Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The country that gave us Orwell is striving mightily to realize his vision

The reversal of logic is nearly complete: Six years after the 9/11 attacks, the UK government is confusing the most basic definitions of words in a political indoctrination attempt.

Their newest approach is to redefine the term "Terrorism" into something they've dubbed "Anti-Islamic" activity. (While it's tempting to describe this phrase itself as "Tortured", we must remember that this concept, too, must be eliminated, lest it raise concepts that may be interpreted as harfmul or offensive to anyone who might even imagine it).

Forget for a moment the absolute absurdity of a government attempting to engage in such propaganda; what's of immediate concern is the twisted logic behind it. Here's how they're explaining this move: "Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion."

In the last few decades we've seen the emergence of religious violence being carried out - in the vast majority - by people who claim that their deeds are performed in the name of Islam. But for some reason, they are now not the ones to be blamed for creating this impression. This is the heart of propaganda, telling you that you are not seeing something that you in fact are, or vice versa. If Muslims are not responsible for the linking of terrorism to Islam, then what explains the attacks of 9/11, the attacks on the khobar towers, U.S. embassies abroad, the first attack on the world trade center, a nightclub in Bali, a train station in Spain, and of course, on the U.K.'s own turf, the tube bombings. That's not to even mention the foiled plans, nor is this list anywhere near complete.

But somehow, with all these examples, the perpetrators are beyond blame for the assocation they've created, and the good people of the United Kingdom are being told that they themselves must reject what they've witnessed, and adopt a reverse-logic way of thinking. Orwell would of course not have been surprised by one bit of this, but he would surely have been as nauseated as anyone else.

Denying the Islamic presence behind terrorist acts changes nothing, but leave it to governments to try and find a way to weasel out of a confrontation with those who want to kill them.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Woe betide our voters

Our primary process is gathering steam, and we will soon be graced with the names of the two people who will face off in our upcoming presidential election. As usual, the Democrat party provides the standard-issue team of America-lasters who will try to outdo each other in blaming America for the world's ills, buying into every conceivable global-warming climate change baloney, and simultaneously kowtowing to our enemies and alienating our real allies.

The rock star Obama provides hope with a halo, except that those who favor his candidacy tend to be those who renounce such iconography as halos - we are being asked to ignore his total naivete on matters fiscal and international, and instead buy into the idea that electing a black guy as president will provide some sort of "racial healing" to the nation, as well as demonstrate to the world that, look, see we're not all Southern hick rednecks, and we can be accepted back into the international elite that drips with disdain for America's generosity, while stuffing its pockets with international "Aid" supplied, just in case anyone's forgotten, by the American taxpayer.

The once-rational Economist, continuing in its journey as a New York-times wannabe which embarasses its sober history a bit more with each issue, says with a straight face that "His achievements are undoubted", and also recites the usual dreariness about how the election of Mr. Obama would somehow make "Amends with America's racist past", although this view is attributed to "white voters" in early primaries, to take the focus off the editors' own giddy glow.

The rush to embrace a black candidate - and it is definitely an improvement that he is not a flagrant race hustler, a la the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton machine, whom the press long ago anointed as the official spokespersons for all matters African-American - is approaching Beatlemania levels of excitement. The desire to gush over the fact that we can have a black candidate for president obscures the very real erosion of racial division in America that those on the left are so eager to avoid acknowledging. Instead, they make judicious-sounding pronouncements about how wonderful it is, not realizing that they've tipped their hand just as badly as Joe Biden did when he described Obama as "Clean, bright, and articulate". As usual, those who diagnose racism as the source of all friction have no problem talking up Obama's supposed ability to govern in a vain attempt to convince themselves that they are not indulging in racial profiling, when there really is no other description for their behavior.

And if Obama does indeed become the candidate (and the value of finally vanquishing the Clinton machine from high office must not be underestimated), but then loses the general election, what do you think will be the response from the self-proclaimedly "Objective" media, the ivory-tower elites, the campus radicals, and those who see nothing wrong with victimizing whites in retribution for past history? This is proof positive of America's fundamental racism, they will scream. Even leaders of other countries will sneer, while their own treatment of immigrants, non-natives, and other minorities is far closer to the Jim Crow society that the modern left so loves to claim discovery of everywhere they look.

Never mind that Obama has made every indication of wanting America to apologize to the world for being America in the style of every major candidate on the left; never mind that he wants to talk unconditionally with Ahmadinejad of Iran while at the same time stating that the U.S. might have to unilaterally enter Pakistan to restore order, should its own situation worsen; never mind that Obama's vapid declarations of huge new bureaucracies and higher taxes carry no indication of being viable, successful, or worthwhile, and his sprawling and lofty yet totally meaningless goals of "investing" in American industry/American Workers/Renewable energy/the latest new-age notions of economic development which bear no relation to anything that actually works, and the socialism-inspired mechanisms he proposes which should send everyone scrambling to secure their wallets - never mind all of this; the elites will demand blood for America's not having the wisdom to elect a black figurehead in a misguided attempt to demonstrate their own racial bona fides, and anything less - especially the result of another Rebpublican presidency - will be immediately dismissed as a Diebold/Halliburton-engineered theft of another election, perpetrated by the one "Race" that it's now completely acceptable to hate, the white male.

As those on the left work themselves into a frenzy regardless of the actual outcome of the election, there will at least be some educational value afoot - if Obama wins over the majority of voters, expect to see a momentary break in the general gloominess of the left, accompanied by an inverse-proportion market dive, an economy worsening in preparation for the ferocious tidal wave of new taxation and regulation that will surely follow, and the "International Community" breathing a sigh of relief that America will have now returned to its Jimmy Carter-like era of apology, deference to Islamic crazies, and hammering more nails into the coffin of America's will to survive.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Don't Forget

Happy new year, and oh, don't forget: There are crazy people who want to kill you, and they do so in the name of Islam. Does that sound like "Hate Speech", or some other politically correct label? If so, welcome to the Useful-Idiot club.

Lest you think I'm merely calling you names, try to imagine what the world would be like if the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by crazed white men claiming to act in the name of Christianity? It's nearly impossible to imagine, of course, because we just don't see Christians of any sort committing such acts.

If you have pledged your allegiance to the Rosie O' Donnell club, and you claim to 'fear' such mythical Christians as much or more than you fear Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, you have not achieved some more-enlightened state of sensitivity; you have merely been played for a sucker by Radical Islam's apologists.

And just in case you have bought into the notion that George W. Bush is personally responsible for "Radicalizing" muslim youths and delivering them into the arms of Al-Qaeda, try to remember all the attacks and 9/11 preparation that went on during the reign of that beloved "Moderate", Bill Clinton. Palestinians have been killing civilians since long before George W. came on the scene.

And before you trot out that "Israeli Aggression" horse - which turns out to have been flogged to death by a suicide bomber, ask yourself: which side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict openly calls for the destruction of the other group, and which systematically targets civilians, even using children to deliver its bombs?

These activities and more, of course, are committed with the tacit approval of those in charge of Palestinian affairs, to whom the U.S. and Europe blindly give millions of dollars, which in turn finance more such atrocities. Such U.S. taxpayer-supplied money is meant to accomplish what, exactly? And has been how successful?

So quit deceiving yourself - madmen really and truly want to cut your throat, if they are given a chance. You have turned a blind eye to this wish, and now, by buying into the notion that such people are somehow the victims, you have become their primary enablers. Nice work.

Do not forget 9/11, and do not make excuses for it. Try to retain some common sense when you enter the voting booths.