By Rich Kozlovich
Nothing is ever as it seems. In spite of the fact that we have hundreds of years of human history that tells us that someone with a goal and a vision cannot be appeased; yet they still keep trying to appease those who cannot be appeased. This isn't like the Roman Empire bribing Attila the Hun to prevent him from launching attacks of murder and mayhem on the Roman people. Attila died, his "empire" ceased to exist and so did the need to 'appease' him.
Leftism, whether it is called progressivism, liberalism, fascism or communism, is a concept based on hate. It doesn't matter who starts or promotes it and then dies; the concept lives on with new names who have embraced the same concepts and same tactics. The very fabric of the French Revolution became the framework for leftism. This migrated all over Europe and the concept lived on irrespective as to who was promoting it; and a concept cannot be appeased.
In the 20th century Hitler failed to be appeased by Neville Chamberlain when Chamberlain gave him a big chuck of Czechoslovakia (which wasn’t his to give away and without asking for the Czech’s permission I might add), nor was he appeased when he took over the rest of that country. He wanted world domination and no agreement or treaty or understanding would deter him from his vision.
The left believes in anything that will advance their goal, which is world domination under their control, including incrementalism. They are happy to take it one step at a time, even if they are baby steps, because they will never give up. The names change, but the philosophy remains forever.
The same thing happened with Stalin. He wasn’t merely satisfied with the west’s betrayal of Eastern Europe. He wanted everything and no agreements would ever be honored. They never honor any rule of law within their own countries; so why should anyone believe they will honor anyone else's rule of law? Since they have shown over and over again that 'rule of law' is meaningless to them, why would anyone with any sense at all think that anything has changed now?
What fascinates me are those who are in decision making positions that think everything is new because they are - as Jack Kennedy called them - the best and the brightest. Well, I have a different view; one that I share with Forest Gump, i.e. “stupid is as stupid does”! Being well educated doesn’t seem to matter in the real world since so many of these people seem to have a monopoly on being overeducated and under smart. There really is no fixing stupid. Especially when it is coupled with arrogance, privilege and an ideology that makes smart people dumb!
Tommorow's post will cover more of this issue regarding the media.
Engagement with Castro Has Clearly Failed -- Time to Try an Embargo
By Humberto Fontova
"Gosh, maybe if we were only nice to Castro," goes the liberal mantra on Cuba.
In fact, the U.S. elite's fetish for "engagement" with Fidel Castro began before he was even in "office."
"Me and my staff were all Fidelistas." (Robert Reynolds, the CIA's "Caribbean - Desk's specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-1960.)
"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except [Republican] ambassador Earl Smith." (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)
Their advice was taken, and January 7, 1959, thus marks a milestone in U.S. diplomatic history. Never before had the State Department extended diplomatic recognition to a Latin American government as quickly as they bestowed this benediction on Fidel Castro's that day.
Nothing so frantically fast had been bestowed upon "U.S.-backed" Fulgencio Batista (note the obligatory prefix, used in every MSM and "scholarly" mention of him) seven years earlier. Batista had in fact been punished by a U.S. arms embargo and heavy diplomatic pressure to resign for a year. Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and not even allowed to set foot in the country that "backed" him.