Nice piece in the American Prospect from Justin Logan on the silliness of pro-warriors' endless Hitler analogies and all, worth a read, but I really wanted to just single out this one somewhat extraordinary bit, news to me though perhaps not to longterm careful Norman Podhoretz watchers:the fuck?Podhoretz penned a meandering essay in Harper's in 1977 titled "The Culture of Appeasement" which likened antiwar sentiment in post-Vietnam America to the wariness of war in Britain after World War I, and then linked the latter to a homosexual yearning for relations with all the young men who perished in the Great War. In Podhoretz's view, "the best people looked to other men for sex and romance," and as a result, didn't much like them being killed by the score on the Continent. "Anyone familiar with homosexual apologetics today will recognize these attitudes."
Tying things back into the 1970s, Podhoretz pointed to the "parallels with England in 1937" and warned that "this revival of the culture of appeasement ought to be troubling our sleep." (A correspondent in a subsequent issue of Harper's would admit that he "had not previously realized that Winston Churchill fought the Battle of Britain almost singlehandedly while England's ubiquitous faggotry sneered and jeered from below.")
or, as doherty puts it:
I haven't felt more like backing out of a room saying, "Uh, yeah, interesting, gotta go" while reading anything in a long time.srsly.
so i guess people against war are, well, just against war because they want to have sex with all those mens and all that dyin' means less humpin'.