More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 5 - December 7, 2020
This is not journalism. It’s not even the third-grade ramblings of a snot-nosed booger eater. It’s the vicious actions of a perverse, degraded, and disgusting human being.
If a conservative writer had done the same thing to a Democratic candidate, that writer would not only be shunned—he’d need a criminal defense attorney.
“George W. Bush,” I said to John, “is making a huge mistake with his ‘uniter not a divider’ line.” Using his lieutenant governor—Bob Bullock, a Democrat—as a campaign prop in order to demonstrate his goodwill was a mistake. Establishing the standard that he was the good guy who could work with the other side? A mistake.
“They’re not going to grant him his legitimacy; they’re not going to grant him his humanity.
Mark Fabiani, a Gore adviser, told the New York Times candidly: “We needed an enemy.”
It didn’t matter that Bush won Florida by every possible count, and it didn’t matter that even the New York Times and USA
Today and every other major publication ran stories tabulating the “uncounted” votes and recognizing Bush’s victory (on page 16B, by and large). What mattered were the front-page stories emphasizing that Gore had won, Bush had stolen the election, and the Supreme Court was in the pocket of the big corporations that wanted their man in the White House.
As the new president entered the White House without the usual bipartisan grace notes from the losing side, the exiting Clintonistas vandalized many of the offices they were vacating and, in an act of pure spite, removed the W from computer keyboards.
The press pursued Jenna in particular and framed her as a wild party child, and even Hollywood stars Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston took to Rolling Stone magazine to make Jenna the butt of an unfunny joke.
Martin Sheen, who many in West Los Angeles thought was the real president because of his role on The West Wing, called Bush a “moron.”
Flynt, Sheen, and Moore never graduated college (Flynt didn’t even graduate high school).4 Bush graduated from Harvard Business School.
September 11 took the pendulum and swung it away from polarization and toward unity; it brought America back to its natural state of E Pluribus Unum for a very short time, a time in which even Democrats were awkwardly forced to hold hands with Republicans and sing “God Bless America.”
Into that void stepped George W. Bush. He acted as a real leader, and he brought the country back together. He was no-nonsense, and he wasn’t the cowboy the Complex had made him out to be. “When I take action,” he said on September 13, 2001, “I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”
That created an obvious vacuum for the left. The Democrats were too busy pretending to like Bush and a strong America to soldier on. The vacuum was filled by the extreme left,
I remember looking at Susie and saying, “This is going to be the resurgence of the professoriate and the Baby Boomer left. This is what they’ve been waiting for.
Celebrities spoke first, because when 9/11 temporarily distracted us from our pop-cultural obsession, they, narcissists that they are, demanded the limelight back, and anti-Americanism and left-wing sloganeering became their de facto script for the Bush years.
They were my friends’ parents, who voted for Hayden even though they owned million-dollar houses. These people, who hung out with the richest of the rich, gave license to their sense of entitlement and noblesse oblige by hanging out with political radicals while simultaneously wearing the outfits and haircuts of conformists.
, “Whenever a top entertainer has a political bone to pick, he or she has an instant platform.”
Deconstructed, “Dissent is patriotic” is a self-negating slogan because its validity clearly depends on what kind of dissent you’re talking about.
Yes, Penn was a victim who could afford to take out a $56,000 ad in one of the nation’s leading newspapers.
The left began politicizing 9/11 by suggesting that if anyone from the right mentioned it, they were exploiting 9/11 in grotesque fashion, while simultaneously granting authority to the Jersey Girls, whose husbands died that horrific day and who blamed the Republicans (exclusively) for presiding over the eight months prior to 9/11, as opposed to the eight years of prior Democratic leadership in the White House.
legitimize the profoundly damaging metamorphosis the Democratic Party was undergoing—the transition from the party of Joe Lieberman to the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean.
to remind Americans that Hollywood wasn’t trivial—that it was the most dangerous propaganda tool of the left in America.
