Laws only declare rights; they do not deliver them. The oppressed must take hold of laws and transform them into effective mandates. MLK

    Often the oppressor goes along unaware of the evil involved in his oppression so long as the oppressed accepts it. MLK

    And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism — the lie that there can be such a thing as “men’s liberation groups.” Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a “threatening” characteristic shared by the latter group — skin color or sex or age, etc. Robin Morgan

    I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.

    SEE? they are not being immoral, they are being hyper moral within the framework they live by!

    so they will load people into ovens and believe its all good when done, until, like zimbardo, someone slaps them upside the head to bring reason.

    but how many of you read the socliast worker?
    Right of the oppressed to organise their own defence

    No working class that tolerates inequality in any form can make itself free. The oppressed have the right to resist their own oppression. In 2001, in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, rampaging Nazi thugs provoked local Asian people into active defence of their communities.

    The police weighed in, to confront not the fascists but those who were most resolute in organising and fighting back. Labelled as “rioters”, numbers of young Asians were given long prison sentences. Rightly, socialists defended the “rioters”.

    Their suffering would have been no less, but they would have been without hope or pride, and without allies across the world. The intifada illustrates a further point. Sometimes the Palestinians are criticised for “violence”, but Israeli state violence against them is immensely greater. Nor is that violence restricted to the open killings that are an everyday occurrence across the West Bank and Gaza. There is violence too in enforced poverty and the destruction of economic life.

    High levels of child mortality are just as murderous as helicopter gunships. Often those who begin resistance against oppression do so in conditions of isolation. It is precisely their refusal to accept continuing degradation that generates the possibility of solidarity. The meek do not inherit the earth.

    see? they are not being amoral, they just consider something other than what you think is immoral. it would have been smart to learn those things rather than deny them. and now say they are evil and want bad thing and are corrupt.

    were you corrupt neo when you were on the left, or were you duped into thinking they represented you and their justifications and morals were ok or more right?

    and you found out and changed sides not because you changed, but because you relized the dupe…

    well… same thing here… do you really think the whole nation of germans really hated jews? or that the whites who ended slavery here and across the sea, really hate blacks?

    but they are following their own truth, not your truth, and their truth says its moral and a goodness to exterminate the oppressors. the way islam says its moral to murder non islamics or demand payments..

  11. armchair pessimist Says:

    We’re like Cassandra here on the Right. The gods gave her the gift of prophecy, along with the curse that nobody would ever believe her.

    So not that it matters what Petraeus says in testimony, but I think that in exchange for immunity from prosecution of his lady love for possession of classified secrets, he’ll back up whatever their cya story du jour is.

    In fact, he’ll probably nobly walk the plank for the whole poisonous scum of them. “Benghazi occurred because I was too busy skirt chasing to do my job.”

  12. Artfldgr Says:

    The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation. The second is war. Both bring about temporary prosperity. But both bring about permanent ruin. And both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists
    – Ernest Hemingway

  13. Lizzy Says:

    Just saw Fox’s Jennifer Griffin – who has been so good at covering Benghazi thus far – reporting details on the Allen lady’s twin sister’s custody case. As if any of this information matters. Meanwhile Hillary continues to unavailable to Congress and Obama is defending Rice so that she can safely replace Hillary.
    Yeah, we’ll never get to the bottom of this.

    As to McCain pursuing this? You’re a little late to the party, you should have been pursuing this back in late September/early October when it would have actually done some good. It’s all just grandstanding at this point (a McCain specialty).

  14. Artfldgr Says:

    suddenly posts are not going up again…
    funny how that happens

  15. carl in atlanta Says:

    The apparently successful, brazen use of the Big Lie here (“It’s that disgusting video!”) continues to astound me.

    Are [or is it is?] the majority of US citizens really become this imbecilically credulous?

    If so, they deserved the coming ass whuppin’. Too bad the rest of us are now virtually powerless.

  16. Don Carlos Says:

    Face it, people:
    We are done. Y’all haven’t seen anything yet like it’s gonna play out unless you look at other totalitarian histories. The lamps have gone out and we will not see them re-lighted in our lifetime, nor in our children’s lifetimes either. All it takes is Obama’s SCOTUS nominations, rubber-stamped by the Senate. If looking for bravery by Senate Democrats, look again…it is not there, nor will it be.
    On the fiscal front, we have Tearful John Boehner capitulating pre-emptively.
    Artfldgr is correct in his historical references and analogies.
    We are done.

  17. neo-neocon Says:

    Lizzy: actually, I recall that McCain was pursuing it in October—and with some heat and bite, as well (don’t have time to find the links now, but I remember it). Problem is that it got no traction.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: actually, I was not duped by a lot of things. For example, the minute that affirmative action began (be it for blacks, or women, or any other group) it gave me the willies. I recognized it as wrong, big time, and dangerous, and spoke out against it. I knew it would lead to bad things. My error was in not realizing how alone I was in that belief within the Democratic Party, and what the long game actually was.

    Same thing for bilingual education, winking at illegal immigration, etc. Vocally against all of that. But shortsighted; never saw the ultimate goals. I was more or less apolitical back then, but I think if I’d been more politically inclined (as I became after 9/11) I would have realized I was conservative long, long before I did.

