My photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Thursday, August 1, 2013


The American Conservative published a review by Chase Madar of a "Killing Anything  that Moves."  A book purporting to show that the American effort in Vietnam was a genocide.

We of a certain age have all been here before.  Leftists still grinding out propaganda for their comrades, even as their overseas buddies join the Chamber of Commerce.  Clearly  we were mistaken about them during the Cold War.  We focused too much on their slavish toadying to Moscow, Beijing, Havana etc.  We underestimated their hatred of their own countries and societies.  So today leftist activists like Chase Madar are still fighting the bad fight, seeking to deconstruct the American society in which they live. The curious bit is just how they fit into the stable at The American Conservative, of all places.

The only plausible reason I can imagine is that TAC, in its drive to corral as many "Anti-War," voices/readers as they can, have given up any hygienic criteria as to who enters their tent.  This was always a problem.  From the beginning opposition to new wars in the Middle East was key.  But as we who have been around a while know, reasons for opposition vary.  There is a patriotic traditional case to be made against foreign adventurism, especially in the service of Jacobin and or Zionist intrigue.  I deeply agree with this position.

Creatures like Madar have another agenda altogether.  They are the simply adverse to any show of American strength or American pride, or American confidence.  As Marxists they constitute our intellectual criminal class, feeding on our labors while destroying our culture.  Since they believe in no ultimate or even proximate truth, nothing they say can be taken as truth.

So why are they given a voice at TAC?  Their arguments are entirely at the service of their intrigues, so why let them contaminate the debate among free men and women?  As I wrote in a comment, Is it wise to follow the lead of the National Reviews admission of crypto-Trotskyites by admitting the orthodox commies in response?

There are of course varying flavors of Conservatism.  But there is no such thing as Marxist Conservatism.  The American Conservative does itself violence by serving as a venue for the enemies of mankind.


  1. This is a total mischaracterization of everything Madar has written. He does believe in truths, specifically, the truths that derive from careful consideration of the evidence (see his praise of Nick Turse's book as being well-documented). He also believes in the truth that a properly functioning democracy requires citizens to know what their government is doing. You, on the other hand, believe in the truth that one should be blindly obedient to the US government and hurl all kinds of malicious labels at those who would question its conduct, regardless of the evidence substantiating their criticisms. You have not even addressed his or Turse's arguments regarding the Vietnam war, instead tossing around the "Marxist" label while foregoing any kind of critical analysis.

  2. As the post makes clear, we have been here before. Marxists are free to spread their propaganda in what you call, "Our Democracy." The essence of propaganda is not just untruth but the endless spinning of data, statements, inferences of all kinds to present a one-sided ideologically useful narrative. Books of this kind have been coming out for decades, all vilifying the US effort in Southeast Asia. Confusing these exercises in knavery with historical scholarship is just naive. Both authors are so much part of the American Marxist media scene that just trusting their product is silly. There is no place for Marxist writing in a conservative journal anymore than there is a place for swimsuit adds in a nudist magazine.

    Obviously you haven't read beyond this particular post if you believe that I am "Blindly obedient to the US Government."

  3. Excellent points. You know, I sort of wonder if, in twenty years The American Conservative will have been overrun with "conservatives" with extreme socialist leanings. They'll be basically what you might call "Socialist Conservatives". Their extreme social conservatism will sort of allow them to retain the name conservative (for example, they'll still be against abortion and so-called same sex marriage), but their hyper-intellectualism will blind them to the morality of market-place freedom. They've already moved in that direction from their founding by PJB.

    1. Yes Neocons, Crunchy con's, etc. The Conservative title is now just a marketing label for hipsters.

  4. How, exactly, are Nick Turse and Chase Madar "Marxists"? They have not endorsed any of Marx's ideas or advocated on behalf of worldwide communism. Does "vilifying the US government" make someone a Marxist? If so, then you're misusing the term so that it has nothing to do with Marx or his followers.

    Furthermore, can you suggest any inaccuracies in Nick Turse's account of the Vietnam war? If it's true that he vilifies the US effort there, it's equally true that the US committed war crimes against innocent Vietnamese and killed thousands of innocent Vietnamese. If you hope to convince any thoughtful person (other than those who already share your "conservative" biases) that his historical scholarship is flawed, you should actually point to specific incidents or pages in Turse's book that contain inaccuracies. So far, you've failed to do that, instead throwing around silly labels like "Marxists" at people who have absolutely no affiliation with Marx or his followers. You might as well call them "Hitlerites" - the label would be equally vacuous and self-serving.