Jonah Goldberg is so Friggin’ Stupid

So I watched this disgusting video from the Daily Caller:

Basically, here we have a man who is afraid of the youth rallying around Ron Paul or the extreme Left-wing.  Put simply, his neoconservative brand has been proven to be a failure, given the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, the failures of the neoconservative economic policy (which comes courtesy of long dead economists and homosexual hedonist Lord John Maynard Keynes), and the outright failures of the neoconservatives to avert the financial crisis, both past, present, and yet to come in the near future, of which their compatriots in the Republican party take much blame alongside the Democrats.

Let me deconstruct some of his arguments here bit by bit:

“Personally I think the voting age should be higher, not lower.  I think it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18 to be brutally honest.”

That’s fair.  But I want to challenge Jonah Goldberg with something: where in the Constitution does it say that you had to be 21 or older to vote?  In other words, when the amendment was passed to lower the voting age, it did not overwrite any existing articles or amendments to the United States Constitution.  Secondly, this was done back when we had a draft and warmongers like Mr. Goldberg were sending 18-year-olds overseas, especially poor minorities, to die without having at least a minor say in their policies.

It is true that young people are largely apathetic when it comes to the political process.  They do not care much for voting for some pompous old guy who reminds them of their father.  However, like so many other older Americans, they do enjoy their share of free handouts and have no problem mooching off of others.  I can say that I am certain that many young people, especially those closer to my age, harbor resentment toward authority figures who have told them to go to college and get a worthless degree and not to worry about the debt they have acquired as a result.  Meanwhile, they are having trouble finding jobs related to career fields such as Anthropology, Business Administration, and Communications, not to mention the utterly worthless degrees like basket weaving and <insert supposed victim minority here> studies.  So they are saddled with mounds of debt before they even have a job to pay it off and then come to find that the high-powered salary position they should have gotten upon graduation is really waiting tables for other successful people.  And we wonder why the Occupy Movement gained so much traction?

Another thing that annoys me about this statement is that even though joining the US military is completely optional, he basically said he wants to nullify their votes and allow politically motivated men to direct the affairs of the military, effectively using our troops as pawns and cannon fodder for personal gain.

“If they’re going to run the country one day, then we should probably explain to them why they are so friggin’ stupid about things and it is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity than youth.”

So tell me, Mr. Goldberg, how does one measure stupidity?  There must be a way since science requires, first and foremost, some tangible unit of measurement in order to facilitate experimentation.  At least the hard sciences do, but I don’t consider “soft” science to be true science at all really.

On the other hand, I am bearing witness to the extreme stupidity and selfishness of the elder generation.  So far, they have saddled the youth with debt, flooded the market with money thereby inflated the cost of goods and services, spend themselves into debt where they are totally reliant on government, and voted for the people who will not change any of this but keep the gravy train rolling.  They have little regard for the youth of America and see us as little more than producers to be exploited for their own gain.  Even the elderly who can afford healthcare are on Medicare, justifying it by saying that they paid into the government Ponzi scheme (and it is a Ponzi scheme) and thus they deserve the payouts, regardless of how bad the return is.

Meanwhile, the youth by and large do not believe that either Social Security or Medicare will be available for them when they reach that age.  They know this because they understand how Ponzi schemes work and that there just simply isn’t enough money to be used in that manner.  They also distrust many of our leaders to do the right thing.

Since Mr. Goldberg is a little on the arrogant side himself, let me explain something to him: wisdom does not come with age.  I know that the motif throughout much of our culture is the wise old man but the truth is that wisdom is not something people get as they grow older.  But arrogance and haughtiness is something that many elderly, especially these days, gain as they grow older and become more set in their ways.

The fact that young people think Socialism is better than capitalism, that’s proof of what social scientists call their stupidity.

First of all, the fact that most people cannot explain the differences between Socialism, corporatism, and capitalism, regardless of age, shows that most people are idiots.  The fact that Jonah Goldberg and others like him cannot see the difference between capitalism and corporatism demonstrates severe retardation when it comes to the field of economics.

Secondly, one of the primary reasons that is true is largely because of the State-run education system in our country that has favored obedience over critical thinking and collectivism over individualism.  If Jonah Goldberg had any sense, he wouldn’t fault the youth for falling for thirteen years of indoctrination from the American Left.