    Later on, the realization of having been duped—in terms of the media, of reading about history (the Vietnam War especially), and the goals of the left and the depth to which they were part of the Democratic Party—became clear to me. But long before that I parted ways with a great many of the principles the Democratic Party was advocating. I was, unfortunately, not politically aware enough, however. That process was jump-started by 9/11.

  19. expat Says:

    I read somewhere today that Petraeus has been a warner on Iran for a longtime and that he contradicted many in State who underplayed the danger. I don’t imagine that Obama was comfortable having someone around who didn’t always worship his superior intelligence.

    I can’t wait till someone like a Woodward publishes a book on the behind the scenes Obama WH.

  20. Sharon W Says:

    Obviously we care, but I don’t delude myself that my nice family & friends on the left (we are seriously outnumbered in our sphere) do care. The thought that these Generals were in charge when more U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded during President Barack Obama’s first term in office than former President George W. Bush’s two terms and leading up to the election, green on blue deaths were surging and we suffered the largest military loss of equipment ($240,000,000 in helicopters that can’t be replaced) and nary a peep from our fellow citizens (media included) that have given us such a CIC

  21. expat Says:

    Here’s that article on Petraeus and Iran (via Poweline):

  22. parker Says:

    I was wrong about the election, and I may well be wrong about Benghazi; but I can’t see this being swept under the rug. Petraeus has destroyed his reputation and besmirched the legacy of his achievements. Why assume he will now, testifying a second time on Benghazi, fall on his sword for the messiah?

  23. Curtis Says:

    President hitched-up-britches Obama has found patriarchal nuance quite alright in his protection, nay, intimidation, threat, and dare against anyone who might lay a finger on the intrepid Susan Rice.

    Little narrow shouldered wanna be athlete all roused up. Hmmm. Better check both of their emails.

  24. southpaw Says:

    parker said: “I may well be wrong about Benghazi; but I can’t see this being swept under the rug. Petraeus has destroyed his reputation and besmirched the legacy of his achievements. Why assume he will now, testifying a second time on Benghazi, fall on his sword for the messiah?
    I’ve seen this movie before.
    Petraeus’ testimony won’t matter either way. It’s a no win scenario for him whichever way he goes. If he claims he advised it was a terrorist attack, he will have to defend his original statement as a deliberate lie, and explain why he lied. who believes a liar? If he tries to defend his original statement, he will either be written off as incompetent, or a liar, because there’s enough evidence now to call into doubt that’s what he knew at the time. I can see that little weasel Jay Carney snorting and rolling his eyes if he’s asked.
    Whichever way Petraeus’s situation plays out, I predict the republicans will make a great show of dragging things out out like they did with Fast and Furious, while the White House will give them the big middle finger and refuse to hand over documents. There probably aren’t any anyway – His Majesty was asleep, Hilliary was who knows were – the generals were shagging their girlfriends, or else writing them letters in hopes of it (in my opinion, WAY more pathetic)
    Act 1: Well the republicans will threaten subpoenas, but not follow through, because behind the scenes, the fearsome John Boner, master negotiator, crybaby, and grand cooperator, will try to use the threat of more subpoenas as a bargaining chip with the White House, to harden his position with the budget and taxes. Only Obama is not afraid of little John Boner, because he knows Boner is a limp d*&k, and will cave in anyway. Eventually, Boner will give a tearful speech about doing what’s right, and 6 months later Darryl will be allowed to do issue subpoenas, but it will be way too late. bla bla bla.
    Act 2: The republicans will be villified by the media for grandstanding, criticized as sore losers, all the while having no interest in anything but trying to destroy His Highness’s legacy. They will also be blamed for distracting the country from important matters, such as the exploding debt, which they caused in Obama’s first term, while he was helpless to fight them. Republicans will be accused of irritating the otherwise busy president with their witch hunts. Krauthammer will tell Brett Bear the republicans missed another opportunity to do something big. Boner will blame the tea party for being republicans.
    ACT 3: Angry and frustrated republicans in the house of reps, once again thwarted by their nemesis on both domestic and foreign policy issues, propose to cooperate with illegal immigration amnesty, vowing that adding 12 million democrats to the voter rolls will give the republicans their best chance of not caving in on critical budget issues, even when they have a majority. The tea party will fight this, but Boner will finally stand up, soaking in the approval of RINOs, democrats and the media.
    Epiloge: November 2014. Boner and house republicans, having gotten the blame for Benghazi, the budget, and the cratering economy, will get their asses kicked, being the first such congressional session where the opposing party loses seats in a president’s second term.
    Starring: the same cast as the original motion picture.

  25. parker Says:

    “Obama has found patriarchal nuance quite alright in his protection, nay, intimidation, threat, and dare against anyone who might lay a finger on the intrepid Susan Rice.”

    Personally, I would not touch Susan Rice with a ten foot pole. However, it is amusing to see BHO is getting testy. Narcissists can’t handle the heat in the kitchen. 4 dead in Benghazi. Contact your senators and representatives to demand a thorough investigation. 4 dead in Benghazi. 4 dead in Benghazi. Its the post election mantra. Keep repeating it.

  26. Otiose Says:

    If Krauthammer is correct then it’s also possible that the news item that circulated right after the resignation broke regarding the possibility of court marshal for Petraeus was a message to be careful about future testimony/comments.

