MORE REPLY TO MARK | 2005-11-28
I had a great deal to do with the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Why?
Let's start with the fact that not on single highly-paid, degreed, awarded and honored Sovietologist had the slightest idea that the Soviet Union was about to go down in 1980. If that remark, which I have repeated, doe not hit home, not much more that I say will make sense to you.
I was in Pat Buchanan's house when he and other Catholic theologues had returned from a visit to the USSR.
Pat said, "All the Soviets ask of us is that we take them SERIOUSLY."
I kid you not. Those were his words.
And he was dead right.
But let us put ourselves back into 1980. The Soviet buildup and the Carter cutback had made the USSR the apparently militarily superior superpower.
In fact Pat was a major step ahead of the Sovietologists. He realized that the leaders of the Other Superpower were farid, above all, that others would think of them exactly as they thought of themselves.
Communism was SILLY.
Pat, like all theologues, had a half realization. He saw that anyone who wanted to dialogue with Soviet leaders had to recognize them as a real power, a real thing, not just a faith of western academics that, from the inside, looked ridiculous.
To return to the theme, an equation has TWO sides.
When I heard Pat say that, I felt like I did when, a few years before, Pat insisted that American troops at Normandy INTENTIONALLY died so that Europe would be open to third world immigration.
Every liberal and every official spokesman of The Greatest Generation has asid that repeatedly, but not in such blunt language. As a good theologue Pat recited the catechism perfectly.
But the Church didn't want it put that bluntly.
Pat, as a good theologue, NEVER comes to logical conclusions. There is no OTHER side to the equation.
A good theologue is capable of saying, "We all deserve death," by which he means that, because of Original Sin, all humans deserve eternal damnation. But he cannot come to the conclusion that every infant deserves to have hot coals rubbed into its eyes.
So if a theologue says, at the height of Soviet power, that all they ask is to be taken seriously, he is incapable of reaching the conclusion I had long since reached:
They are ridiculous and they know it.
Somewhere in the mass of words that is whitakeronline.org, I wrote a piece called "What Happened tot he Communist Conspiracy?" The first sentence was, "It went public."
Robert Welch tried hard in the 1950s to convince people that the ruling establishment in Washington was pro-Soviet. In the 1960s they said so.
Welch's problem was that he thought of the Communists as a Great Power, a serious group of people who really wanted to rule the world. He never looked at THEIR side of the equation.
The Soviets had all the power. The Soviets had out entire intellctual establishment on their side in a world that was divided between Communism and freedom.
How could the Reds lose?
All this left me totally puzzled. I knew they didn't exist. They had guns and mines and barbed wire, I saw it. But there was nothing THERE.
Buchanan could say that the Greatest Generation fought to open Europe to the third world, but he could not conclude that they wanted the end of the white race. Which is exactly why what he said gave liberals the shivers.
Buchanan wrote an excelent book called "The Death of the West." He went into all the statistics that prove that there was a program to rid the earth of whites.
He concluded that the death of the west was a decline of Catholic Church values.
Liberals can trust Pat, though they will never understand him. How can he not see what is obvious to anyone else? Why can he not understand the logical conclusions of what he says?
Because he is trained not to.
Look at the list of approved respectable cosneratives, the one show, thought the establishment denounced them, as allowed to speak for discontent with liberalism.
Buchanan, O'Reilly, Hannity, Chris Matthews, and you can add to the list. Every one of them is a perfect and trained theologue.
Falwell, Swaggert, Bakker, Bob Jones V, to the Northern Irish are added the Southern theologues.
This was titled a "Reply to Mark."
I have yet to explain how it relates to the price of tea in China.
Mark, do you have any idea?