In accordance with his obvious wishes to no longer associate with those who do not believe that now is the time to drown our country in pointless, frivolous, and childish bloodshed and violence, this weblog will no longer link to Anthony G. Martin’s weblog, “The Liberty Sphere”. After all, I would not want his brick-throwing co-insurrectionists to somehow get the impression that he was cavorting with the Reds or something.
Never let it be said that I never give people what they want.
In any case, given the true enemies of freedom and liberty that we have crawling out of the woodwork these days, I certainly do not need back-stabbing, our-way-or-the-highway “friends” who are willing to wield such laughably ludicrous false dichotomies with reckless abandon – seems to me we have enough of that already.
We now know about actual, real-life Soviet agents in our government (or have confirmed what was suspected) from the KGB files opened up after the USSR collapsed. Considering that these same Soviets had murdered tens of millions of their own people, I don’t see the point in perpetuating the 1970s liberal sneer about a “Red Scare” as if there was no truth and no danger.
We know better now.
The liberal mythology around the black lists made heroes out of some people who supported despicable, anti-freedom values. Much of Hollywood still has a love affair with socialism, including lionizing Castro and Guevarra as misunderstood, rather than the oppressive mass murderers they really were.
One of the untold aspects was not that Hollywood made many leftist screenplays, but that screenplays or adaptations of books which promoted free market values (like Rand) were panned and never made it to the silver screen.
The thing is, very few people have taken an honest assessment of the US government, which has increasingly incorporated socialist programs and regulations since FDR. Sure, most people didn’t call it that, because it was comforting to distance ourselves from the evils of tyrannical regimes by telling ourselves pretty lies about democracy and appealing to the underlying religious culture to believe that forced payment for social programs was ethically comparable to voluntary Christian (or other) charity. If there weren’t Gulags or red banners, it really wasn’t socialism, right?
I think that the liberals succeeded in making others ashamed of using plain language by lampooning them as “McCarthyites”, “witch hunters” and “cold warriors”. Sure, the more paranoid (or, at least, those perceived as being paranoid) used the terms too loosely and predicted things that actually didn’t happen back in the 70s-90s.
But aren’t we now seeing many of the very things that these “conspiracy nuts” predicted a few decades ago? Yeah, there still aren’t Gulags and red banners, but we’ve had socialism for decades anyway. It’s just coming into full bloom now.
You thought you were being so very clever by linking-yet-not-linking to Vanderboegh by using Tony’s website.
And now you’re throwing a fit and taking your bat and ball and stomping off.
And you still don’t know who broke those windows. Mike can claim credit all he wants, but he really has no way of knowing either. Seeing as how the first window was broken before he made his posting, I’d tend to think that he had little if anything to do with it.
You swallowed the proffered narrative hook, line and sinker, because, I submit, you’ve got your own agenda: the vilification of the Threepers. You got your knickers in a twist when it was just words, and the instant it looked like those oh-so-scary words had translated into some action you jumped right in.
“I certainly do not need back-stabbing, our-way-or-the-highway “friends” who are willing to wield such laughably ludicrous false dichotomies with reckless abandon – seems to me we have enough of that already.” True enough: I read quite enough of that here, earlier this week.
Steve: The comment about “Reds” was not to downplay the danger that was posed by the Soviet spies and insurgents that did operate within our country and government during that particularly tumultuous time of history. Rather, it was a reference to the hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people’s lives which were diminished, damaged, if not outright-destroyed by the pervasive, irrational, and self-destructive fear sweeping the country as a result of the “Red Scare”.
Yes, the spies existed, and yes, they posed a threat – but you cannot honestly say that all of the damage done during that time (and not just by our government, mind you) was an appropriate response to that threat.
Peter: Speaking of logical fallacies, seems you have a few favorites of your own – by linking to The Liberty Sphere in regards to the pointless “Window War”, I was abiding by the policy I chose for this webpage a very long time ago, concerning not linking to or otherwise supporting webpages or weblogs that I do not agree with or personally support, unless no other option was available. Another option was available; I used it.
But, hey, that does not play into your personal agenda, so feel free to spread whatever specious bullshit you so desire – you already seem far enough down that path to not be worth diverting.
Oh, and speaking of, there is probably this cute little “X” button in the upper-right-hand corner of your browser window – feel free to use it at any time.
I was reading V’s blog in real time, so I know for a fact that the Rochester incident happened before his posting.
Nothing specious there.
You don’t know why those windows were broken any more than I do, unless you’ve gotten a copy of an arrest report or some other judicially valid confession. Until we find out otherwise, I contend that you got sucked into Mike’s assertions, and because it fit with your opinion of the man, you ran with it. Considering the contempt that you claim for him, that’s pretty funny right there.
Methinks he dost protest too much… To whit, I am not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that Mikey’s first post preceded the first brick being thrown, nor have I ever argued that he was the originator of such an idea. As I was saying, “specious bullshit”.
Man. That agenda of yours is really getting the better of you, is it not?
I, too have been following Vanderboegh in real time, before his Sipsey Street Irregulars website came into existence, via David Codrea’s War on Guns website (which chronicles daily a dozen or more stories of police corruption, particularly with regards to gun laws–the sheer number of articles itself is a very bad reflection on the state of law enforcement) and the Western Rifle Shooters blog.
Vanderboegh wrote about a fictional Window War a decade or so ago, by his reckoning. It was a cautionary tale about gun control in the twilight of the Clinton administration. His repost occurred Feb 2009, just after Obama’s inauguration, during the uncertainty of a gang of top administration officials who were far more leftist than anyone before in such high office, who brought with them the brazenly corrupt Chicago-style political thuggery. Couple that with the rotten, power-drunk federal law enforcement agencies, who even during the Bush years were already running amok, and anyone paying attention quickly saw the potential for more Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents (which occurred or started during Bush 41, before Clinton upped the stakes with the scary-looking gun ban).
The Window War has been in the works for a long time. Personally, I believe Vanderboegh is a principled man who is not itching for a fight.
Believe me, Elliot, I am more than familiar with War On Guns – I am also more than familiar with that website’s editor’s policy of deleting comments that dare question those writing there, or dare question the openly prejudicial nature of the webpage.
It is interesting, however, that you know of Mike writing about a Window War a decade or so before this all-too-real version… Of course, we are never going to know the identity of those throwing their bricks, but I have to wonder if the first person read that particular fiction.
And, as I said in my comment yesterday that you might have missed, it appears as though we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding Mike and his particular motivations – you are, of course, welcome to your own opinions, but “proof by vigorous assertion” does not work around here.