  27. kolnai Says:

    Damn, southpaw.

    I hate that movie. S. Alinsky was the screenwriter, right?

  28. expat Says:

    The real problem isn’t Rice. It’s Obama who sent a person “not involved in Benghazi” to 5 talks shows to tell us about it. See Claudia Rosett at PJM.

  29. kolnai Says:

    Off-topic, but I thought everyone would want to see this:

    I have long been an Auslin fan. I used to read his stuff when he was the resident Asia scholar at AEI, but I never suspected that he had much of interest to say on the American scene.

    But he does; along with a few others such as Steyn and Hanson, he’s been the most insightful NRO commenter after the deluge of what I will forever call, simply, “Tuesday.”

    (Mark Steyn reported that someone, maybe Hugh Hewitt, said his latest book – “After America” – should be re-titled “Wednesday.”)

    Michael Auslin gets it, and in the post linked above he’s basically repeating what Occam’s Beard was saying the day after the election (aka, Wednesday). Maybe there’s hope that other people with a higher reach than ourselves will get it too.

  30. Charles Says:

    Will we ever find out the truth? And furthermore: even if we do, will enough people care?”

    Sadly, I believe that the answer is no.

  31. southpaw Says:

    Kolnai – I think that’s his name. Produced by the public school teachers unions, AFLCIO, SAG,NBC, CBS, ABC, and sponsored by Kool-Aid.

  32. csimon Says:

    “Who would have believed that Chicago style politics could be applied to the whole country?”

    Mr. Frank, are you kidding?

  33. parker Says:

    “The real problem isn’t Rice.”

    Did I type any words that made anyone think I thought the problem was Rice? Despite what anyone may believe I am not a total idiot. Obviously the problem is BHO and the MSM that runs cover for the messiah.

    The only recourse, short of rebellion via the cartridge box, is for people like us to let our representatives in DC know that we want answers to hard questions. If any of you are not willing to repeatedly badger your representatives that you want those answers you should stop pretending that you care one way or the other. Throw up your hands, spin in circles, and do the Hokey Pokey. Pout and wear a frown. Kick the dog and lament that nothing can be done.

    4 dead in Benghazi is the issue and BHO lied. Do everything you can to make it the issue on Main Street. Or, give up, roll over, and accept the darkness. Personally, I’m not ready to roll over. 4 dead in Benghazi is the most egregious scandal by an administration since 1789. Get with it. Several times daily demand of your representatives that the truth is aired for all to see. Your only other option is to express your outrage on the www and tell yourself you care.

  34. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    I agree. E-mails and phone calls get their attention.
    Personal snail mail letters are great, but take a lot of time to get to them because of security protocols.

    Yes, their staffs are reading most of the stuff, but when the volume is turned up on an issue, it is called to their attention. We need to demand answers.

  35. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    For those who care, this is what I just sent to all my representatives:

    “Dear Senator Cantwell,
    I am completely disgusted by the lack of our national security apparatus’ (CIA, DOD, and STATE) apparent incompetence in the Benghazi attack that led to the deaths of four fine Americans. I demand that the Congress mobilize and get some answers. I want to see those who failed to recognize the obvious danger and prepare for this attack identified and punished.

    The facts seem plain. Our consulate was requesting more security and did not receive it. Then when they were attacked back up forces were not sent.

    An attack on a consulate is an act of war. This whole stinking mess is being soft pedaled by our C-in-C who I believe is soft on Islamic terrorism. If the blame leads to the President, I want him put on notice that the American people want a C-in-C who will do his job. Namely to protect and defend this country against all enemies. It is his primary job!!

    I am extremely angry and demand that you join your fellow Senators in investigating this.


    Feel free to use this as a format for your own e-maills.

  36. parker Says:

    JJ formerly,


  37. expat Says:

    I was trying to say that Obama is directing attention to Rice, while Claudia Rosett did a pretty good job of pointing out that Obama is the problem. I certainly didn’t think you fell for Obama’s garbage.

    Unrelated point: Last night’s German reporting on Obama’s presser was that he didn’t dis Petraeus and that there were no security lapses. I really can’t bear listening to these ignoramuses any more. My husband, however, does listen to the news about Germany, so I can’t completely avoid them. At least my husband knows that they are incompetent to report on America.

  38. kaba Says:

    Given a sycophant press too few will ever know the truth about Benghazi. And so long as the bread and circuses continue uninterrupted, even fewer will care.

    One of the bugs or features of being a democratic republic is that those who are elected tend to reflect the population at large. We are a spoiled, selfish, and corrupt people. And not surprisingly that is exactly the nature of the government we now see.

  39. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    As someone who formerly relied on the output of what has been called the Government’s “statistical apparatus”–the economic numbers put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and a whole host of other government departments and agencies, and the numbers in the Budget of the United States—in my daily working life, numbers that were generally and almost universally accepted as being the best around, the best, most accurate in all the world, in fact, and as close to an honest appraisal and snapshot of what was going on, on the ground, as could reasonably be expected, I point out that this whole system has been corrupted by this administration, and is now suspect.

    Whereas in the past we could rely on this numbers—coming out on schedule, whether good or bad—we now increasingly doubt them, find them suspicious, manipulated, or for some trumped-up reason delayed, “unexpected,” or not widely reported.

