We’re approaching the end of an eventful year and the beginning of a year that looks like being eventful for the American Empire and the republic on which it was based.
When I think of important choices I make, my faith is an active, ongoing choice for God and his laws. My family is unchosen; my children are who they are and I didn't knit them up in the womb. My chosen faith informs how I live in relationship with my unchosen family.
So is America anyone who chooses to walk across the southern border and live here? Like I can choose to walk into the Ritz Carlton and I become a bona fide resident of the Ritz Carlton? Ha ha ha.
It sounds like Lipset was promoting Americanism as a chosen religion of which he meant to be a high priest, just without all the "God's laws" baggage that irks men in their pursuit of pleasures.
Trump’s populism, his seeming love for his fellow Americans, at least conforms to the ideal that although he didn't choose us, he chooses to live with us as we are. Compare the contempt of a Hillary or Obama.
Back to Kagan channeling Lipset, with the intention for America to be a nation with "a unique mission to transform the planet and its inhabitants," Kagan would have us compete with either:
the Great Commission of Christ to go make disciples of all nations (by invitation and not by force), or
the commission of Islam to establish a House of Peace outside of which there is only War (by force).
Wow. It has never been so clear to me that Neocons desire the results of Islam using the language of Christ. And has America been Israel's catspaw for this purpose and for how long? Ouch.
Which article? I did not read Simplicius' post, but I have now, and I believe I have responded accurately to the thrust of Kagan's ISW argument therein as Mark reviewed, as well as to the suggested Wikipedia descriptions of Lipset and his work which are likely friendly and not hostile to Lipset's ideas, incarnated with Kagan and family.
I was reading a long Matthew Ehret essay yesterday and came across this quote from Kissinger which seems to sum up the neocon philosophy that America must set the rules and control the game for all our benefit, with the added twist that it’s all a continuation of the British Empire:
“Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism has always tended. The British undoubtedly saw the Americans as naive, moralistic, and evading responsibility for helping secure the global equilibrium. The dispute was resolved according to American preferences- in my view, to the detriment of postwar security… The disputes between Britain and America during the Second World War and after were, of course, not an accident. British policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it.
“Where America had always imagined itself isolated from world affairs, Britain for centuries was keenly alert to the potential danger that any country’s domination of the European continent-whatever its domestic structure or method of dominance-placed British survival risk… Britain rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology, despite her achievements in this field. Philosophically she remains Hobbesian: She expects the worst and is rarely disappointed. In moral matters Britain has traditionally practiced a convenient form of ethical egoism, believing that what was good for Britain was best for the rest…. In the nineteenth century, British policy was perhaps the principal factor in European system that kept the peace for 99 years without a major war ….”
Interesting. Of course, when one thinks of 19th century Europe one thinks of the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean war, the wars of German and Italian reunification, the Russian, Austrian, and Turkish wars both in Russia and the Balkans, the Franco - Prussian war, plus the various colonial wars, including also the American civil war. Keeping the peace can be a matter of perspective.
I know! I don’t understand how Kissinger can have made that remark or why he is so certain that an Empire ‘winner takes all’ approach to foreign relations makes for a better world for everyone or even a better US or UK. But it seems pretty clear that’s what he believed judging by his approach to US foreign policy over decades.
Mark, I really appreciate your and others' here attempts to get to the bottom of things, to help me and others understand what is really going on in these very strange times. Many of the Neocons are 'intellectuals' and the webs they construct are often very hard for the likes of me to 'deconstruct' (if you will) and understand what's really at bottom.
The 'rules-based order' is one of those intellectualisms that is hard for me to completely understand. On the one hand, it seems like a nice idea that we all adopt a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, and then obey them. Since we don't yet have a single global government or legislature, I can kind of understand how the adoption of generally agreed upon 'rules' is a nice substitute for actual 'laws'.
On the other hand, its easy for me to see that it is not so hard for an authoritarian hegemon to hide behind a nice concept like universal 'rules' and impose its will (because it alone defines and enforces the rules) on everybody else.
So then I start to get a headache. Its compounded because the Kagans and Kristols and their like are nothing if not articulate and persuasive. I mean, of course we've got to support Ukraine because its a fight for 'freedom' and 'democracy' against a madman dictator who is worse than Hitler! And, what? You don't agree? You're a Putin apologist! You're an antisemite!