I started creating a Rolodex, going out to lunch with the secret Hollywood conservatives, putting them in contact with each other. People who you would never believe in a million years are conservative, who create a left-of-center image to get work, but who despise what they have to do to get a job and long for the day true ideological freedom comes to Hollywood.
The greatest victory for the right with regard to the site is that for years, conservatives argued that the New York Times, the most important journalistic entity in the United States, was radically left of center. And for years, the left denied it. But the Huffington Post was different—it was openly and loudly and radically leftist.
Later, I saw that the cultural Marxism of Tulane wasn’t restricted to Tulane—it was everywhere, from the mainstream media to Hollywood to the educational system to the government.
The Founders understood human nature because they were part of the great Western tradition of philosophy and literature and history.
Adam Smith’s capitalism, of course, was based on the same principles, not the pure greed and selfishness Michael Moore or Barack Obama would have us believe. Smith knew that capitalism—the exchange of the products of one’s best efforts for the products of someone else’s best efforts—required people to act with virtue.
The Founders’ realistic view of human nature and call for limited government and individual liberty found its opponent in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, later, Karl Marx.
Karl Marx’s ideas picked up where Rousseau’s left off. Unlike the Founders or even Rousseau, he didn’t care much about human nature—for him, human nature didn’t really exist.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel provided the “dialectic theory” that backed Marx’s utopianism. He believed that conflicts made the world a better place—that, basically, might made right.
Marx married his own philosophy to Hegel in something vague and confusing called “dialectic materialism.”
This all sounds confusing and would make anyone with common sense stop and say, “Wait a minute—explain that one slowly, and tell me why it isn’t intellectual babble.” Unfortunately, there’s only one problem: important people in America believed it.
Teddy slammed those who disagreed with him, characterizing typical American self-reliance as
selfishness. Collectivism was the new cool.
Teddy’s ideological heir didn’t make it to the White House until 1912. His name was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was the proto-egghead, a political science professor and Princeton dean who frowned upon democracy.
Not only hadn’t it happened, workers had spent the better part of five years murdering each other en masse in World War I. Marx’s dialectical prophecy had been proved false. But just because Marx’s dialectic materialism had been proved false, and just because soon the new Soviet Union would be slaughtering its own citizens at record rates, didn’t mean that the Marxist intellectuals were going to give up on worldwide revolution.
That was where Antonio Gramsci and Gyorgy Lukacs came in. Gramsci was an Italian socialist who saw tearing down society as the necessary precondition for the eventual victory of global Marxism.
Lukacs didn’t last long, but Horkheimer did. At the Frankfurt School, he coined a term that would embody the whole corrupt philosophy of his fellow travelers’ mission to destroy society and culture using the Marxist dialectic: critical theory.
Critical theory was exactly the material we were taught at Tulane. It was, quite literally, a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere.
The real idea behind all of this was to make society totally unworkable by making everything basically meaningless.
The United States’ tradition of freedom and liberty, its openness to outside ideas, and our highest value, freedom of speech, ended up making all America vulnerable to those who would exploit those ideals.
And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is to ignore it.
With their tentacles affixed to the institutions of American higher education, the Frankfurt School philosophy began eking its way into every crevice of American culture. Horkheimer’s “critical theory” became a staple of Philosophy, History, and English courses across the country.
Leftists today still call their opponents Nazis on the basis of this flawed and inane psychoanalysis.
All popular art therefore had to be criticized as a symptom of the capitalist system. All art had to be torn down.
But all of these major contributors to the Frankfurt School of thought paled in comparison to Herbert Marcuse, the founder of the “New Left.” Marcuse was a former student of future Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, the father of “deconstruction,”
The advertising adage “Sex sells” was applied to selling a generation on the idea that their parents’ values and ideals were repressive and evil.
He therefore needed a different set of interest groups to tear down capitalism using his critical theory.
Marcuse’s mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and “multiculturalism” as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all “victim groups” in opposition to the society at large.
