Sunday, November 21, 2004
Multilateral Sour Grapes
After the Bush administration rallied over two-dozen countries against the fascist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the usual clown show of media clones and “thinkers” have erected a mythology around the word, “Unilateral.” I’ve also seen the phrase, “Go it alone” used to describe the collaboration of these several countries that aren’t Russia, Germany, or France. Another counter-U.S. propaganda ploy has been to imply that the U.S. had somehow coerced or slighted France specifically in some way. Initially, of course, Bush hoped to get support from any country willing to stand firm in support of the multiple UN resolutions against Hussein’s police state. France not only chose to not support the effort, but also actively sought to undermine it and lead a coalition of the un-willing. After France displayed its historically characteristic arrogance on the matter, they then – with the help of the international media – chastised the U.S. for, of all things, “its arrogance.” We now know that U.N. staff members, France, and several other countries in the non-coalition we’re skimming considerable oil for food kickbacks from the Hussein regime. Ironically, the Marxist sympathies of Euro-land framed the U.S. effort as war “for oil.”
The well-constructed mythology of a villainous America has reached the point where people who neither know of, or care about, political matters now mimic clichés from the socialist mantra; “Bush and America are Fascists …no blood for oil…unilateralism!” – hymns from the Marxist songbook.
Another popular polemic scheme involves what I’d call, “rebellion through feigned disinterest and mock hyper-objectivity.” In America, the pseudo-rebels pose as non-aligned thinkers, imagining themselves to be somehow above the fray. While deriding the American position they claim to be “refusing to take a side.” Ironically, their refusal to take sides always defaults to the anti-U.S. position. While seeking an aura of profundity, in reality their stance is merely an expression of the weasel archetype, the guy who would sell out his family or country to maintain his own air of superiority.
We live in an age where slippery philosophical game players are considered heroic by some. Do we really want such types defending our families and communitites or leading our nations?
I’m reminded of Rhett Butler in “Gone With The Wind.” Through the beginning of the film, we’re impressed with his independence. He’s a smuggler who takes no side but his own. We can’t help but wish to identify with his superior insight and objectivity. He’s not naive like those other foolish souls running off to war for some meaningless cause. Later in the movie he shocks Scarlet O-hare and the audience as well, when he announces that he is going off to join the other soldiers in battle. He actually, quite humbly, acknowledges the weakness of his prior stand. We now can’t help but admire his newfound self-honesty and conviction. An actual intellectual appraisal of war itself becomes meaningless when we see this hero figure act on principal and do what he intuitively knows is right.
So, what is this “unilateralism” now taken as an objective label regarding America’s stance in the war with Fascist Islamic Jihad?
The fact that socialists in one country happen to agree with socialists in another country is hardly a noble expression of “multi-lateralism.” To the contrary, it merely means that some countries’ self-interests generally coincide with others. Contrary to the emerging mythology, France doesn’t base its policies on some self-effacing sacrifice or compromise. It merely acts in its own self-interest, seeking to resurrect a nationalistic ego tarnished by its own historical failures. The fact that it may agree with a few other countries in its desire to rein in the American “global hegemon” isn’t evidence of some noble cooperative greatness on its part.
The imperial rule of -- Western -- Europeans is long past and more than a few of them resent the fact that another country is currently taking its turn as “top dog” on the pages of history – oh well.
“Unilateral…hegemonic…illegal war? – Mere euphemisms directed by the sour grapes of social-bureau-states unable to acknowledge their own obvious self-interest and self-delusion.
If the pampered magicians of sound-bite leftism only had the insight of Rhett Butler and recognized that taking a stand for genuine justice is not an issue of xxx-lateralism, but simply having the courage to do what is right.
************************************
You don’t suppose that the media’s excitement regarding video footage of an American soldier shooting an “unarmed and wounded” terrorist will be equaled by video footage of the “slaughter rooms” found, where abducted civilians had their head’s sawed off?
Neal Boortz is blunt and to the point in his own appraisals of recent events in Iraq:
“Nowhere in any of the mainstream press coverage will you see her killers being described as anything less than "insurgents." Some of the coverage makes it sound like she died as the result of an accident or something. If it's not that, then it must be George Bush's fault for invading Iraq, angering the insurgency, and making them kill her. It's simply amazing that the leftist media in this country refuses to properly identify the enemy in the war on terror. They're too busy apologizing for the actions of the insurgents and doing stories about the "root causes" of terrorism.
Now ... think about this. A US Marine puts a bullet in the head of a terrorist, a terrorist he thought was playing dead. Just a day or two earlier this very same Marine lost a good friend to a booby-trapped body of a "dead" insurgent terrorist. Now that we know this, I'm prepared to give this Marine a pass. Good going, Marine. Now we see more outrage over what the Marine did than we see over the murder of this innocent, caring woman. What's wrong with this picture?”
**********************************
Famous quotes from "The Religion Of Peace":
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” -- Ayatollah Khomeini
**********************************
More appraisals of the authoritarian café “thinkers” of France in this excellent “letter to France” by Michael Novak in National Review Online.