Then I have to turn off my laptop and go take a walk.
The argument goes on and on. I had thought the Neocons were pushed out the door 20 years ago when Wolfowitz and Feith went down and Bush and the Iraq War were discredited. How little did I understand! Nothing changed and they were just laying the groundwork for the next wave of American-led power projection. Of course, they are back today, stronger than ever. Dare I say they totally control the United States Government, and Congress, and NATO and all of their (remaining) allies?
Please allow me to say -- bluntly -- that I think, at bottom, Neocon policies are basically an attempt by politically-minded (by no means all) Jews to create a US-led world order which protects Jews from any kind of discrimination which could ultimately affect their safety and security. I can understand this because the history of the Jewish people is replete with events which impacted Jewish safety and security. Some so horrific that a reasonable person might say, "Never again". No matter what it takes. Does this not explain the position of the Israeli government regarding the Palestinians? Is there any other explanation? Does this not also explain the inflexible position of the Neocons towards a nationalist, Slavic, Christian state such as Russia? There may be other explanations and I try to consider them all, which is the main reason why I keep coming here and why I read and read and read.
But I don't see the arguments which will persuade the Neocons to change their views and accept a pluralistic power-sharing arrangement with many national states, with the associated diminution in American power. Isn't it only American hegemony which offers (perhaps the illusion of) rules-based power sufficient to guarantee the long term safety and security of the Jewish people? Isn't this the real issue which one way or another must be confronted?
Which is very problematic, since it is a subject which cannot be confronted...because (except in a few rare places...like here) it cannot even be discussed?
Christmas Eve, so, briefly--because I'm trying to be helpful ...
"The 'rules-based order' is one of those intellectualisms that is hard for me to completely understand. On the one hand, it seems like a nice idea that we all adopt a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, and then obey them."
Why I kept using the word "disingenuous": We already had/have a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, developed over centuries, or even millenia. It's called "international law" or "the law of nations." The problem with that legal structure is that it's inconvenient for would be hegemons. Rules that the hegemon makes and remakes to fit the hegemon's needs are a replacement for impartial (even if often honored in the breach) laws. The laws, even when violated, were always there for the victims to appeal to. Not so with the change "rules of the game."
"Neocon policies are basically an attempt by politically-minded (by no means all) Jews to create a US-led world order which protects Jews from any kind of discrimination which could ultimately affect their safety and security."
I don't think it's that simple. If it were we wouldn't be faced with the phenomenon of Jews hating Poles and blaming Poles for the Holocaust rather than hating and blaming Germans. Example. I'm currently reading Blumenthal's "Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel." Pp. 196-197 describe the trips that 25% of Israeli 11th graders make to Oświęcim (Auschwitz) every year. Blumenthal describes how the students are prevented from encountering "locals", i.e., Poles, and are fed a diet of fear and loathing for those locals, accompanied by a Shin Bet officer to enforce the restrictions. Do you think that would happen on a trip to Germany? I don't. And yet it's a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of "Righteous Gentiles" memorialized at Yad Vashem are Poles--who had their own disproportionate sufferings to endure at the hands of the Germans, yet found it in their hearts to help Jews. By comparison with the many, many Poles who were summarily executed for helping Jews, the Dutch family that helped the Franks survived the war--conditions were very different in Western Europe, where the French and Dutch often cheerfully handed over Jews to the Germans even though they were not subjected to the draconian Nazi regime that existed in Poland. I had teachers of Polish at DLI who were Polish Jews who survived the war, thanks to Poles, and described conditions. This book length account is composed largely of testimony of Jewish survivors documented at Yad Vashem. https://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Traditional-Jewish-Attitudes-Toward-Poles-1.pdf. Which is a long way of saying what I said at the start. If it were really all about preventing a recurrence of past wrongs, Germans would take pride of place among the most hated. But it doesn't work that way. I note that you wrote: "the inflexible position of the Neocons towards a nationalist, Slavic, Christian state such as Russia?" No mention of Germans.