    We used to sneer at the obviously false statistics put out by the old U.S.S.R. and its satellite states, and point to ours as “transparent” and real and a model of how things should be done but, increasingly, we are the ones whose economic numbers and statistics are starting to look like fabrications, manipulated for political reasons, and worthy of being sneered at, as we have now acquired one of the key hallmarks of tin-horn dictatorships everywhere.

  40. M of Hollywood Says:

  41. Curtis Says:

    Thank you for that observation, Wolla Dalbo. It is one of the reasons I believe Romney was actually elected. I don’t know by how much, probably not by much, but the many varied and accepted forms of vote fraud could account for misreporting 5% of the votes cast. The actual Democrat vote was less than received; the actual Republican vote was more than received. These two working together have provided Democrats the new narrative of “demographic shift.” But the actual shift is nil.

    If Romney had beenelected by the slimmest of margins, what would have been our reaction? Would it have been universally different than it is? Yes, We would be stating the salvation of America. And the difference between the two scenarios is a slim margin of the total population.

    On another topic but deriving from Wolla Dalbo’s assertion of fact that gov’t statistics are degraded and corrupt: Politics drive everything for about half of our country and this sad state of affairs is a result of choosing the modern philosophy over religion. American Digest neatly sums it, as neat and brief as anything I’ve seen:

    Up until our own times men had only received two sorts of teaching in what concerns the relations between politics and morality. One was Plato’s and it said: “Morality decides politics”; and the other was Machiavelli’s, and it said “Politics have nothing to do with morality.” Today we receive a third. M. Maurras teaches: “Politics decide morality.” — Treason of the Intellectuals (1927) by Julien Benda

  42. Paul A'Barge Says:

    2013 – House of Representatives votes to Impeach Obama
    2014 – US Senate taken by Republicans
    2015 – US Senate votes to convict Obama

    repeat for Biden, Hillary and Eric Holder.

    It’s like shampoo instructions.

    And best part? … the media don’t get a vote.

  43. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States Says:

    }}} I sometimes whether whether the level of cynicism in America has gotten so huge that any corruption would be okay with most people as long as it doesn’t interfere with their stuff or their TV shows.

    Two words:


    Those Roman Emperors knew their shit.

    So do ours.

  44. Artfldgr Says:

    NEO: My error was in not realizing how alone I was in that belief within the Democratic Party, and what the long game actually was.

    right.. you were duped…
    maybe not where you thought or where you thought i meant, but the game is about duping you somewhere.

    read screwtape letters to get a handle on the subtlety of the real game vs the public’s ideas of such… that the public thinks in costumes, flourishes and archtypes… while the stories reveal that one only needs to distract you long enough or to move in the right direction as a correction later is irrelevent.

    so we look for the bigt thing that comes later
    and we ignore the little things.
    and lack of experience and the will to listen to those who are xpereicned, versed and so on, means you dont know what to focus on or not to focus on.

    you may be proud that affirmaticve action gave you the willies. but did you fight against it all your life? or did you just let it ride? if you let it ride, was it because you were duped as to how many believed something? and since you were duped that the number was higher, you then concluded “they dont need me” and just let it all happen?

    the game is not overt its INSIDIOUS…
    and if you cant think that way, even to know what it can do, your going to be duped.

    ie. there is reason why we hire abattoirs… some of us are not suited for the work

    since its a sociopathic movement, duping delight is part of the reward for screwing with you ON TOP OF POWER. add sadism into it so that you feel power by compelling people to act in ways they don’t want to (and if you didn’t have the power they would ignore you). and you might be able to envision where this will go and why there is now absolutely no way to stop it.

    you did not want to believe that people are unequal. maybe consciously you did, but unconsciously, you may be just following it and justifying how its not that afterwards.

    and so, our ablity to self organize around merit is undone by our desire to meet the pc world where its fair that every idea gets equal play. and that the de facto leader is the one that sets that, evemn if they dont know they are the leader.

    with all options equal, the key points to identify and focus on with limited resources could never be identified, as the thing requires discernment which is antithetical to the internalized normalized pc rules (which are based on female biology that women deny they have, and so, have a problem knowing what is or isnt, etc).

    ie. you have to play favorites and negatives for there to be progress towards a goal.

    the point was to understand then act, and to find the fulcrum, where the least energy cou,d do the most. the tap of the diamond cutter vs the sledghammer that dont work

    most of the ideas were predicated on a kind of control that the idea makers ignored they dont have. ie. they followed the academic model of postulating solutions that require totalitarian control of some sort… (and still do)

    in fact they still have not realized the implications of this and how it will play out.

    and mostly, they have NOT focused on the key things that they needed to focus on and know.,

    after all… soviets and their families when they came to the US, relieved that they didnt have to practice their skills at figurine out the real news from the fake news. but they do, and they know how – and watch people like you pretend competency and do nothing but fumble, have an excuse, and do not then correct and stop fumbling.

    your missing the training, experience, and the knowlege… you have facts… but they are not integrated. as this society has prevented integration of facts.

    go ahead… search and find a discussion of abortion AND redistribution…
    you wont find it because the ideas are in isolation. so you wont put things together.

