From: Sgt Mom
To: Assorted International Intellectuals of Note
Re: Choosing Your Sympathies and Your Allies
Item: “World Tribunal On Iraq Condemns US & Britian, Recognizes Right of Iraqis to Resist Occupation”
Item: “Eurolefties Fund Iraq Insurgency”
1. Well, watching the usual progressive, politically advanced, oh-so-enlightened international intellectual set embrace, intellectually and apparently financially, a coalition of neo-fascist, bitter-end Baathists, nostalgic for the mass-graves and torture of yore, and a set of nihilistic, head-chopping jihadi fanatics bent on joyless forced devotion to a deity that precisely dictates every jot and tittle of personal conduct… let’s just say I haven’t read of such a naked and cynically calculated coupling of ostensibly extreme political opposites since the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939.
2. I cannot imagine what would inspire people and groups who have made a great display, over years and decades, of being against any kind of political and social oppression, of being against the abuse of the individual by the state and organized religion, of wanting to explore the boundaries of intellectual and artistic thought, who have reveled in sexual and political freedom, untrammeled by the constraints of former conventions. Apparently this is too good for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. According to high-minded, international intellectual set, they out to be well-content with what they had before: brute political oppression, religiously-enforced ignorance, isolation from the rest of the world, the burka, the mass-graves, the lash, and poisoned gas rained down on Kurdish villages.
3. One lot is making an attempt to fund the insurgents in Iraq— to aid and assist them in their brave work of assassinating legitimately elected politicians, government employees, and blowing up policemen, grade school children and incidental passers-by — and the other merely confines itself to the intellectual embrace of those who would otherwise merit their pious condemnation, were they performing such sterling service elsewhere in the world. But of course, it is against the Americans, which makes any sort of outrage completely legitimate.
4. It surely must excite the professional envy of many an old retired tart from the Reeperbahn, or Rainbow Corner (whiling away a blameless retirement in a condo in Torremolinos, perhaps) at the professional speed with which a certain set of academics, activists and personalities went from administering intellectual fellatio on Uncle Joe Stalin and his heirs and switched over to neo-fascists and Islamic fundamentalists— without even swapping out the kneepads and taking a spritz of metaphorical Binaca.
5. I often wonder if such are not darkly attracted to it all: violence, the tremendous pull of authority exercised willfully and absolutely, the subtle glamour of the cult of personality: the dangerous hero in fatigues and kaffiyeh, or other “of the people” glamour, the super-man who is permitted and excused… every kind of abuse, corruption, atrocity and stupidity. The holy anointed, like a Stalin, an Arafat, a Castro, a Mao, get a free pass; everyone else puts up with smelly anarchists waving incomprehensible signs, and the occasional threat of summons to an international court.
6. I also wonder, if deep, deep down, the usual set are afraid, afraid of the vast irrational powers loose in the world, ancient powers long thought tamed by conventional civilized mores, powers that they sense cannot be controlled by any of the old means. I wonder if this is an attempt to control those powers by placating them; “I am being nice to you, I am not like them, I am giving you what you want— be nice to me!” And I wonder if— in their nice, morally-equivalent, post-modern way— they have ever heard of the axiom that the Devil cannot enter… unless he is invited.
7. Finally; who you ally yourself with — unless you make an ostentatious display of holding your nose, and making it obvious that it is a short-term and expedient alliance, says a lot— perhaps more than Ms. Roy, et al, have bargained for.
Sincerely
Sgt Mom
Whoa, Momma.
Sgt. Momma, that is. Hella post. I think some in the hard left are fans of tyranny; others just hate America; and others (along with many liberals) are actively pursuing a strategy of burying their heads in the sand, hoping that the evil that’s been unleashed over the last 6-7 years will just go away on its own.
I’ve been hoping Bush would lay out the real deal: that we’re engaged in an unavoidable, multi-generational struggle for the minds of 1.2 billion people. It’s clear that’s the mission; I just wish Bush could bring himself to say it.
Comment by Al Maviva — 20050628 @ 2103
Re para. 1: Concur.
Re para. 2: You’re looking at reflexive support, not reasoned support. They’ve been against the idea of any limitations on personal freedom, and seen the limitations on their personal freedom from society as the enemy they fight against for so long that when an enemy of their enemy shows up they accept that enemy of a friend. The ramifications of such reflexive support have not been examined - indeed, in the interests of advancing their cause they will completely deny that the groups they’re supporting are much more suppressive and repressive than anything from the West would ever be.
Re para. 3: Concur. See remarks re para. 2.
Re para. 4: This is not an unusual occurance in the intelligensia. One lady of my acquaintance, going through a PhD in Theology and Personality, was completely shocked by the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas allegations, and said it showed just how ill-suited he was for the Supreme Court. The allegations of rape against Clinton, however, were blown off completely. She had no problem reconciling that allegations of a stupid joke were completely disqualifying in one case, and accusations of rape were completely acceptable in the other.
Re para. 5: Concur. Indiscriminate slaughter serves to provide legitimacy in the suruggle against the oppressor.
Re para. 6: They know they are safe in the west unless their actions turn extreme, and so seek to placate the irrational actors in the ME with their vocal (and monetary) support for additional security from that angle. The protection this support engenders will last until they are no longer useful, at which point they will be preferred targets due to lifestyle issues.