Thirdly, this idiot probably wouldn’t know what true capitalism was anymore than knowing what the true Constitution really says about legal tender, standing armies, and the size of the House of Representatives.  I don’t see guys like him calling for limited government, but more government, just a socially-conservative and pro-world police one.  That is hardly a model for a free market.

Fourthly, if Jonah Goldberg had any wisdom whatsoever, he would know that our form of government is supposed to be a Republic and not “Democratic capitalism”.  This means he is a clear failure at understanding even the basic ideas behind the Constitution, which are taught in high school if you take advanced political science.

The fact is, National Review is, and always has been, a big joke of an organization.  It was founded on the premise of big-government corporatism in order to snuff out the Soviets, who were considered enemies not because of Socialism or communism but because they were not Catholic or, at the very least, Christian.  The founders of the organization, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell, Jr. were devout Catholics who viewed the Soviets as a threat to their beliefs.  They were probably correct, but they also were not conservative in their zeal to expand the military in order to continue the Cold War.

To his credit, William F. Buckley would later denounce the War on Drugs as having been a failure and denounce the War on Terror.  I don’t think Jonah Goldberg listened to the wisdom of the his elder in this case and shows the same level of stupidity he mention in the short video clip.

Jonah Goldberg represents the Republican party establishment here.  While his words are directed at the Left-wing youth, he considers all youth to be “Socialist” and I assume he probably lumps in groups like Young Americans for Liberty as well because they do not share his socially conservative, pro-war views.  Men like him are merely totalitarians (did he not say he wanted to beat sense into us, both literally and figuratively?) who disguise their true intentions with conservative buzzwords like “Founding Fathers” and “constitution” and “liberalism”.  The truth is, he is just as bad as the so-called Socialists he opposes, just on the other side of the coin.

As for me, I’m really hoping that the coin will land on its edge.

Military Wife Tells Off Neocon Kristol

Should Bill Kristol Leave the Republican Party?

Fox Neo-Cons Fighting Hard Against Ron Paul

Paul now leads in Iowa, and it has the neocon warmongering warfare state pro-police state GOP establishment going crazy. Notice how former McCain/Palin asswipe Ford O'Connell (and by the way, Ford, McCain got his ass kicked in 08 by Obama, or have you forgotten already - yeah, he was a great candidate!) when asked if Ron Paul wins the nomination, calls Paul "dangerous" and goes to the issue (along with the moronic statist Fox "News" host) of Dr. Paul "not being a team player" (meaning, of course, the pro-war neocon team) and those "racist" newsletters of 20 years ago. He also shifts purposely away from comparing Paul vs. Obama to neocon liar and statist Romney vs Obama to a Ron Paul third party run ruining it for Romney!

No mention of Americans being sick of foreign wars and Paul's increasing popularity with former Obama supporters (because Ron Paul would actually do what Obama only promised to do).

Stop shilling for the state, Ford, and go disappear!

Betrayal of the Constitution: An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda

We've been neo-conned! The neoconservatives - a name they gave themselves - have diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hope to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and ARE NOT true conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

If the neocons retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas once championed by conservatives of limiting the size and scope of government, will be a long-forgotten dream.

Here is a partial summary of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution - violent as well as intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

7. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

8. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

9. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.

10. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

11. Using American might to force their ideals on other nations is acceptable.

12. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

Best Neocon Ever

Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead and Barack Hussein Obama has released his Birth Certificate (at least, a fake one that probably has accurate data on it), we can all rest easy that President Obama has been legitimately tearing apart the Constitution and robbing us of our everyday rights on a scale that only President Bush could hope to have accomplished.  In fact, I would argue that President Obama has been the penultimate example of what the neocon warhawks were seeking to accomplish all along.

Let’s start with the foreign policies that Obama has maintained and ramped up since taking office.  First of all, the Democrats are probably the biggest hypocrites when it comes to being anti-war.  Every major war that the United States has fought in the last 100 years was started by a Democrat President, and usually with some farcical notion of spreading Democracy or eliminating oppression around the world.  When the conservative movement picked it up in the 1950s, that’s when it became political.  You see, before that ugly Catholic known as William F. Buckley, Jr. came on the scene, the conservative movement was largely a non-interventionist movement.  Many of them even opposed World War II.

