Last week, Cliff Kincaid, Director of Journalism at Accuracy In Media (AIM), wrote a piece about the recent whinefest gripping pseudo-conservative circles regarding why GOProud, a rather boorish homosexual identity politics organization, wasn’t allowed to be a co-sponsor of CPAC 2013. His piece went largely unnoticed for several days until people started tweeting about it a day ago. In his post, Kincaid took the approach of trying to educate his wayward cousins in the fauxcon echo chamber about the history of the leftist agenda to supplant American morality with their left-wing secular humanism.
As for me, I take a “love the sinner” approach to social issues, but I’ll always push back against creeping cultural Marxism, because it’s antithetical to American liberty. Perhaps Cliff could’ve expressed himself better in this area. This blog post isn’t intended to defend Kincaid or AIM – it’s primarily intended to address the responses to Kincaid’s piece and to fill in some gaps he left in it.
Advancing homosexuality in America really was part of the Marxist agenda.
If you want to support or engage in homosexuality, that’s your choice, but don’t attempt to sell homosexuality as “conservative”, because it isn’t. The alignment of certain segments of the echo chamber with homosexual identity groups like GOProud further demonstrates their ceding of founding principles in favor of a Marxist anti-Right homosexual agenda. Herbert Marcuse is arguably the most well-known enemy of American liberty from the Marxist Frankfurt School. Marcuse was perceived as the godfather of the 60s counterculture movement. His agenda was very clear.
“I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right…” – Herbert Marcuse
Jeffery Escoffier, who writes for glbtq.com, “an encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture”, elaborates on Marcuse’s perspective and his role in advancing homosexuality.
Marcuse believed that sexual liberation was achieved by exploring new permutations of sexual desires, sexual activities, and gender roles–what Freud called “perverse” sexual desires, that is, all non-reproductive forms of sexual behavior, of which kissing, oral sex, and anal sex are familiar examples.
Marcuse was himself heterosexual, but he identified the homosexual as the radical standard bearer of sex for the sake of pleasure, a form of radical hedonism that repudiates those forms of repressive sexuality organized around genital heterosexuality and biological reproduction. “Against a society which employs sexuality as a means for a useful end,” Marcuse argued, “the perversions uphold sexuality as an end itself . . . and challenge its very foundations.”
Marcuse admitted freely that his goal was to restrain your liberties, and he wanted to advance homosexuality as part of his plan to do just that. Yet some of you “conservatives” are advancing his agenda on his behalf. Not only that, but you mocked Kincaid for writing the truth about that point. That’s precisely what Marcuse counted on. You’ve become unwitting dupes roping yourselves into Marcuse’s goal of undermining Americanism. You proud, bro?
You’re a conservative who doesn’t conserve our founding principles?
One again, class: American conservatism has always been based on conserving America’s founding principles. Our founders insisted that morality was a requirement for liberty’s survival. How did our founders feel about homosexuality? Washington had the gall to boot one of his officers out of the army for sodomizing a fellow soldier. Jefferson? Well, TJ proposed a Virginia law whereby homosexuals would be castrated. Harsh? Depends. Do any of us have the ability to quantify the negative effects of secular humanism on American liberty? One measure could be based on our country’s financial health. Our debt is increasing while more Americans thumb their noses at original American axioms. Total crime skyrocketed almost 2.5x through the 1960s even though the population only increased about 10% during the 10 year period from 1960-1970. Keep in mind that Marcuse wrote “Represssive Tolerance” in 1965.
Jefferson had this to say about morality and its effect on our society.
“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, God has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain.” – Thomas Jefferson
John Jay, America’s first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, understood the importance of America’s civil and religious liberties, and how to guard them.
“I recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” – John Jay
It’s refreshing to see the stark contrast between the likes of Marcuse and our founding fathers. I’ll always pick our founders over Marxist anti-Americanism. According to our founders, social “conservatism” is what they had in mind for our country.
Abandoning America’s morality is the cornerstone of their conservatism.
Let’s see how well Cliff’s piece was received by the uninitiated, the emotional, and the obtuse. The following people who tweeted their fauxtrage over Kincaid’s piece don’t address any specific points that he raised. They do present knee-jerk reactionary emotionalism, and that’s always a good determinant of TROO conservatism! Hell, there’s even someone calling for Kincaid’s death – but he works for NRO, so take that how you will.
A regular Fox News contributor is all about guy on guy action.
— Jedediah Bila (@JedediahBila) March 13, 2013
This guy likes creeping on young girls, so of course he’s down with the buttseks. Gardner struggled with Rand Paul’s “unforgivable” position of holding the same views as our founding fathers expressed during Paul’s monumental filibuster.