Re para. 7: Concur. Supporting chaos, evil, indiscriminate destruction and anarchy over civilization, the rule of law and reconstruction is an indicator that a moral compass needs recalibration ASAP.
Excellent job, Sgt. Mom…. as always.
J.
Comment by JLawson — 20050629 @ 0610
Court Split on 10 Commandments and…
So the Supreme court has now handed down their rulings on the two Ten Commandment cases in Kentucky and Texas. It appears that if you show the Commandments outside of the government building, then that is ok. But if you display them inside the buildi…
Trackback by On the Wright — 20050629 @ 1044
No, that wasn’t the deciding factor, Wright. The Kentucky Commandments were posted for expresly religious purposes, while in Texas, it was a historical monument.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20050629 @ 1114
So, let me get this straight: Display of the Commandments by those who do not believe in them, for purposes of history only, is OK. However, display of the Ten Commandments by those who believe that they came from God for guidance of man, is forbidden.
Makes perfect sense = = TO WHOM?
Comment by Joe Comer — 20050629 @ 1438
The Supreme Court, obviously.
Hey, I can’t figure out their logical contortions on this - but then I can’t find in the First Amendment where it says that government and religion can’t coexist peacefully either. I do see where it says it can’t pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - but I don’t look at it with a legal frame of mind….
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
How they get from that to the contortions of the latest decisions is beyond me.
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did a great job - they just never figured we’d have a plague of lawyers.
J.
Comment by JLawson — 20050629 @ 1553
Can these nutbags be brought before the ICC for crimes against humanity ? They are openly funding the murder of innocent Iraqs. I’m just sayin.
Comment by Jack — 20050630 @ 1147
Has anyone made the Star Wars connection yet? I mean this band of rebels attack the Empire? The Empire has this “super weapon” and lets no one else have a “super weapon”? A somewhat misled guy with a crazy older guy pulling all of the strings runs the Empire. Rebels fight in sand. There were two suns? Technology could be used for good and evil? The Empire is a democracy with a lot of republicans? The media is evil? Everyone speaks English.?
Everybody was friends before, but now not so much….
-Beth
http://coasm.blogspot.com/
Comment by Beth — 20050630 @ 1217
What would be fun… and subtle… would be for an Iraqi victims’ rights lawyer to bring a civil suit for damages against the various European leftist groups, on behalf of those Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents, as co-conspirators.
Ohhh, I hope it happens… I’d fix the most enormous bowl of popcorn, and watch with great attention.
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20050630 @ 1230
Yes Beth, we all made the connection a decade or two ago. The Star Wars saga is quite generic. And analogs can be found throughout history.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20050630 @ 1336
Beth - since when do Wookies speak English?
Besides - I understand that in Japan they all speak Japanese, except for the Wookies. Must be that “Universal Translator” thing kicking in, without the Wookie plugin installed.
J.
Comment by JLawson — 20050630 @ 1348
It seems obvious that Beth has applied the fruits of the fruitiest liberal imaginations to her comment.
Obviously, she thiks George Lucas should be worshiped as a demigod-like prophet, as the story arc for the Star Wars saga was in place well before G.W. Bush was ever a figure on the national scene.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20050630 @ 1708
Sgt Mom: What would be fun… and subtle… would be for an Iraqi victims’ rights lawyer to bring a civil suit for damages against the various European leftist groups, on behalf of those Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents, as co-conspirators.
Ohhh, I hope it happens… I’d fix the most enormous bowl of popcorn, and watch with great attention.
Ummm…they could do that…or if they were working on a fees by case basis they could sue the US military for the thousands of civilian deaths during the invasion. The insurgents aren’t the only ones in the piece who’ve killed innocent people.
That said, actually funding insurgents is a categorically f***ing stupid thing to do. Opposing the war is an entirely reasonable position, but there’s tons of domestic political material to go at in both the US and the UK without having to give money to marketplace bombers. My personal objection to the war was that Iraq didn’t present a direct threat to my country (or yours) and therefore killing lots of innocent people, as was always going to happen, was and remains utterly immoral. So you’re right; the only reason I can see for funding violent insurgence is anti-Americanism (or at least anti-coalitionism).
On a lighter note, so far this week we’ve had Hank Hill and Wookies. Weeks don’t get much better than that.
Comment by Al — 20050701 @ 0419
I should’t be surprised, actually… but from what I have read, the US military is very quick off the mark in paying out in reparations for damages and wrongful death.
Would the European backers of the insurgents be anything like that prompt?
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20050701 @ 0545
Have you heard the one about the man who took the venomous snake into his bosom, fed and nurtured it, and told it that since he was nice to it, the snake should not bite the man. But the snake, just being who he was, bit the man with a fatal dose of venom. As the man lay dying, he questioned the snake why he had bit the hand that fed him. The snake shrugged as snakes shrug, and said that there was no ill will, he was just doing what snakes do…..
I have a bad feeling that Europe will feel the horror and death of islamofascists on a massive scale as we have done, and it will be without feeling….
Comment by Joe Comer — 20050701 @ 2341
We all knew (and if we didn’t Han Solo told us) that lightsabers were obsolete weapons. Now Beth has told us the real reason that the Jedi carried them: it was so that they could decapitate kidnapped Imperial citizens.
The Force…the will of Allah…does it matter what the
mullahsJedi dictate that you must submit to?Comment by John "Akatsukami" Braue — 20050704 @ 1235