France today isn’t really that different from the France of violence past:
“France had a long tradition of fascistic thought, going back to the 1890s. It arose principally, though not exclusively, from the socialist part of the political spectrum. Its leaders rebelled against the tyranny of materialism, as they saw it, both in the "bourgeois" state and in the Marxist analysis. Their aim was revolution - by the whole nation, not just by the proletariat. They hated democracy and the freedom of the individual, which they termed "atomization". People would only be happy and find their spiritual destiny in a new, authoritarian order where the power of the state would abolish the grip of international finance and direct the economy...” -- The Fascist Tradition In France And Belgium
**********************************
Even in the socialist nirvana, Holland, (I’m being sarcastic, there’s definitely no realationship between socialism and nirvana) things aren’t working out as hoped. A little too much Leftism and, as one could expect, everything falls apart – stupid fools.
The well-constructed mythology of a villainous America has reached the point where people who neither know of, or care about, political matters now mimic clichés from the socialist mantra; “Bush and America are Fascists …no blood for oil…unilateralism!” – hymns from the Marxist songbook.
Another popular polemic scheme involves what I’d call, “rebellion through feigned disinterest and mock hyper-objectivity.” In America, the pseudo-rebels pose as non-aligned thinkers, imagining themselves to be somehow above the fray. While deriding the American position they claim to be “refusing to take a side.” Ironically, their refusal to take sides always defaults to the anti-U.S. position. While seeking an aura of profundity, in reality their stance is merely an expression of the weasel archetype, the guy who would sell out his family or country to maintain his own air of superiority.
We live in an age where slippery philosophical game players are considered heroic by some. Do we really want such types defending our families and communitites or leading our nations?
I’m reminded of Rhett Butler in “Gone With The Wind.” Through the beginning of the film, we’re impressed with his independence. He’s a smuggler who takes no side but his own. We can’t help but wish to identify with his superior insight and objectivity. He’s not naive like those other foolish souls running off to war for some meaningless cause. Later in the movie he shocks Scarlet O-hare and the audience as well, when he announces that he is going off to join the other soldiers in battle. He actually, quite humbly, acknowledges the weakness of his prior stand. We now can’t help but admire his newfound self-honesty and conviction. An actual intellectual appraisal of war itself becomes meaningless when we see this hero figure act on principal and do what he intuitively knows is right.
So, what is this “unilateralism” now taken as an objective label regarding America’s stance in the war with Fascist Islamic Jihad?
The fact that socialists in one country happen to agree with socialists in another country is hardly a noble expression of “multi-lateralism.” To the contrary, it merely means that some countries’ self-interests generally coincide with others. Contrary to the emerging mythology, France doesn’t base its policies on some self-effacing sacrifice or compromise. It merely acts in its own self-interest, seeking to resurrect a nationalistic ego tarnished by its own historical failures. The fact that it may agree with a few other countries in its desire to rein in the American “global hegemon” isn’t evidence of some noble cooperative greatness on its part.
The imperial rule of -- Western -- Europeans is long past and more than a few of them resent the fact that another country is currently taking its turn as “top dog” on the pages of history – oh well.
“Unilateral…hegemonic…illegal war? – Mere euphemisms directed by the sour grapes of social-bureau-states unable to acknowledge their own obvious self-interest and self-delusion.
If the pampered magicians of sound-bite leftism only had the insight of Rhett Butler and recognized that taking a stand for genuine justice is not an issue of xxx-lateralism, but simply having the courage to do what is right.
You don’t suppose that the media’s excitement regarding video footage of an American soldier shooting an “unarmed and wounded” terrorist will be equaled by video footage of the “slaughter rooms” found, where abducted civilians had their head’s sawed off?
Neal Boortz is blunt and to the point in his own appraisals of recent events in Iraq:
“Nowhere in any of the mainstream press coverage will you see her killers being described as anything less than "insurgents." Some of the coverage makes it sound like she died as the result of an accident or something. If it's not that, then it must be George Bush's fault for invading Iraq, angering the insurgency, and making them kill her. It's simply amazing that the leftist media in this country refuses to properly identify the enemy in the war on terror. They're too busy apologizing for the actions of the insurgents and doing stories about the "root causes" of terrorism.
Now ... think about this. A US Marine puts a bullet in the head of a terrorist, a terrorist he thought was playing dead. Just a day or two earlier this very same Marine lost a good friend to a booby-trapped body of a "dead" insurgent terrorist. Now that we know this, I'm prepared to give this Marine a pass. Good going, Marine. Now we see more outrage over what the Marine did than we see over the murder of this innocent, caring woman. What's wrong with this picture?”
Famous quotes from "The Religion Of Peace":
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” -- Ayatollah Khomeini
More appraisals of the authoritarian café “thinkers” of France in this excellent “letter to France” by Michael Novak in National Review Online.
France today isn’t really that different from the France of violence past:
“France had a long tradition of fascistic thought, going back to the 1890s. It arose principally, though not exclusively, from the socialist part of the political spectrum. Its leaders rebelled against the tyranny of materialism, as they saw it, both in the "bourgeois" state and in the Marxist analysis. Their aim was revolution - by the whole nation, not just by the proletariat. They hated democracy and the freedom of the individual, which they termed "atomization". People would only be happy and find their spiritual destiny in a new, authoritarian order where the power of the state would abolish the grip of international finance and direct the economy...” -- The Fascist Tradition In France And Belgium
Even in the socialist nirvana, Holland, (I’m being sarcastic, there’s definitely no realationship between socialism and nirvana) things aren’t working out as hoped. A little too much Leftism and, as one could expect, everything falls apart – stupid fools.