    put them tgogether and you reveal the formula of social nitro glycerin
    [edited for length by n-n]

  45. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way, if you HAD realized it, you would have tried to negate it. you would have realized that it was genocide still, and the target was you and your contemporaries, whether they knew or not.

    and this is how i know you dont know…

    if you had word your friends were going to be murdered would you wait so long and not act?

    so you dont know… you have a tentative belief, but as i described long long ago..

    certainty begs action…
    uncertainty begs inaction until certainty

    refuse certainty, and you get stuck on the inaction wheel forever.

    ie. pick a side, any side, it may be the wrong side, but unless you do you wont know either way…

    if you had picked their side, you would have attended and found out faster… (so reading and not attending to see what they are really like is still avoiding certainty)

    if you had picked the other side, you would have learned it and seen how to know it and so on.

    either way, your certainty would have delivered you much earlier than the uncertainty

    if your certain you will die when opening a door, do you open the door? Is this why hypnotized people act the way they do? the hypnotist induces the objects to appear in each persons mind model.

    (as i said, science does not have a single model of mind that can neatly explain all the effects that you see from good to bad to down right wacko… funny, but on this the Talmud is more accurate, though the antireligious would ignore that)

    if there is a box in front of them in their mind model, they will try to avoid it in reality.

    that should give you a clue to what they did.

    they crafted false mind models.

    and those that wake up just trade one side for another as they usually don’t do the hard work of fixing themselves from the damage of such games for their whole lives.

    waking up is only a start…
    you often treat it like the end and and that once that was attained the rest came. it didnt.

    the realization that one is not enlightened is the start of the journey to enlightenment, not the attainment of it.

    under Hegelian ideas, consciousness raising would be what? consciousness lowering.

    Just as nuclear bombs are peacemakers..

    so if you knew Hegel and them well enough from their doctrines, you would never be duped by the egotistic idea of having your consciousness raised to the same level as Rote Zora.

    real knowing is a true inoculation against fantasy and normalized delusion

    by the way…
    if you kneow that feminism was first a terrorist organization seeking communism through bombings… would you have ignored most of it?

    after all…. you know islam is about bombs, and you kow ayhers is about bombs and that puts them aside. but did you know that rote zora did bombs too for the same reason?

  46. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: actually, if may be a fine point, but I don’t think I was duped about the long game (although of course, the MSM was keeping it secret, so if you call that “duping” I guess it’s part of the picture), so much as that I wasn’t paying enough attention to politics and most definitely not to history, a subject I had never liked (funny, because I certainly find it fascinating now). At the time I was interested in other things, including my personal life and raising my family (which took an enormous amount of my energy), the arts, friends, etc. I found politics distasteful and boring. Once I started paying attention, the information was out there, and had been there all along.

    It’s not so much that I bought the counter narrative of the MSM (as I said, there were lots of things I was supposed to approve of that I did not think were good, such as affirmative action and bilingual education, which I recognized as bad). It was more that I did not focus enough attention on thinkers who were simpatico with me, so I didn’t realize I actually was more on the right than the left, and I most definitely did not learn the lessons of history until later.

    I was not a political activist at all in those days, nor was I a writer (except of poetry and fiction). My activism was limited to speaking out against these things in private discussions as well as university settings, where I sometimes found myself. Another topic, by the way, on which I always spoke out right from the start (and discussed in school settings) was education for the gifted—I was deeply against mainstreaming the gifted, always. But I never started any groups or ran for public office or did any public speaking about it; as I said, I was not an activist, except to express my opinion in a number of settings both private and public.

  47. neo-neocon Says:

    Curtis: had Romney been elected I would have been happy, but only mildly so. As I wrote before the election, it would only have bought us a bit of time. It would not have reversed any of the trends we’re bewailing now. It would have staved off Obamacare, and it would have given the right a chance to show what good its policies could do, if implemented, and that might have changed some hearts and minds towards the right. Perhaps.

  48. Artfldgr Says:

    Wallo: We used to sneer at the obviously false statistics put out by the old U.S.S.R. and its satellite states, and point to ours as “transparent” and real and a model of how things should be done but, increasingly, we are the ones whose economic numbers and statistics are starting to look like fabrications, manipulated for political reasons, and worthy of being sneered at, as we have now acquired one of the key hallmarks of tin-horn dictatorships everywhere


    that is what the process of PERMEATION does

    ie. the surface was left alone but the underneath was compromised and changed. people trusting something tend not to check its validity over and over or each time they use it. so they tend to stay with what is permeated.

    this is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of the Fabians abstracted to the trusted things in society.

    the good numbers were valid enough and were trusted. gut that sheep, put a wolf in it, and you can control the sheep till they realie that it cant be trusted again.

    this is why the names change and so on. but even neo denied that they code things as a way to coordinate then deny it and leave things that are not part of them but share the same things as a foil against being noticed.

    if you studied this… and were able to apply the abstraction from that study, you and others would realize that the same thing was waht they did to women.

    ie. the trust put into women, mothers, and all that was almost absolute… so if they could gut that, and play on that, they could use that trust to gain what they wanted till it was warn out..

    today they got what they wanted, and the older women dont want to get that the younger men and society at large no longer look at women as the part of society they were, but now the wolf with the pretty makeup who works against her own (And so against herself too).