So when President Bush started two invasions and occupations, the Democrats weren’t mad because of the war, but because he had stolen their idea.  Since no politician can copyright a policy (yet), there was no way for the Democrats to complain about it and so they pretended to support the Leftist anti-war movement.  In truth, the Democrat elites in Congress are the perfect example of an oligarchy complete with full contempt for their supporters.

Despite this, neither party seems to have a monopoly on waging war effectively in the last 6 decades, unless it’s a country the size of Rhode Island.  This probably has something to do with the fact that no official declaration of war has been past by Congress in that time.  Neoconservatives will argue that so long as Congress continues to authorize funding for the wars, this is the equivalent.  Of course, they’ve never really read up on what the founding fathers have said in the past about it.

In any case, they are correct to a degree.  Which leads me to another point that Democrats, including our current President, are bigger neocon warhawks than the neocons themselves.  Once the Democrats took official control of Congress in 2007, they had the power to defund the unconstitutional foreign wars that we have been involved in.  In other words, they had the power to stop it but didn’t bother too.  Never, ever trust a Botox smile from a woman is the lesson here.

Then Barack Obama, who promised to end foreign wars, has ramped up the wars and ordered the execution of Osama Bin Laden.  Now, I’m not angry with Obama for doing it all, I actually am indifferent about the whole matter (and it would seem that the polls are showing the same attitude across America).  But I wonder why it took the CIA, who is suppose to be the best intelligence agency in the world, six years to find him.  He was sitting in the same house for six years.  Meanwhile, because of the CIA’s ineptitude, thousands of lives were lost.

Still, I have to give credit where credit is due.  President Obama, on the word of a tortured detainee, was able to find and execute a mass murderer.  The neocons would be proud.

Our Neo-Con President

Neocons Want Another U.S. War In The Middle East

This time it's Libya. It's all the usual suspects, including the extremely evil Sen. Joe Lieberman, dirt bag Paul Wolfowitz, the pond scum who was a major architect of the illegal aggression in Iraq, and baby Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the neocon loons over at the Project for the New American Century.







US neo-cons urge Libya intervention

The Battle for Young Americans?

"When Young Americans for Freedom purged Ron Paul from its advisory board, it revealed itself an organization virtually non-existent in numbers and philosophy."

Bush - Damn right (I’m a brainless worthless whore)

‘Damn right’ I personally ordered waterboarding: Bush

President George W. Bush admits for the first time in his new memoir that he personally approved the use of waterboarding, a technique in which an interrogator simulates drowning on a suspect. The method, which most describe as torture, has since been banned by the Justice Department.

In his book, "Decision Points," Bush asserts that he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency whether he would support the agency's waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind.

"Damn right," Bush says that he said.

The Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith avers that a source close to Bush says he would have done the same thing again "to save lives," though there's been no proof produced that the torture technique has.

The mind of a “good religious god-fearing” person... Ugh.

Hanlon gets pwned by Greenhut

Conservative Chip Hanlon gives a silly anti-libertarian rant, saying we're out of touch with the "mainstream." Greenhut's response is pwnage.

Tom Woods on the "progressives"

The George W. Bush years were such an ordeal that I actually remember thinking that the left wasn’t all bad. With a few honorable exceptions, though, they are what they have always been: anti-intellectual apologists for the status quo masquerading as “agents of change.” They claim to be antiwar but make excuses for people who vote the funds for war. They claim to oppose the neoconservatives but happily applaud when their cult leader surrounds himself with them, and seem untroubled when Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol declares, in response to the president’s policy on Afghanistan, “All hail Obama!” And they’re all tears and pity for average Americans, while at the same time demonizing people who think there might be something a teensy weensy bit not-progressive about creating trillions of dollars and throwing it at the financial elite.

-Establishment Chic

Obama Screws His Supporters

Perhaps it is all a gigantic head fake. Maybe President-elect Obama is going to dash Left as soon as he utters the words “So help me God” next week. But so far, there seems to be the most astounding and sweeping repudiation of a president’s own base of support in the offing since … well, since forever.

