I also concur that his methods do sometimes resemble the ones of his new left days and that he has a streak of fanaticism or well, extremism. I do admire him and will continue to do so, but that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with him. He does see Hillary as a real evil here and I think he is right but — Donald Trump? I think he desperately wants Trump to be better than he is — his take on the Kennedy assassination Cruz conspiracy theory charge is evidence of that.

I am also not convinced that Trump is better than Hillary on Israel. I honestly am not sure. With Trump no matter what, one is not sure since there is no track record there since he’s never been in office and he seems to change his mind all the time. Hillary will also say what is expedient but she’s more of a known quantity.

This is really a horrible choice!

I do think Horowitz bungled this article and his choice of words was not the best in that context. But I think a lot about the alt-right these days and find them very disturbing…. maybe Horowitz does not. It could be that he feels they are not that important or that they are just noise and not anything substantive. I don’t know but that’s possible.

In any event, I wish I could be assured that Trump was the better candidate and I go back and forth in my mind between voting for him and then, yes — Hillary. It is a horrible choice.

That is not what I’m talking about with Horowitz, although I understand that you’re talking about a very real phenomenon that is also probably operating with him.

With Horowitz, it’s something more personal and particular to him, something I’ve referred to obliquely before. It’s been a while since I’ve read his books, but it had to do with his own lack of insight about a lot of personal (not political) things in his life, as well.

It’s part of the reason he succumbed to the siren call of Communism in the first place.

I wrote about it briefly here:

It’s hard to believe that such a smart person—as Horowitz undoubtedly was—could be so naive, but, as Orwell said, there are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual can believe them. Another relevant factor is that Horowitz’s portrait of his emotional life at the time is that of a man whose thoughts outpaced his ability to understand his feelings or the feelings of others, a person strangely distanced from himself, lacking insight, and emotionally immature (naive, even), despite the fact that he had married and had children young.

All of this predated his political conversion and was not a result of it.

no, this is not it…
what it IS is actually famous among the circles of such communism and other things.

its counter-revolutionary fervor
that is, just like a smoker who gets cancer and survives, its often they become very much the prosletyzing other

same with the communists…

if you think that the fervor for communism is high among people pushing it, once they actually see it or change, they are actually even more forceful against it.

same with horowitz and many others who are high up in it, many which i have recommended but heard nothing about…

this is WELL KNOWN… but if you dont get the requisite study or information, well it might as well not exist to you

even a cursory glance at wiki is enough to explain what your trying to make up to understand.

A counter-revolutionary is anyone who opposes a revolution, particularly those who act after a revolution to try to overturn or reverse it, in full or in part. The adjective, “counter-revolutionary”, pertains to movements that would restore the state of affairs, or the principles, that prevailed during a prerevolutionary era.

Article 28 of the Chinese constitution, The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; It penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals

changing sides makes zealots who were tricked, wised up and are desperate to tell others…

this is the same of cancer patients, religious conversions, communist changing sides, etc.

you can read books on it, and such..
but if you ignore the classsic works of the communists and the fight against them, then i guess your SOOL (sh*t out of luck)

Art,

It was a sincere compliment. I give credit and censure, where I believe it to be due.

thank you for taking the time to say so…
it IS appreciated.
usually i no longer read responses at all, so i dont get sucked in and write long things…

but i came back just to see if you were nice enough to clue me in… thanks

Author unknown

For those who continue to wonder how the most powerful, most productive, most envied and
most successful nation in history can be one short step from the 3rd class status of a Marxist dictatorship.

1. Teaching Math in 1950s
…
* * *
Very astute.
Could be applied to every subject, but it’s especially poignant in math.

There are rules put in place by the parties. But AFAIK, they basically amount to “must be a registered member of the party”. The problem is that there’s never really been a candidate like Trump. …
* * *
What never?
No, never!
What never?
Well, hardly ever….
😉

On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute, a think tank funded by one of the conservative movement’s most generous donors, will host a conference featuring some of the academy’s most virulent foes of Israel.

Charles and David Koch, scions of the Koch Industries fortune, have always leaned libertarian in their political giving and nonprofit work. The two brothers have supported criminal-justice reform and other free-market initiatives in education and labor. In foreign policy, the Kochs have stayed away from the uglier fringes that blame Israel and its supporters for hijacking U.S. foreign policy. That is, until now.

The institute’s conference scheduled for Wednesday will feature separate panels with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of the 2006 book “The Israel Lobby.”

While Walt and Mearsheimer are hardly household names, they are known in U.S. policy circles. Their book prompted Abe Foxman, who was then national director of the Anti-Defamation League, to write a response, “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

The institute’s decision to host a conference that features Walt, Mearsheimer and a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, is in keeping with a general realignment of U.S. politics in 2016. Under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, conservatives have embraced Israel and accused their partisan foes of not supporting the Jewish State, but this year has brought a shift. This week for example, the conservative website Breitbart featured a story that accused Weekly Standard editor William Kristol of being a “renegade Jew.”

On Horowitz—I’ve read many of his books, studied his life, and written about him many times. My basic attitude towards him has been approval, but I have always been aware of flaws too. When I read his books—despite the fact that I think him a courageous person, and I give him credit for facing up to some very harsh truths in his life—I also noticed something. I can’t really describe it very well, except to say that once a fanatic, always a fanatic; once an activist, always an activist—no matter what side you’re on.

Now, that’s an unfair generalization and exaggeration on my part. As I said, I can’t describe this quality very well that I noticed. But with Horowitz, it seemed that he is an extremist no matter which side he’s on, and he’s not above polemics in the Cause.

Right now he sees the Cause as defeating Hillary at all costs. I’m for defeating her, too. But what I see in this essay of his is (as some commenters have pointed out) the remnants of his leftist activist propagandist self.

Now, you can say we can’t win playing by the rules. That’s the dilemma. But if we break the rules so much we become the other side, what is the profit? And believe me, every tyranny and every propagandist on earth (just about, anyway) has justified his/her propaganda by saying it’s in a worthy cause, it’s necessary to beat the bad guys, etc. etc..

As I said, a dilemma.

I point out the flaws where I see them. I see them very glaringly in this particular piece of Horowitz’s.

Sigh. You make a good argument but I cannot escape the perception that you are being a bit too harsh on Horowitz, while acknowledging that I may well be being too forgiving. In any case, I do not have the mental energy at this point, to dig any deeper on this issue.