    by the way. the men wouldnt let theirs be gutted the same way. so their reputation ahd to be slaughtered… so they gutted what a woman was, relied on her reputation to carry, and used that to slaughter that which could not be worn.

    ie. men are the sheepdogs (as the marines are so fond of saying).

    the sheep dog is like the wolf, but fights FOR The flock… the herd… the sheepdog exists to defend and protect and so cant be permeated the same way…

    in this analogy, they had to gut the women, go wear their reputation, so that they could get the rest of the sheep to murder the sheep dog because they could not tell the difference between German wolf packs, and English sheep dogs any more.

    its the same idea applied everywhere.

    whats a honeypot?

    a woman that wears the semblence of a respectable love, but who is a wolf in sheeps clothing gathering information, or bringing people down.

    you would think that the head of a spy agency would actually know how spycraft has been done throughout history..

    until the whole idea of women is gutted, which is what we actually have (but they dont accept as the ideology keeps telling them how wonderful they are… so wonderful they have no one that wants to be their mates!!!), then they will find that the respect that took them 10,000 years to create and polish…

    is all mined out by the gutting.

    oh. by the way… neo, if you combine the superiority of women leading them to the top positions and obamas push to level the field for them to put them in place

    with the bankruptcy and the economic condition they created to get them there,

    what is the outcome when you consider these things in combination (in vivo not in vitro)

    the women just got the system to force them into the top paying jobs at the same time as raising tax rates to the highest in history, while kicking their men out (so they are too busy to have babies with losers, as their biology does not accept mitigating conditions and make corrections)

    heck… they know women more than women know women, and so they played on their biological hypergamous natures… while denying they had them – do not look at what we are using against you please.

  49. Artfldgr Says:

    Neo, your entry is hard to address short, but i will try hard… please forgive that i have this communication issue that makes em long..

    i don’t want to reproduce your whole post to answer it, but i put this part here (with the caveat that duped is duped the way dead is dead. doesn’t matter if there is a good reason for it, its still duped!):

    At the time I was interested in other things, including my personal life and raising my family (which took an enormous amount of my energy), the arts, friends, etc. I found politics distasteful and boring. Once I started paying attention, the information was out there, and had been there all along.


    so let me put this up for you and then you might get it… its not that easy as you have a whole life to look back at and just cause you know now, don’t mean you know how

    Who or what taught you things? in the old days, monitoring the environment would be normal.
    your environment is not just the weather, and perhaps prices, but also crime, taxes, politics, and so on

    your duping started in childhood with the rhetoric that was telling you what women do
    and wanting to be a good woman, you just accepted it and went on your way
    part of it too, was that there used to be a division of labor along gender lines which accentuated what we did better, to negate what we were not so good at. men, not so good at breast feeding. women, not so good at paying attention to the outer world, inner world interface.

    you were told that the natures that women had, they didnt have. so you were not allowed then by that fact to compute certain outcomes.

    so if you look to what you just described. what your describing to me is what i know to be someone who was taught that the whole world was the inside world. one big happy family, with no outside. a big tribe.

    the rhetoric i quote came later, but the message was still the same…

    now… you also point out that raising a family is a lot of work. MEN AGREE…
    and the only way to do it best is a division of labor… and a changing of the system as needs go

    so, what creates a situation where you had too much on your plate
    and so HAD to eject something to have enough time, and not be so guilty

    feminism… ie. equal opportunity and the shrugging off of family…

    raise you can do it all, you had to eject important things to pretend to do it all
    or be a example of failure to all women kind..

    whether you liked it or not, perceived it or not, or think it affected you or not
    your steeped in the zeitgeist of that and OTHERS doing the dances too.

    before i go on, i want to point out..

    why did you think the critical things of your life that were
    necessary to have a optimum successful life were boring, not interesting and all that?

    who was presenting it that way
    and who was dictating the cirriculum
    and who was in control of that, and could make it so dry you never want to look?

    and who was in control of teachers through the unions?
    communists… specifically bella dodd, and the teachers union she headed

    see? if putting the pieces up gets cut down… as the number of them is so large
    then putting up the parts in between the pieces has no chance to exist

    who shortened our attention spans

    who invented a new kind of freedom called slavery?
    (marx, and you can even look up that term)

  50. Artfldgr Says:

    It’s not so much that I bought the counter narrative of the MSM (as I said, there were lots of things I was supposed to approve of that I did not think were good, such as affirmative action and bilingual education, which I recognized as bad). It was more that I did not focus enough attention on thinkers who were simpatico with me, so I didn’t realize I actually was more on the right than the left, and I most definitely did not learn the lessons of history until later.


    you didnt convert. you found out that once you paid attention, your brain would figure it out and then decide they were gaming you.

    the response to that is either to work hard to maintain the delusion they are not, or accept they are and find someone that does represent you more

    THIS was what i have been trying to tell you with all those book references for four years, and even saying this several times.

    the comment you made means you finally internalized it from facts to knowlege, and that now, you can see, that you never changed.

    this is why i refer to cargo cult..
    wolves in sheeps clothing

    you see… FALSE FRONT

    once you get that and the mechanism and the principals, then your going to start noticing things of substance and no substance.

    you will then be amazed at how smart people, very smart people, can not see it or will fight hard to not see it.

