More Antiwarriorology
Thousands of "antiwar" protestors received their marching orders today and went on the offensive down Broadway in NYC.
The sign that says "United for Peace & Justice" (globally) must mean that they're united behind America's leadership in ridding the world of the Taliban and the Baathists (who weren't doing "World Peace" and "Justice" any favors, to be sure).
One would think.
Think again.
The sign that says "Bush IS More Evil Than Bin Laden" (what, "Evil?" Hey, that's "Manichaean!") can just as well say that Bush--not Bin Laden-- is the world's biggest terrorist (and indeed, we've heard that before).
It also implies, therefore, that:
1) The war the "antiwar" movement is waging against the evil terrorist President George W. Bush is justified for a nation that is waging a war on terror
and
2) The antiwar movement is comprised of a bunch of idiots
Smile for the camera, folks. There's a special place just for you in a file at the Department of Homeland Security!
posted by John | 6:28 PM
10 Comments:
There are two kinds of people ...make that three...
There are complainers and there are solvers.
And then there is the rest.
These people (pictured) are not solvers.
What are they complaining about?
The threat to international unity and peace that the Taliban and Saddam posed to the world?
No, the "threat" to international unity and world peace that Bush supoosedly poses.
Are they complaining abiout the evil of Bin Laden?
No, about the "evil" of Bush.
ASS-BACKWARDS.
My point was that these people aren't sovling anything by their protests.
I should say there are blamers and there are solvers.
Douglass, I still can't access 1234.
Anyway, you said:
"These protestors are complaining about nothing. (nada)"
By that I understand you to mean that their self-centered table-turning inverting, their psychological projection, and the resulting logical chaos renders all their "principled" arguments meaningless.
But they are complaining, Douglass, not about war, because their very aggressive militancy self-evidently proves their own warlike and willing-- but not able-- desire to pick up arms and fight and kill for their own cause (unable but settling instead to wage propaganda wars and engage in communication scrambling and character assassination of the enemy Commander in Chief while hoping for an actual one).
They're complaining about Bush & Republicans, conservatives, capitalism, and the American Way but use "Peace & Justice" as a cover.
That's it.
"These protestors clearly don’t remember 2 years ago, when John Kerry proposed increasing troop strength in Iraq."
They just don't care. They know Kerry is one of them and is just saying stuff that mean nothing. Just like they don't care when Hillary invokes Jesus Christ as an authority on whether secular legislation by the State should be passed. She means nothing not politically conditioned.
"The stupidity of these protestors is not the type seen in the underdeveloped; rather, their stupidity is that of the brainwashed."
Indeed. They are cultish.
"They have been motivated by propaganda to think and act in the way they do."
Yup. That's why they have their own little common language and mantras and buzzwords they like to pass around like a joint.
Any intelligent self-awareness that their natural Reason has been compromised is quickly vented by projection: "The conservative Christo-fascists are brainwashed by Neocon newspeak!" or something.
"It's sad."
I've stopped feeling pity for them. They need a swift kick in the ass to snap out of it. , but as you may know, the programming of cultish brainwashing includes fail-safes and defense-mechanisms which makes the subject very resistant to de-programming, mechanisms like projection and inversion.
"You said: 'There's a special place just for you in a file at the Department of Homeland Security!'
Lol!
But, I regret that the ‘special place’ even exists."
I hear that. Stuff like that accounts for the loss of Libertarians in Bush's "approval" column.
"I don't trust the dept of ‘homeland security’ and I don’t want them spying on any non-terrorist, no matter how stupid that non-terrorist may be."
Agreed. However, I trust the conservative credentials of the Bush Administration and their primary concern with National Security vis-a-vis the War on Terror, and their "spying"--or at least NSA eavesdropping-- has indeed been limited to strongly suspected terrorists or terrorist affiliates.
But it's a great power and already the temptation to make law enforcement jobs easier has been indulged by using the Patriot Act to pursue drug runners and distributors (starting with meth), and is sure to be used in the pursuit of non-Islamic terrorist crimes as the opportunity presents itself.
So now it's like: "Okay, go ahead and do what you gotta do to get terrorists. But okay, meth production too. But okay, serial murderers and pedophile predators too, we have no problem with that..."
True enough, but the ball has begiun to roll away from fighting the War on Terror, hasn't it?
And then you have to worry about that machinery being in place and at the disposal of liberal administrations--like if the Clinton's should return to executive power.
Their version of "the war-room" was not a meeting room in the Pentagon making plans against hostile, foreign enemies, but a place to hold coffee & donuts or pizza powwows and plot political strategems to deceive fellow Americans (i.e. conservatives and/or moderates).
They used IRS audits as a political weapon against private American citizens who spoke out against them.
They pilfered hundreds of private FBI files to get dirt on prominent Republicans.
Many "witnesses" have reported disturbing incidences involving vandalism to personal property, anonymous phone calls of a warning nature, and omiminous appearances of strangers making not-so-veiled veiled threats.
So if power-hungry Leftist's like that should return to power--and I suppose, perhaps, they inevitably will someday-- you will then hear the Libertarian in me roar and blog "God save us and let the Patriot Act expire!"
"I notice a heavy dose of linguistic trickery in name 'homeland security', much akin to the type of trickery employed when changing the name of dept of War to the dept of Defense."
Right. Or Pro-abortion to "Pro-choice." Or tax-hikes to "economic stimulus." Or southern conservatives to "Red State Christo-fascists."
"The dept of ‘homeland security’ would not exist without the panic that shook the nation on Sept. 11th."
Careful, Douglass, you sound like you've had a few drops of that same brainwashing kool-aid that makes antiwar Lefties spew that 9/11 and the war that followed was manufactured for the ultimate purpose of empowering a Republican Big Brother (of course, again, if the Left was in power, you will suddenly hear a lot of hosannas going up about the virtues of the program, I can assure you).