Two books that explore some of this, both by Jewish authors: Albert Lindemann, Esau's Tears, Yuriy Slezkine, The Jewish Century. Also highly recommended by another Jewish author--who survived the war in Poland (part of what's now Western Ukraine). Eva Hoffman, Complex Histories, Contested Memories; Some Reflections on Remembering Difficult Pasts. Only 32 pages! https://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/OP23_Hoffman.pdf
Tone your comments down. We don't speak of other humans like that, here. There are ways to speak of difficult relationships without that type of invective.
Wishing all MIH readership a Merry Christmas, even as we try to come to grips with what appears to be an immense fraud, a treason perpetrated against our founding documents, by what we now refer to as the Neocon establishment, and which in reality is the joining together of the Dem and Rep war parties…our ship of state has sailed perilously off course with a death wish in its sails, paying no heed to former captains Washington and Lincoln, and plotting the downfall of new ones who would right the ship, like Trump. True, as Mark puts the question, are we an idea or a country? I would say we’ve become an ideology (you’re either w us or against us), and to hell with the country, ie the tax-paying, tea dumping citizenry. When did ideas, or ideals, become an ideology? When did the office of the presidency become the fief of a vindictive, demented schoolyard bully? I’m sure other readers feel the same sence of bewilderment and loss!
Just wanted to add my regards and a Merry Christmas to you and the rest of the faithful. Since finding your “blog” it has been one of the highlights of my retirement day, thank you and have a Happy New Year.
Merry Christmas Mark - to you, your loved ones and (if you'll permit me) all MIH readers!
When I read Simplicius' post, the points you shared and expanded upon today confirmed my reactions when I read them. I keep returning to a couple behaviors used by Left-operators: Make an argument based on your un-proven (generally wrong) 'fact' while projecting their own methods and ideology failings onto opposition. Those standards coupled with manipulative guilt-shaming characterizations - such as "if we allow Russia to Win" all couched in a pretense of intellectual superiority are delivered like a lecture from the Vice-Principal in elementary school to his rules-violating problem students. *remember, the President of this USA called many honorable, honest Americans 'White Supremist' (don't forget his fist shaking and the black/red background w/Marine Guard imagery at that presentation). Of course, across the progressive organization White Supremacy is declared existential to the 'Democracy that is [their] USA'.
Slight side-note response regarding Lipset growing up in 'that atmosphere' of talk' sans Dem/Rep - my Lutheran upbringing was within a Republican/Conservative [military service] family was inclined to demonize socialism (not Trotskyism particularly, for instance) and democrats were seen as socialists hence political party and it's affiliates were targeted as anti-American. Not exactly Lipset depicted but not as you describe in your home. FWIW. Thanks for this forum and for my gift from YOU of your shared research, thoughts and wisdom here on Substack in MIH. Blessings sir. (WrH)
Thanks, Wayne. Re upbringing, my parents were definitely anti-GOPers--until 1968. The issue for them was abortion, but it expanded to other things as well. I was never as plugged into that mentality as they were, even as a boy.
The war on fellow Americans you describe is part of the Neocon mentality. It's quite telling Neocons reserve their greatest hatred for conservative, traditional Americans.
Words' meanings have 'evolved'. Patriot as in 'Patriot Act' (i.e. GW Bush, ugh). 'The Country' seems to refer to a globalist mis-direct of meaning, too. I'm getting old enough to remember much of how it was and not being able to keep up with the 'new-speak'. I just see a once great country (aka Constitutional) devolve. Blessings Mark. I sincerely appreciate what you do here. (WrH)
I’m with you on that, could never understand how my staunch pro life mom could be so anti GOP. Of course she grew up in a UAW home with a union steward dad in Detroit, doesn’t get more democrat than that.
Some thoughts on Kagan's thoughts on America,
He describes America as an idea, as a choice.
When I think of important choices I make, my faith is an active, ongoing choice for God and his laws. My family is unchosen; my children are who they are and I didn't knit them up in the womb. My chosen faith informs how I live in relationship with my unchosen family.
So is America anyone who chooses to walk across the southern border and live here? Like I can choose to walk into the Ritz Carlton and I become a bona fide resident of the Ritz Carlton? Ha ha ha.
It sounds like Lipset was promoting Americanism as a chosen religion of which he meant to be a high priest, just without all the "God's laws" baggage that irks men in their pursuit of pleasures.