    but then thats the self esteem ego thing going. after all, to actually progress we have to admit our errors… then we can learn from them. an error not made is an error not learned from

    so until you admit the game, put ego aside, and all that… THEN you wont get it. but once you do, you suddenly realize that there is no shame in being tricked, the ego wall was a false front, a false fear… everyone is tricked sometimes! but if you expend every effort to protect your ego from admitting that, then you never learn from it.

    now you have to play catch up
    you need to find many gurus
    people who will tell you the same thing in many different ways, where your brain will realize the intersection of all that is the thing to learn

    once this happens, then you get the anger, the energy, the idea of opposing.. the indignation of how dare they… the double indignation of how dare they start with children!

    you cant get out of the crab bucket until you find someone to lift you out, as the others are ready to drag you in.

    I was not a political activist at all in those days, nor was I a writer (except of poetry and fiction). My activism was limited to speaking out against these things in private discussions as well as university settings, where I sometimes found myself. Another topic, by the way, on which I always spoke out right from the start (and discussed in school settings) was education for the gifted—I was deeply against mainstreaming the gifted, always. But I never started any groups or ran for public office or did any public speaking about it; as I said, I was not an activist, except to express my opinion in a number of settings both private and public.

    actually you were and didn’t know it!

    you were just taught that you could bow out and pretend you were not making a political choice doing so…

    your political activism was the abrogation of your part and that being given to feminism!!!!

    ie. if you were not against them you were for them!!!!

    and the reason is that they are monolithic, so it boils down to only that choice… a ha! they understand this, and so they construct this kind of thing… and they even discuss it, which is a lot more creepy than affirmative action!

    they taught you that you could be politically inactive, when that is a condition that is not possible.

    when you asked your kids what are you doing, didnt it annoy you they said “nothing”? 🙂


    because the left didnt teach you the rule and so you were free to be sane there and realize there was no way to do nothing. in fact, doing nothing is doing something. no?

    but they also said… politically you can do nothing… you even explain things today in terms of it. but is the premise that your point is turning on valid? nope.

    this is where the dissonance between their points then screams at you IF you take a look. the personal is political slams up against the false apolitical state.

    in essence they said everything is political, and if some people dont want to tell what they want, we will speak for them.

    and THATS how you supported the whole of feminism by not acting…

    you cant bow out… but as long as your duped into thinking you can, and try, they get to vote your choice. your not present, they are, and there is a choice to be made..

    clever eh?

    but you will never work it out while inside it, or not being passed it, or having learned what was or isn’t.

    as in the screwtape letters, they did not need you to vote for them, they only needed you not to vote against them

  51. Artfldgr Says:

    last comment from me on this thread.. (probably)

    what was the BIGGEST DUPE?

    that women could oppose their mates and exist apart from them ignoring their biology and still think that they would be a meaningful anything in a future they were not immortal in.

    not only did i tell you the fulcrum and pivot

    but i also told you how to change the election

    do you think women would be too stupid to not get that? i don’t. i think they are not as smart as men when it comes to the outer world inner world thing. and everyone is stupid enough to be duped!!!

    but are they stupid enough to rid the trick over the cliff and join thelma and louise?


    and why are they so stupid?
    because they think they are so smart
    and who told them they are so smart?
    the people duping them

    but you tell me, how can a person with no children or fewer children than the other groups that wish them exterminated, think that they are meaningful to the future?

    women are not meaningful to the future unless they are women and have babies.

    and look how big the focus is by feminists to NOT accept that everything important about being a woman is in babies… as everything that is important about being a man is providing AND protecting (they leave that out, no? but how can you resolve a oppressor and protector? a ha! another facet of the game)

    the women who opposed their mates negated their mates AND themselves. their greater numbers through lower mortality in every category means that there are enough extra to cover others.

    they did not choose obama
    they did not choose romney

    they negated their choice by picking blind opposition to their mates making choices in terms of healthy families, good society, responsibility, etc.

    and in this game…
    the only ones that can stop the women are women… just as the only ones that can stop the race hate are the Africans who don’t hate.

    any action by a group that is believed to be outside not part of the larger group and common, would help vindicate the dialogue.

    so… men cant negate feminism, only women can. that is reinforced in movies as the thin boned babe fights but does not get scarred, broken bones, hair out of place, etc. and beats a man many times her size.

    the truth… in every case the man would blow through her as if she wasnt there. why? because that is what other women picked him for…

    men are more competent in the world, and more inventive and all that. that is their nature. why do we have that nature? prior to feminisms desire to breed that out of man, your mothers, grandmothers, and great grandmothers chose men more competent in the real world.

    so, men and women are equal, and the more we apply that, women are more equal, and the more we apply that, we decline and our fecundity approaches unity (0)

    the target here is the large group of moral europeans that made america.

    how did they remove them? they turned the women against their mates with a huge amount of pseudo science bs claiming knowledge before we ever knew.

    imagine what kind of society we would have if the women didnt get played like that?

    what would the crime rate be?
    what would the morality level would be?
    education level?
    freedom from government interference?
    size of welfare?
    high or low taxes?
    more or less leisure?
    happy gulag, or wage slave?

