Is Tom Adkins the same guy who wrote "Disagreeing with Horowitz? If so, I will pass on this conversation.
FACTS ABOUT VOTER FRAUD (emphasis added)
Blue hair war:
Granny steals the electioin
by *Tom Adkins
TNA News with Commentary
_________________________________________________________
CommonConservative.com
Tom Adkins
- the Modern Conservative
Disagreeing with Horowitz
Epiphany from error
by Tom Adkins
03/01/02
Every after-speech cocktail party has a similar flow. As people straggle in, everyone waits for the Guest Of Honor to arrive. The Guest will mingle quietly, then select a corner. First, the closest friends will follow. Then, the top honchos who put on the event. A few bold interlopers will slide in for a position, completing a little circle. Then, The Circle tries to match wits and impress each other, carving up the issues of the day. It's almost like watching the lions dine on a wildebeest carcass. If The Guest smiles at your brilliant insight, it's like you got a chunk of meat. If The Guest actually applauds your comment, it's like grabbing a leg, and you can happily trot around for the rest of the night knowing you were anointed. And once in awhile, someone boldly challenges The Guest.
So I'm hanging out with David Horowitz over at my house last night. OK, I better start from the beginning
If you aren't familiar with the man, his one sentence summary is this: He was bred from birth to be the intellectual leader of the American communist movement, but right at the point where he started to succeed, he realized leftism was bankrupt and became conservative, thereby sparking one of the greatest retaliatory slash-and-burn campaigns of venomous hatred ever seen. I think that about sums it up.
This is the guy who not only lived within the belly of the leftist beast, he defined the beast itself. Horowitz knows all their dirty tricks, all their strategies, and now spends his time smacking down the professional academic liberals at colleges all across America.
That's how I ended up hanging out with David Horowitz. He graciously accepted a speaking invitation by Villanova University's right-wing madman Chris Lilik. I humbly offered to chauffer him around and host a cocktail party at my house after the speech. It would be interesting to spend private time with one of the brilliant political scholars of our time.
Thus, I was spending a Thursday afternoon happily driving Horowitz around the posh Main Line of Philadelphia, trading sound bytes and looking for a good pre-speech deli. Once fed, he did a magnificent job in a rather cozy Villanova venue. He answered questions, signed books and we headed off to my house for cocktails. When Horowitz arrived, he relaxed on a couch, and ten or twelve of us quickly completed The Circle. The banter began. "What do you think of this? How about that? I think this. Oh, no, I think that blah, blah, blah"
I watched The Guest. The poor guy probably goes through this five times a week, perpetually hounded and schmoozed. Although gracious, he had the familiar look of well, familiarity. Not that we were all dopes, but I'm sure he's heard just about everything, and politely does his best to accept our nattering.
So here I was, a semi-ranked interloper, seeking an opening to scamper away with a verbal porkchop. I patiently awaited the right moment. Then, a passerby tossed out, "Liberals are stupid." David offered, "No Liberals are very, very smart. Very dedicated. Very organized."
Hah!!! Here was my opening.
"Wait a second. Hear me out," I began. "The intellectual battle is over. Between William F. Buckley and David Horowitz, the intellectual liberal has been defeated. And they know it. Only professional liberals are left. They don't really believe all their baloney. They do it because they get paid to be liberal."
There! I was proud of myself! David would sit up, mouth agape with my brilliant theory and
He sat up all right. His eyes lit up, his face became animated. "Your are wrong! They DO believe it! They absolutely believe in what they say 100%."
Ooohhhh. (gulp) Now what?
When the smartest conservative on the planet states you are wrong, with conviction, in front of a bunch of college kids and a few millionaires in your own home, what do you say? Not much. I've fought with a rank-and-file liberal pundits on about 30 TV shows and came away with a lot of trophies. But here is the guy who has conducted daily global warfare for over 30 years against the very best liberal minds in American history, and wrote a gazillion books about it. What on earth could I say? For all my nice house, good job, beautiful wife and 160 IQ, I felt really umm rather impotent for the first time since well, since I realized my dad was right about everything.
So I did the smart thing: I shut up.