Trump’s populism, his seeming love for his fellow Americans, at least conforms to the ideal that although he didn't choose us, he chooses to live with us as we are. Compare the contempt of a Hillary or Obama.
Back to Kagan channeling Lipset, with the intention for America to be a nation with "a unique mission to transform the planet and its inhabitants," Kagan would have us compete with either:
the Great Commission of Christ to go make disciples of all nations (by invitation and not by force), or
the commission of Islam to establish a House of Peace outside of which there is only War (by force).
Wow. It has never been so clear to me that Neocons desire the results of Islam using the language of Christ. And has America been Israel's catspaw for this purpose and for how long? Ouch.
Which article? I did not read Simplicius' post, but I have now, and I believe I have responded accurately to the thrust of Kagan's ISW argument therein as Mark reviewed, as well as to the suggested Wikipedia descriptions of Lipset and his work which are likely friendly and not hostile to Lipset's ideas, incarnated with Kagan and family.
Merry Christmas to you and your family Mark! Cadeau!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNDIM0icus
The wonderful Rameau!
Thanks, and to yours. And thanks for the beautiful gift.
I was reading a long Matthew Ehret essay yesterday and came across this quote from Kissinger which seems to sum up the neocon philosophy that America must set the rules and control the game for all our benefit, with the added twist that it’s all a continuation of the British Empire:
“Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism has always tended. The British undoubtedly saw the Americans as naive, moralistic, and evading responsibility for helping secure the global equilibrium. The dispute was resolved according to American preferences- in my view, to the detriment of postwar security… The disputes between Britain and America during the Second World War and after were, of course, not an accident. British policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it.
“Where America had always imagined itself isolated from world affairs, Britain for centuries was keenly alert to the potential danger that any country’s domination of the European continent-whatever its domestic structure or method of dominance-placed British survival risk… Britain rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology, despite her achievements in this field. Philosophically she remains Hobbesian: She expects the worst and is rarely disappointed. In moral matters Britain has traditionally practiced a convenient form of ethical egoism, believing that what was good for Britain was best for the rest…. In the nineteenth century, British policy was perhaps the principal factor in European system that kept the peace for 99 years without a major war ….”
https://canadianpatriot.org/2023/12/21/sir-henry-kissinger-midwife-to-new-babylon/
Richard Poe has also written a great deal on how the British Empire is still controlling (or now perhaps losing control) of the world. I found his podcast with Tom Luongo absolutely fascinating! https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/gold-goats-n-guns-podcast/id1435023391?i=1000617983352
Interesting. Of course, when one thinks of 19th century Europe one thinks of the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean war, the wars of German and Italian reunification, the Russian, Austrian, and Turkish wars both in Russia and the Balkans, the Franco - Prussian war, plus the various colonial wars, including also the American civil war. Keeping the peace can be a matter of perspective.
I know! I don’t understand how Kissinger can have made that remark or why he is so certain that an Empire ‘winner takes all’ approach to foreign relations makes for a better world for everyone or even a better US or UK. But it seems pretty clear that’s what he believed judging by his approach to US foreign policy over decades.
you've done great writing this year. Happy Christmas
Oh, gosh, thanks a lot! Lotta work with so much going on.
Mark, I really appreciate your and others' here attempts to get to the bottom of things, to help me and others understand what is really going on in these very strange times. Many of the Neocons are 'intellectuals' and the webs they construct are often very hard for the likes of me to 'deconstruct' (if you will) and understand what's really at bottom.
The 'rules-based order' is one of those intellectualisms that is hard for me to completely understand. On the one hand, it seems like a nice idea that we all adopt a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, and then obey them. Since we don't yet have a single global government or legislature, I can kind of understand how the adoption of generally agreed upon 'rules' is a nice substitute for actual 'laws'.
On the other hand, its easy for me to see that it is not so hard for an authoritarian hegemon to hide behind a nice concept like universal 'rules' and impose its will (because it alone defines and enforces the rules) on everybody else.
So then I start to get a headache. Its compounded because the Kagans and Kristols and their like are nothing if not articulate and persuasive. I mean, of course we've got to support Ukraine because its a fight for 'freedom' and 'democracy' against a madman dictator who is worse than Hitler! And, what? You don't agree? You're a Putin apologist! You're an antisemite!