Laugh or cry? This guy calls himself a “conservative.” Iwould call him….something else. –> aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) March 13, 2013
A Twitchy “Assistant Editor”. Of course. He fits right in.
— Erik Soderstrom (@soderstrom) March 13, 2013
A California “conservative” and blogger clearly doesn’t identify with American morals. How unfortunate.
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) March 13, 2013
Elizabeth Crum self-identifies as “conservative/libertarian”, but she spends most of her time in the “conservative” echo chamber and it shows.
I’m (almost) speechless. Is this a farce…? aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Elizabeth Crum (E!!) (@elizcrum) March 13, 2013
A writer for the neoconservative rag National Review Online flexes his neoconservatism by recommending that Cliff Kincaid be brutally killed. Sounds just like a radical left-winger, doesn’t it?
The person who wrote this would benefit greatly from being thrown screaming from a helicopter into a crocodile swamp: ccwc.me/14UxNKB
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 13, 2013
One of Tom Ryan’s Jersey kook crew is offended, because committing felonies is a conservative benchmark.
— Bill O’Keefe (@DefendWallSt) March 13, 2013
Ah, the Breitbaren’t crowd presents as they typically do with both form and substance. FAUXTRAGE!
SHAME ON YOU AIM FOR PRINTING THIS GARBAGE!!! How dare you!!!!!! aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Wacko Bird Redness (@mchastain81) March 13, 2013
Who knew that neocons were so supportive of homosexuality?
That’s a rhetorical question.
Another NRO employee sounds off below. Wait a minute… didn’t they fire Derbyshire last year over presenting historical and/or empirical positions too? Did NRO fire Charles Cooke yet for his above statement encouraging the murder of Kincaid? Encouraging murder is always acceptable when you’re supportive of the would-be murderer’s position, right neocons? But simple words on a screen from someone with whom you disagree, not so acceptable.
Not a parody, alas—-> CPAC and the Conservatives – aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) March 13, 2013
Wurtzel claims to be a “Libertarian”, but he rarely says anything along libertarian lines.
Absolutely revolting aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) March 13, 2013
Bethany’s husband, Seth Mandel, got paid to be a shill for the anti-Semitic government of Malaysia. That’s a very conservative trait. She’s “horrified” by historical presentations, but totally cool with taking money from anti-Semites.
I have no words for how horrifying this is. ow.ly/iRSge
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) March 13, 2013
The Wendy Whiner of Weinergate claims to know something about conservatism. He’s one of the neocons who tried to equate Rand Paul’s filibuster with Code Pink.
No idea who Cliff Kincaid is, besides the fact that he is clearly a nut that doesn’t know what “conservative” means: aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— AG (@AG_Conservative) March 13, 2013
Michael Moynihan, a writer for Tablet magazine, calls Kincaid’s piece crazy. I wonder if Moynihan has ever called these people out for being crazy. He calls himself “libertarian” but he went headlong into the “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day” islamophobic craziness right along with all his neocon pals.
Holy crazy. bit.ly/10Kyh9i
— Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) March 13, 2013
Fauxcons, you’re in good company with these radical left-wingers!
These leftists present their disagreement with Kincaid in nearly identical fashion to the echo chamber/neocons. That Roseanne lady is a real peach – isn’t it nice to have so much in common with her?
— Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) March 14, 2013
Is this the most deranged item “Accuracy in Media” has published? A contender, anyway. owl.li/iRV0e
— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) March 13, 2013
Countdown til somebody finds Cliff Kincaid at a truck stop glory hole. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks!) aim.org/aim-column/cpa…
— Matt Shiv (@shivvy) March 8, 2013
What’s in a name?
Part of our rights enshrined in the First Amendment is that one can have an opinion and we can either agree or not. However, when you hold yourself out as “conservative” and continuously employ an ideology that’s contrary to what conservatism is and always has been, are you simply misidentifying due to your own ignorance, or are you trying to mold conservatism to your insidious agenda? If it’s the former, it’s akin to Kim Kardashian waking up one day and deciding that she’s black. No matter how many black guys she takes to bed the fact remains that color, much to Kim’s chagrin, doesn’t rub off. If it’s the latter, you might want to revisit history to learn what invariably happens to people who step on the majority once they’ve had enough.
If you truly are committed to your self-described “conservative” moniker but your worldview is more closely aligned with cultural Marxists than our founding fathers, I’d suggest a personal reassessment. You’ll have to leave your willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty at the door.
Neither charlatans nor neophytes have free rein to redefine conservatism any more than atheists have free rein to redefine God.