The aftermath didn't really hit me until two days later. I was watching Tavis Smiley's Forum on African American Issues on C-Span. Johnny Cochran was pontificating the terribly unfair legal system. Al Sharpton was whining about something or other. Cornell West was practically frothing at the mouth. But then came Lani Guinier, the Clinton toss-away, who noted, "At the turn of the century, 38% of rich people had come from poverty today, 4% of rich people come from poverty." It never crossed Guinier's mind that the welfare state is the only significant change in American policy since the turn of the century, and the greatest cause of institutionalized failure in American history. Government slavery keeps poor people down, relentlessly punishing any attempt to leave the liberal plantation. And what was her solution? More liberal programs that make things worse. Guinier is either the stupidest "intellectual" on the planet, or she really believes her own dogma enough to overlook its obvious bankruptcy.
But it didn't end there. The entire stage was filled with similar so-called "brilliant" liberal black leaders, who presented self-created paradox after self-created paradox, absolutely devoid of an ounce of introspection whatsoever. The real answers to the problems were amazingly obvious. Yet there they were, all the race-hustling poverty pimps on a national stage, blaming white people, Republicans, racism, misalignment of the planets, the evil spirits, and anything else that might get black people all ticked off in time for the next election. After spending an hour listening to them screeching at the moon, I have to admit liberals really do believe.
They really believe all their stupid and failed ideas will work someday. They truly believe all the misery, mayhem and failure their stupid programs caused is everyone else's fault. They really believe the aftermath of their death and destruction is an excuse to take our money and assume our rights. They really believe. I am wrong. And David Horowitz is right.
Then I realized there is a catch to David Horowitz's declaration that liberals "really believe" and that they are "very smart." There is a paradox.
If they "really believe", then all these brilliant icons of the modern liberal movement cannot be smart. Sorry. No matter how high the IQ, no matter how many college degrees (earned or honorary), no matter how vigorous the commitment and no matter how many accolades by the New York Times editorial page, if you are willing to fool yourself into accepting dogma that is blatantly and factually wrong, you are stupid as a box of rocks.
Ya can't have it both ways.
Oh, I admit Horowitz is on the right track. Liberals are willing to sacrifice themselves upon their own swords to prop up anything that keeps The Big Lie going. But dedication is not intelligence. And intelligence is not wisdom. Even a country boy knows when his horse is dead it's a waste of time to hitch him up to plow the field. If your intelligence is trumped by your willingness to ignore the facts, you cannot qualify as "smart."
Please understand, conservative readers, that Horowitz's warnings cannot go ignored. We must respect the dedication, deviousness, commitment and ruthlessness of the liberal enemy. But respect their philosophy? Never. In fact, philosophy is the Achilles heel of the modern liberal. When faced with a liberal, simply point to the failure and announce, "Only a stupid person would believe this!" Then, follow up with, "All your ideas failed, and everyone knows it!" Pow! A right cross to the chops! "You don't stand for anything anymore!!!" And the Coup de Gras: "You aren't a REAL liberal! You are a PROFESSIONAL liberal! You get PAID to believe this."
Nothing is more insulting to a liberal than to question their commitment. Like a two-by-four across the skull, it sends them on the defensive. And they go home questioning themselves. Best of all, so does anyone watching. Especially on TV.
So there you have it. I was stumped by David Horowitz, went home and thought about it, and I came up with a new paradigm: Question liberal sincerity. Liberals are either stupid and believe themselves, or smart and deceive themselves. (good soundbyte!)
While I am tempted to congratulate myself on discovering the liberal Achilles heel and recognizing how to whack it with a ball peen hammer, I can only thank David Horowitz and his inspiring challenge issued while seated on my living room sofa.
Sometime in the next few days, David Horowitz will read this. He will scratch his head. And maybe he'll smile. If I'm lucky, I'll get a brief response. I'm sure it will be brilliant and wise. But don't spend a lot of time on this, David, my fellow conservative warrior. I don't want a whole cow, just a leg to chomp on while I plot my next attack on the liberals. But the next time you see me at a cocktail party - and you will - I'll be sniffing for a carcass. It will be a great feast! |