Then I have to turn off my laptop and go take a walk.
The argument goes on and on. I had thought the Neocons were pushed out the door 20 years ago when Wolfowitz and Feith went down and Bush and the Iraq War were discredited. How little did I understand! Nothing changed and they were just laying the groundwork for the next wave of American-led power projection. Of course, they are back today, stronger than ever. Dare I say they totally control the United States Government, and Congress, and NATO and all of their (remaining) allies?
Please allow me to say -- bluntly -- that I think, at bottom, Neocon policies are basically an attempt by politically-minded (by no means all) Jews to create a US-led world order which protects Jews from any kind of discrimination which could ultimately affect their safety and security. I can understand this because the history of the Jewish people is replete with events which impacted Jewish safety and security. Some so horrific that a reasonable person might say, "Never again". No matter what it takes. Does this not explain the position of the Israeli government regarding the Palestinians? Is there any other explanation? Does this not also explain the inflexible position of the Neocons towards a nationalist, Slavic, Christian state such as Russia? There may be other explanations and I try to consider them all, which is the main reason why I keep coming here and why I read and read and read.
But I don't see the arguments which will persuade the Neocons to change their views and accept a pluralistic power-sharing arrangement with many national states, with the associated diminution in American power. Isn't it only American hegemony which offers (perhaps the illusion of) rules-based power sufficient to guarantee the long term safety and security of the Jewish people? Isn't this the real issue which one way or another must be confronted?
Which is very problematic, since it is a subject which cannot be confronted...because (except in a few rare places...like here) it cannot even be discussed?
Christmas Eve, so, briefly--because I'm trying to be helpful ...
"The 'rules-based order' is one of those intellectualisms that is hard for me to completely understand. On the one hand, it seems like a nice idea that we all adopt a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, and then obey them."
Why I kept using the word "disingenuous": We already had/have a bunch of thoughtful and fair rules, developed over centuries, or even millenia. It's called "international law" or "the law of nations." The problem with that legal structure is that it's inconvenient for would be hegemons. Rules that the hegemon makes and remakes to fit the hegemon's needs are a replacement for impartial (even if often honored in the breach) laws. The laws, even when violated, were always there for the victims to appeal to. Not so with the change "rules of the game."
"Neocon policies are basically an attempt by politically-minded (by no means all) Jews to create a US-led world order which protects Jews from any kind of discrimination which could ultimately affect their safety and security."
I don't think it's that simple. If it were we wouldn't be faced with the phenomenon of Jews hating Poles and blaming Poles for the Holocaust rather than hating and blaming Germans. Example. I'm currently reading Blumenthal's "Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel." Pp. 196-197 describe the trips that 25% of Israeli 11th graders make to Oświęcim (Auschwitz) every year. Blumenthal describes how the students are prevented from encountering "locals", i.e., Poles, and are fed a diet of fear and loathing for those locals, accompanied by a Shin Bet officer to enforce the restrictions. Do you think that would happen on a trip to Germany? I don't. And yet it's a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of "Righteous Gentiles" memorialized at Yad Vashem are Poles--who had their own disproportionate sufferings to endure at the hands of the Germans, yet found it in their hearts to help Jews. By comparison with the many, many Poles who were summarily executed for helping Jews, the Dutch family that helped the Franks survived the war--conditions were very different in Western Europe, where the French and Dutch often cheerfully handed over Jews to the Germans even though they were not subjected to the draconian Nazi regime that existed in Poland. I had teachers of Polish at DLI who were Polish Jews who survived the war, thanks to Poles, and described conditions. This book length account is composed largely of testimony of Jewish survivors documented at Yad Vashem. https://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Traditional-Jewish-Attitudes-Toward-Poles-1.pdf. Which is a long way of saying what I said at the start. If it were really all about preventing a recurrence of past wrongs, Germans would take pride of place among the most hated. But it doesn't work that way. I note that you wrote: "the inflexible position of the Neocons towards a nationalist, Slavic, Christian state such as Russia?" No mention of Germans.