"In short, I think the dept of ‘homeland security’ is just another polished version of the secret police and I want no part in their repressive and unconstitutional actions."
Well, we are at war.
Lincoln suspnded habeus corpus and shut down opposition newspapers to save the Union and emancipate the slaves.
FDR interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps (not of the Nazi variety, but concentration camps nonetheless), and on and on.
I'm not calling for any of those obvious--but emergency-- infringements on Constitutional rights, but you can make a case for them under their respective emergency circumstances.
That's a very provocative statement I just made, but I'll bet I can cook up plenty of hypothetical--if not feasible-- scenarios which would compel you to make exceptions on your noble and no doubt sincerely-held principles.
And the Union was preserved, and slavery abolished. WWII was won, and the interrupted progression of Liberty proceeded as strong--if not stronger--as ever.
"Kelly,
I would question the veracity of any claims deduced from the model you employed, but yes, I agree that the people in question are not solvers. (Unless there are activist girlfriends being impressed at the protest in question)."
Yeah. It's a lefty macho-thing for many of those punks.
Kelly said:
"My point was that these people aren't sovling anything by their protests....I should say there are blamers and there are solvers."
The only thing they want "solved" is the problem of "anglo-Christo-capitalist-corporatist-militarist-
imperialism in America, and that's what they're complaining about.
The Bush-hating Clinton-lover's (and it's a very good bet that a great majority of the "antiwar" whiners are just that) adulation and across-the-board forgiveness--if not ignorance or actual acceptance--of liberal messiah Bill Clinton's serial Constitutional crimes and misdemeanors-- and his embodiment of the very same traits they accuse and condemn Bush of having (e.g. lying, waging war on false pretenses, being incompetent, spying, etc., etc.)-- proves that they are merely peevishly projecting the glaring flaws of their own political hero onto the superior character of Bush and are just hiding their intellectual depravity behind the noble-sounding themes of "World Peace" and "Justice."
An interesting thing about that so called group "United for Peace" Their whole purpose is ANTI Bush. They have no other purpose...it seems.
This is sort of off-topic...
Just in case you haven't seen this yet, there is Bush lampooning himself.
Bush Lampoons Self
Just make sure your drink is bolted down so you don't knock it over. ;)
Kelly said:
"An interesting thing about that so called group 'United for Peace' Their whole purpose is ANTI Bush. They have no other purpose...it seems."
They have other purposes.
Douglass said:
1) Our Government had nothing to do with 9/11 other than being sloppy and arrogant in the 80's while dealing with Muslim fighters in Afghanistan.
(Our government created al-Qa’ida in 1988 as to streamline the leadership of theMujahedeen, and it worked, the soviets withdrew in 1989. But, this policy backfired when the Muslim fighters we trained unleashed their war on the USA.)
Let's just hope that the best trained army in the Middle East--i.e. Iraq's-- doesn't do the same.
As for our own nurturing of Al Qaeda, I don't consider that "a blunder" so much because it was in the midst of Cold War realpolitic and achieved what we wanted, but careful what you wish for...
Remember *Rambo III?* The mujahideen (Bin Laden's boys!) were portrayed as heroic against the evil Soviets.
"2) If all a leader must do to suspend the liberties of the people is to declare a state of emergency, then the ‘rights’ of the people are nothing but an illusion, a screen that is removed at the moment of truth."
But you're implying that 9/11 and the War on Terror is an incidental pretense to "declare a state of emergency" in order to "suspend civil liberties" rather than measures required to win it.
Surely some security-oriented changes had to be made.
"3) I like your final paragraph. I must add that the people in question are in reality protesting nothing, as the liberals are equally involved in our military presence in the Middle East.
See the famous speech Bill Clinton gave to the World Jewish Congress in 1995.
(The 'dual containment' speech)
I would give you a link, but (surprisingly!!), I can’t find a transcript of the speech via goggle.
(Try your luck, and tell me where it is if you find it.)"
No luck.
"Here is a link to an excerpt from a publication by the CFR that talks about the speech as well as U.S. policy towards Iran and Iraq:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/122/differentiated_containment.html?breadcrumb=default&excerpt=1"
Thank you, Douglass, very informative.
Kelly said:
"Just in case you haven't seen this yet, there is Bush lampooning himself."
Saw it.
I think Colbert crossed the line and was offensive.
I sincerely love your blog. I've been spending hours reading your entries. Thanks for being so straight forward and off the cuff!
Dana said:
"I sincerely love your blog. I've been spending hours reading your entries..."
Thank you, Dana, and welcome.
Douglass said:
"Hmm.
When you say 'rather than measures required to win it', are you saying that my choice of vocabulary is telling of my mentality in the sense that I described 'a state of emergency' as leading to a 'removal' of civil liberties instead of the 'construction' of a legal code conducive to victory?"
Well, there's some ambiguity in your either/or choice right there, as "a state of emergency leading to a 'removal' of civil liberties" is not "instead of" but leads to "the 'construction' of a legal code conducive to victory," and the question is how far should those measures be taken for the sake of victory (if taken too far, it is argued, then "the terrorist's win).
Your phrasing indicates that you are inclined to believe that not only have the measures been taken "too far" (or are on their way to being so), but that, indeed, the "state of emergency" is used as a pretext for the "new measures" which the "state of emergency" does not call for:
"If *all* a leader must do to suspend the liberties of the people is to declare a state of emergency..."
You're implying that "the state of emergency" is used as a pretext to gain control over the civil rights of the citizenry rather than as a justification to impose new laws aiming to protect them.
"Also, I emailed the WJC about the speech; I'll post the link when I hear back from them."
Thank you, Doug.
Post a Comment
<< Home