No Change

The Democratic Party is totally bankrupt. In 2006, the American public repudiated the President by electing a Democratic majority to both house of congress. In 2008, unable to stand any more of Bush and the neocon nuts running the show, they elected Obama and returned larger majorities of Democrats to congress. Will the will of the people be obeyed, i.e., will we bring the troops home from Iraq? Don't count on it.

The Same Old Change

The Death of the GOP (and the end of the empire)

This has always been the Republicans' war, no matter how enthusiastically most of the Democratic leadership initially supported it. The war we're supposedly "winning" has been the overarching theme of the McCain campaign, and he doesn't seem comfortable talking about anything else – unless it's why we must guarantee the borders of every obscure ex-Soviet "republic" for all time. The prime-time speakers at the Republican convention echoed the party line on the war, ad nauseam, and the entire event was one long paean to militarism and the glory of war. There were more uniforms in that convention hall than at the graduating ceremonies of West Point and Annapolis combined, and all the talk was of valor on the battlefield. Perhaps they should change their name to the Praetorian Party.


Justin Raimondo explains.

The history of this crew (the neocons) is too well-known to go into here in any detail: indeed, their narcissism has provided researchers with an overabundance of material that documents their hegira from far Left to far Right. Suffice to say that this vexatious faction entered the bloodstream of the conservative movement during the Cold War years, when pro-war (that's the Vietnam War) Democrats jumped ship and joined the GOP in protest over "McGovernism," i.e., a Democratic Party that rejected the politics of LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, and the neocons' favorite Democratic politician, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Boeing).

The sudden infusion of a bunch of highbrow leftist intellectuals into the conservative movement was welcomed by the organs of respectable conservative opinion, such as National Review. A few dissenters, such as Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan, and the editors of Chronicles magazine, warned their fellows of trouble to come, but they were ignored. The neocons were bringing not only intellectual respectability and attention from liberal redoubts in the media and academia, but also hauling in plenty of dough. The big conservative foundations poured money into neocon projects and subsidized their up-and-coming intellectual dromedaries, driving out dissenters and imprinting the movement with their peculiar obsessions – first and foremost, an unmitigated militarism.

I was watching Sarah Palin give a speech (with the lines we've heard her say over and over) this morning in Maine. That "unmitigated militarism" was on display again, with Palin repeating her ridiculous mantra about thanking our veterans for our freedoms (that they are somehow "fighting for" all the way over in Iraq) as if we would somehow be less free if we weren't occupying a country THAT DID NOT ATTACK US. I suppose we were less free as well after our defeat in Vietnam, eh, Sarah? Did we suddenly lose our right to protest when we left that southeast Asian country in humiliation?

“I would hope at least that those protestors have the courage and the honor of thanking our veterans for giving them the right to protest.”
-Sarah Palin hilariously scolding her own supporters when they simply couldn't hear her.

I was listening to neocon Dennis Prager (in his own mind he is a "conservative") say the other day on his radio show that if the Democratic Party were the same party it was under John F. Kennedy (and presumably Truman, FDR, ad nauseum) then he would be a Democrat. This is typical of today's so-called "conservatives" (I love putting the word in quotes as there is little resembling true conservatism left in the current conservative movement) who know nothing of the history of real conservatism and their own beloved GOP. Robert Taft opposed Roosevelt's fascist New Deal as well as the interventionist foreign policy of the Democrats of his day. That was real conservatism, and I guess Prager wouldn't like it much, preferring the big government of FDR, Truman and Kennedy over Taft's constitutional republic. I wonder how Prager would vote if Joe "Warfare/Welfare" Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for president and Ron "End the Empire" Paul was the Republican nominee? I think we know the answer.

Senator Robert Taft

A Real Conservative

Invasion of the Pod People

Palin the Neocon Pod Person

The apprenticeship of Sarah Palin is an object lesson in how the neocons took over the American Right and saddled the GOP with their agenda of "big government conservatism" and perpetual war. Her brainwashing limns the experience and fate of the larger conservative movement, which has been reduced, these days, to a militaristic cult that remembers nothing of its origins – a movement of neocon pod-people.