Two books that explore some of this, both by Jewish authors: Albert Lindemann, Esau's Tears, Yuriy Slezkine, The Jewish Century. Also highly recommended by another Jewish author--who survived the war in Poland (part of what's now Western Ukraine). Eva Hoffman, Complex Histories, Contested Memories; Some Reflections on Remembering Difficult Pasts. Only 32 pages! https://townsendcenter.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/OP23_Hoffman.pdf
Not to mention Otto Skorzeny worked for Mossad and Martin Bormann’s son visited Israel in 1994.
Tone your comments down. We don't speak of other humans like that, here. There are ways to speak of difficult relationships without that type of invective.
Wishing all MIH readership a Merry Christmas, even as we try to come to grips with what appears to be an immense fraud, a treason perpetrated against our founding documents, by what we now refer to as the Neocon establishment, and which in reality is the joining together of the Dem and Rep war parties…our ship of state has sailed perilously off course with a death wish in its sails, paying no heed to former captains Washington and Lincoln, and plotting the downfall of new ones who would right the ship, like Trump. True, as Mark puts the question, are we an idea or a country? I would say we’ve become an ideology (you’re either w us or against us), and to hell with the country, ie the tax-paying, tea dumping citizenry. When did ideas, or ideals, become an ideology? When did the office of the presidency become the fief of a vindictive, demented schoolyard bully? I’m sure other readers feel the same sence of bewilderment and loss!
Just wanted to add my regards and a Merry Christmas to you and the rest of the faithful. Since finding your “blog” it has been one of the highlights of my retirement day, thank you and have a Happy New Year.
Thanks, and Merry Christmas!
Cheers!
I wonder if Kagan and his ilk are trying to stake a claim on a rump portion of the US.
Seems like if the whole of America won’t go along with the program it’s easy enough to quarantine the ‘Hicks’ and continue the program.
Fred Kagan and the NeoCon Brotherhood are having a panic attack.
These rootless International Khazarians stranglehold over the USA is coming to an end and there is nothing they can do about it.
I hope they don't nuke all of our cities on their way out.
Merry Christmas Mark - to you, your loved ones and (if you'll permit me) all MIH readers!
When I read Simplicius' post, the points you shared and expanded upon today confirmed my reactions when I read them. I keep returning to a couple behaviors used by Left-operators: Make an argument based on your un-proven (generally wrong) 'fact' while projecting their own methods and ideology failings onto opposition. Those standards coupled with manipulative guilt-shaming characterizations - such as "if we allow Russia to Win" all couched in a pretense of intellectual superiority are delivered like a lecture from the Vice-Principal in elementary school to his rules-violating problem students. *remember, the President of this USA called many honorable, honest Americans 'White Supremist' (don't forget his fist shaking and the black/red background w/Marine Guard imagery at that presentation). Of course, across the progressive organization White Supremacy is declared existential to the 'Democracy that is [their] USA'.
Slight side-note response regarding Lipset growing up in 'that atmosphere' of talk' sans Dem/Rep - my Lutheran upbringing was within a Republican/Conservative [military service] family was inclined to demonize socialism (not Trotskyism particularly, for instance) and democrats were seen as socialists hence political party and it's affiliates were targeted as anti-American. Not exactly Lipset depicted but not as you describe in your home. FWIW. Thanks for this forum and for my gift from YOU of your shared research, thoughts and wisdom here on Substack in MIH. Blessings sir. (WrH)
Thanks, Wayne. Re upbringing, my parents were definitely anti-GOPers--until 1968. The issue for them was abortion, but it expanded to other things as well. I was never as plugged into that mentality as they were, even as a boy.
The war on fellow Americans you describe is part of the Neocon mentality. It's quite telling Neocons reserve their greatest hatred for conservative, traditional Americans.
Words' meanings have 'evolved'. Patriot as in 'Patriot Act' (i.e. GW Bush, ugh). 'The Country' seems to refer to a globalist mis-direct of meaning, too. I'm getting old enough to remember much of how it was and not being able to keep up with the 'new-speak'. I just see a once great country (aka Constitutional) devolve. Blessings Mark. I sincerely appreciate what you do here. (WrH)
To be more precise, I was always anti-abort, what I was never so plugged into was the Dem progressive mindset.
I’m with you on that, could never understand how my staunch pro life mom could be so anti GOP. Of course she grew up in a UAW home with a union steward dad in Detroit, doesn’t get more democrat than that.