  52. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: I never said there was some fundamental change in my beliefs. I’ve said I changed my political affiliation and identity based on new information about what was really happening, and what had been happening earlier, and especially how unreliable the MSM was as a reporter and analyzer of events. If you read my lengthy change essays, you’ll see that I when I get around to describing my change experience, I ascribe the process mostly to reading more widely and from more sources (on the internet, primarily, which gave me easy access to many more newspapers, periodicals, and essays) and getting more information about how the media and the left had slanted things and continued to slant things. That led to a series of “aha!” moments. That’s the gist of it—that, and the fact that I was relatively apolitical before and became more politically oriented and motivated after 9/11.

    I’m not just getting this now. I “got it” from the start of my change. I realized I hadn’t really changed my beliefs, I was reacting to a change in information.

  53. Curtis Says:

    Thank you for that observation, Neo. It makes sense. Actually, I would have thought that way as a caution but probably been more along the lines of the renewal of America too.

    I’m picking up a very heavy vibe that our American empire is closing down.

    It’s not the vibe I want, but it’s the vibe that’s there.

  54. Artfldgr Says:

    kind of mixed the point while looking at yourself no?

  55. Artfldgr Says:

    I never said there was some fundamental change in my beliefs. I’ve said I changed my political affiliation and identity based on new information about what was really happening….

    if so, wouldnt the title
    How long does it take to change from left to right?

    be more correct
    How long does it take to change sides from left to right?

    and what about this title you wrote:
    A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story

    wrong words if your point above is valid, no?

    if your above was valid and you didn’t change, wouldn’t your title be different?

    why change your mind, if your mind is not changing and your chaning sides?

    makes no sense to me
    but i always catch people revisioning their words, the same way rainman would catch someone saying a wrong stat (and for the same reason!)

    let me know. and i will go through it and show you where what you just said above is not what you said then…

    by the way, if it was, then i would not have had to write those long pieces saying that.
    and quote those other books, and ask you to read things that would show you that.

    too bad we speak too loose..

    by the way, i remember you told us your exact age within a year… do you?


  56. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: the title was meant to indicate several things:

    (1)I changed my mind about my political affiliation

    (2) I changed my mind about my interpretation of history

    (3) I changed my mind about the veracity of the media sources I had previously trusted

    (4) I fought against the evidence before me that showed me these things (i.e., for example, that I’m not really a Democrat, and actually never have been, even though I voted that way for years, back when I was relatively apolitical), because yes, a mind is a difficult thing to change. It’s difficult to admit one was wrong about something, even if it’s something like trusting the MSM when they actually aren’t trustworthy. Most people would go to great lengths to avoid such a readjustment.

    (5) Tying in with #4 above, I’ve found that, when I try to tell people what I’ve learned, they resist changing their minds about these things.

    And so yes, a mind is a difficult thing to change, about lots of things. When I use the word “mind” (and when most people use it), I do not mean an entire mind—beliefs, values, everything. “To change one’s mind” has a common meaning—it does not mean to completely change every single value or belief one ever had. It can be about something small (whether you like a certain food, for example) or something big (a political affiliation, and one’s trust in the media, for example, like what I went through).

    So no, not the wrong words at all—except in the sense of Popper’s quote: “Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.” You are misunderstanding me, and it is not the first time.

  57. parker Says:

    “… hard to address short, but i will try hard..”

    No, artfldgr, you never try to address short. You are grandiose and condescending. In your mind everyone is ignorant and ill informed. In your mind you are all knowing and everyone else is a dupe simply because they do not know ever factoid and reference that you know. You fail to realize others walk a different path to the top of the mountain. You think your path is the only path. That is where you are wrong.

    Your knowledge is vast and you have a keen mind, but your assumptions about the other blinking and breathing members of your species are often inaccurate when it is directed at those who follow this blog. We all read the clouds, the direction of the wind, watch the barometer, and usually, but not always, have an accurate idea of what the weather will be like during the next 24 hours.

    “The phone is tapped anyway.”

  58. RandomThoughts Says:

    Thank you, parker, for stating more calmly and eloquently than I would have what I was thinking.

    I’ve always thought that the purpose of participating in comment threads like those Neo provides is to engage in dialog…which presupposes a willingness to consider the opinions of others, not dominate the discussion, and not talk down to the rest of the participants as though they were lower life forms.

    And just because one doesn’t intend to do it, or has some psychological/biological condition that makes behaving like a pontificating intellectual unavoidable, doesn’t mean one isn’t responsible for that behavior.

  59. T Says:


    You write “. . . a mind is a difficult thing to change . . . .”

    Agreed. IMO the fundamental problem is that it requires the changer to admit that in some respect their previous position–opinion–paradigm was not correct. To admit to one’s self that one was wrong is probably the single most profoundly difficult recognition we all, as human beings, face. IMO it requires an unommon sort of self-effacing humility. Thus, it is far less emotionally painful to be inured to the status quo even if we know it might be improper or incorrect.

    This puts your own political change in a different light. As much as it may be about recognizing a “right” or a “wrong” position it is moreso (again IMO) about having the courage to take a very difficult and decisive step. Perhaps this is one reason that your intelligent liberal friends do not “convert.” Conversion requires a profound internal courage and as I age it becomes increasingly clearer that this is a phenomenally rare human commodity.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge