Saturday, September 04, 2004

Jihadist's Show Their Real Face - The Face Of Evil


I sit here today and find myself seething. What the Jihadist Islamofascists did yesterday in Russia is, to my mind, as bad, if not worse, than September 11th. The magnitude of 9/11 was clearly worse, but the fact that this time they specifically targeted children fills me with revulsion and disgust.

Yesterday, I saw cries of sympathy and compassion from around the world, coming out for the Russians. Today there is this, the European Union demands an explanation.

This echoes what happened to the U.S., post 9/11. On September 12th LeMonde ran the famous headline "We Are All Americans." I bought it hook, line, and sinker. By the very next day the tidal wave of America-had-it-comingisms were in full effect.

Here, from AP, is all you need to know in order to understand that the Russians did the right thing by storming the siege:


A police explosives expert told NTV television that the commandos stormed the building after bombs wired to basketball hoops exploded in the gymnasium, where many of the children were being held. A captive who escaped told NTV that a suicide bomber blew herself up in the gym.

A hostage who escaped told the AP that the militants numbered 28, including women wearing camouflage uniforms. The hostage, who identified himself only as Teimuraz, said the militants began wiring the school with explosives as soon as they took control. He, too, said they had placed bombs on both basketball hoops in the gym.

The bomb expert said the gym had been rigged with explosives packed in plastic bottles strung up around the room on a cord and stuffed with metal objects.

The militants, some with explosives strapped to their bodies, stormed the school in Beslan on Wednesday morning


The geniuses at the E.U. who are "demanding" an explanation of Russia are not stupid. They can read and process information. They just refuse to acknowledge the truth before their eyes.

Why would the Islamofascist infanticidal serial-killers wear bomb belts and plant bombs in a building they were occupying?

Even though that was a rhetorical question, I will answer for the fancypants over in the E.U. The answer is, the Islamofascist Infanticidal Serial-Killers clearly, from the very beginning of the siege, intended to kill themselves, and everyone else, if they did not get their way.


And what is their way? From Reuters:


MOSCOW - Rebels linked to the school hostage-taking seek independence from Russia and most want to make Chechnya (news - web sites) a sovereign Muslim nation.


They want to instate Sharia.

And what's more, the work of the Chechen Islamofascist Infanticidal Serial-Murderers is supported and masterminded by Al Qaeda. From Bloomberg:


Al-Qaeda Statement
A group loyal to Ayman al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, claimed responsibility for the assault in a statement posted on an Islamic Web site, Islamic Minbar.



Really, enough said.




Friday, September 03, 2004

Democratic National Committee Says Bush Has Assumed Dictatorial Powers


Here's a link to a page on Reuter's which features an ad, paid for by the Democratic National Committe, which depicts George Bush wearing a King's crown, with the headline, "Dethrone Bush."

They are implying that George Bush has subverted the Constitution, and assumed dictatorial powers.

You will not hear Bush respond to this.

Meanwhile, Kerry will whine and cry and threaten to sue over every Swift Boat Vet ad.

Tell me, which would be the worse crime of which to be accused, being a Dictator, or filing false papers with the military to win medals of honor?

The Democratic National Committee represents John Kerry officially. The Swift Boat Vets do not represent Bush.

My Road To Damascus


Anti-Chomsky posted a long, but important testimony entitled My Road To Damascus, which I will not attempt to excerpt here. However, I do highly reccomend reading it. One of his points is that Liberalism in it's "universalism" was destined to come to a place where it would reject Jewish "particularism". Thus, Liberalism was destined to fight against Israel, and, by extension, any Jew who supports Israel.

If this is true, and I believe it is, then Liberalism is also destined to fight against American "individualism", or Liberty.

Included in his testimony (that's the best name I can think of for his post) is his description of his ideological odyssey from "progressivism" to "conservative" (which is what he terms his current philosophical leaning).

His post echoes and elucidates so many of my feelings and so many of the steps in my own odyssey.

I, unlike Mr. Anti-Chomsky, was not raised Jewish. I was raised a Christian. I accepted Christ as my Savior, and as the Lord of my life, when I was 13 years old. I was baptised two weeks later. For the next five years I read the Bible and Biblical commentaries for probably 1 to 2 hours a day. Thus the Bible, and the Christian tradition, became my first intellectual training ground.

Then I went to college and lost faith in almost all that I had studied. The only two things I never lost faith in were

1) that God loved me, and everyone with an unaccountable and awesome love, and

2) that the "Christ story" (as I came to mystify it) - of God loving us all so much that he was willing to take on flesh, become a human and suffer great indignity so that his blood could enter the human continuum and inoculate our lives against death - was true in some Platonic lands of forms, or Jungian collective unconcious, even if it, perhaps, wasn't a real occurence of history.

I felt that I had to explain my Christian history in order to explain the following to you. When I was 27 or so, I began my long climb out of the intellectual and spiritual depression which into which I had fallen. It gradually became clear to me that what I believed in did matter. That the "Christ story" did make sense as a historical fact and in truth, it actually can be used as one way of explaining the changes in human society which have occurred during the last 2000 years.

I began to notice that all my hip friends who so rejected Christianity as being superstitious and intellectually barbaric were willing to fall for all sorts of pseudo-mystical b.s. (Astrology, Self-healing with crystals, Wicca, Paganism, Native American lore babbled by white americans who didn't make it out of their mid-life crisis intact, etc. etc. etc.). In short, they would fall for all the thousand gods of history but they would not get on their knees for the one faith which had clearly inseminated Western Civilization.

However, when I began to seek out fellow believers once again, I found an intellectual oppression almost the equal of the intellectual idiocy of my "hip" friends. Most Christians sit in such egotistical assurance of their understanding of the "truth" that they never feel the need to question, they frown on arguing and analysis. I find that sick and weak-minded.

My Jewish friends, on the other hand, who were also (as so many people do) returning to their faith in their late 20's and early 30's, did not refrain from questioning their faith, or analyzing the Bible.

For a couple of years, my wife and I seriously discussed converting to Judaism.

However, there was one small problem. I still believed in Christ, and, realizing there really is nothing more offensive to many Jews than a "Jew for Jesus", I decided that we would join a Church and do the best we could within the Christian structure. It has worked out better than I would ever have imagined.

One of the things that has helped us is that my wife and I have made a study of the Judaic roots of Christianity. Some of the stories in the "New Testament" only really come to life when one understands Jewish traditions and literature. I do not claim any expertise on this subject, I 'm just saying it helps.

Another thing we have started to do is celebrate Shabbat (that's why I often do not post on Saturdays. We are not very good at keeping the Sabbath (my wife and I are pretty undisciplined people, both of us being artsy types), but we are slowly integrating it into our lives.

Anyway, I go into all this so you might understand how I Pastorius, a former Chomsky-ite myself, came to spend hours everyday obsessing over CUANAS, this Christian blog which attempts to fight against anti-Semitism.

Because I have studied the Bible I know that the Jews gave us our entire faith. The Bible was written by Jews. Jesus was addressed as Rabbi. Paul was a Rabbi. His thought was Judaic, although he sometimes sold his ideas with a Greek spin.

Judaic thought is the foundation and life of Christianity. There is no separating the branches from the vines, nor the vines from the root. Read Romans. Anyone who would discount this idea stands to be pruned from the vine himself.

Now, a Christian can look at that literally (going to hell) or figuratively, but it remains true that the "New Testament" makes this point and makes it in some of the strongest language used in those letters which are so filled with love language.

I came to realize that, because Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, and Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization, therefore, Judaic thought is the foundation of Western Civilization. The Christian Church gave Judaic thought it's worldly power to spread across continents into the lives of a large portion of the world's population. Jews not being evangelicals by nature, never tried to sell their ideas to the world at large.

Thank God for us Christian imperialists, huh?

I relate to Mr. Anti-Chomsky's odyssey. Mine, obviously is not the same on the outside. However, the feelings and the ideological progression were very close to being the same.

After 9/11, as I have mentioned here before, I began to spend hours reading the news everyday. At first, I was simply trying to figure out why there were so many people in Europe and America who thought we had it coming.

Then I started to see that the same people who thought we deserved 9/11 hated the Jews even more.

I will leave you with this, from the Comments section to the Anti-Chomsky "Road To Damascus" post:


Anonymous said...

My road to Damascus took place while I attended college at an "elite" northeastern University. I entered as a Naderite at age 18, but became quickly disillusioned with the sort of narrow-mindedness, groupthink, and ignorance displayed by the leftist on campus. I started to drift away during my first three years.

Then early my senior year, I discovered one sunny morning that a group of religious fanatics had murdered close to 3,000 people in an attempt to murder 50,000. The vast majority were civilians, and the vast majority were in my hometown of New York.

And sure enough, within days, before any U.S. action to defend itself had taken place, these "progressives" were out on campus denouncing the U.S. There weren't many of them, but they were there, and it occurred to me at this point that these people were not driven by an ideology, even an extreme one, but some sort of a reflexive, nihilistic hatred.

These people claimed they hated war, yet they wanted to do nothing to stop a war that had claimed millions of lives in Afghanistan, and was beginning to spill over into the U.S.

These people claimed that the rich were oppressors, yet they wanted to do nothing to stop a multi-millionaire and his army of wealthy bourgeois fanatics.

These people claimed they were for women’s rights, gay rights, and religious tolerance, and yet wanted to do nothing to stop a force that, in Afghanistan, had turned women into less than beasts of burden, murdered homosexuals, and had massacred thousands of "heretical" Shi'ite Muslims.

These people claimed they were against imperialism, yet they wanted to do nothing to stop the Pakistani/Saudi colonial domination of Afghanistan.

So that was the end of my self-identification as a “progressive”. I would rather be a thinking man than a mindless automaton, and if thinking led me to “incorrect” conclusions, so be it.

And no, I haven’t been to church since 9/11, either.-Nietzsche-quoting anonymous guy


Thursday, September 02, 2004

France Threatens Pre-emptive Use Of Nuclear Weapons Against "Rogue States"
World Ignores and Snores


From The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, with commentary from JoshuaClaybourne.com:


In the fall of 2003, the French media reported that a major shift in the country's nuclear policy was under way. On October 27, the headline of the daily Libération screamed, "Chirac's Small Bombshell: France Will Soon Revise its Deterrence Strategy in Order to Be Able to Strike 'Rogue States,' Even Preventively." The newspaper reported that France would announce a new nuclear doctrine that would take into account "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction, and that new weapons were being considered to deal with such threats.


In the fall of 2003, the French media reported that a major shift in the country's nuclear policy was under way. On October 27, the headline of the daily Libération screamed, "Chirac's Small Bombshell: France Will Soon Revise its Deterrence Strategy in Order to Be Able to Strike 'Rogue States,' Even Preventively." The newspaper reported that France would announce a new nuclear doctrine that would take into account "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction, and that new weapons were being considered to deal with such threats.


It has always surprised me that the media has let France get away with claiming to be a spokescountry for a "multipolar" world, when in fact France's policy for three hundred years has been remarkably consistent: Let France be France. Paris has never worried about entangling alliances, because it will simply enter or leave them as it sees fit. That its military is not always able to cash the checks its diplomats write is simply a consequence of France's domestic political problems and its rather poor (but beautiful!) geographic endowment.

The announcement that France also takes rogue states seriously never really entered into the American debate on multilateralism, especially partnership with France and Schroeder's Germany. Nor, somehow, did France's last round of nuclear testing manage to make a dent in its reputation as a bunch of brie-consuming appeasement chimps. And, of course, France's actions in Algiers and at home signify that the residents of the Elysée Palace (good photo here are far more anti-Islam than anyone has ever seriously accused those living in the Maison Blanche.

The rest of the article confirms that France, far from being weak of word, is indeed sharpening its saber. The same countries that concern us, concern them. As the French defense minister said in November 2003, "At the time when we see countries with non-democratic and sometimes uncontrollable governments--one could mention North Korea, Iran, Pakistan--at the time when we see a whole bunch of countries acquiring nuclear weapons, should we let our guard down?" And official French sources can sound downright Bushian at times:

Gen. Henri Bentegeat, France's chief of defense, expounded, "Each dictator possessing [weapons of mass destruction] must realize that, should he choose to strike France's vital interests, he would be immediately exposed to the destruction of all his centers of power and of all his military centers with sufficiently accurate weapons with an adequately limited yield." Such a "more targeted" nuclear deterrence is judged necessary to "threaten dictators for whom human life does not count and who would be ready to sacrifice their countries."


France is tough, man. How is it that they say these things and they don't get reported in the American Media? I've heard endless criticism that the Bush Administration is stupid and unaware of the basic facts and issues that concern to the people of the U.S., it's allies, and the world in general. But, this is the first hard evidence I've seen that maybe they really are unaware. The fact that the Bush Administration sits quietly and takes French criticism for U.S. "unilateralism", while France's goes around the world making pronouncements like this, tells me that one of two thihgs is true about the Bush White House; either

1) they are unaware of French policy,

or

2) they absolutely don't care what France thinks.

Now, I doubt George W. Bush himself reads The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, but I have a hard time believing that, as a group, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, could be unaware of these French policy pronouncements. This leads me to the reluctant, and bewildering, conclusion that the Bush Administration not only doesn't much care what France thinks, but they don't have much concern (even here in Election Year 2004) about making their case to the American people. But it's almost impossible to believe the latter when you watch the Convention. This just doesn't make sense to me.

Am I crazy here? Don't you think the Americans would be shocked to know that while Old Europe castigates American unilateralism, they are actually instituting the same policy, on a grander scale (considering they are threatening Nuclear Retaliation against vaguely defined "rogue states", which the U.S. has not done) than the United States.

Don't you think that Americans in general (I mean in the 70-80% range) would see the blatant, historical hypocrisy of the European criticism of America? Wouldn't this effectively castrate the Kerry campaign considering he has been clearly arguing for following Old Europe's lead towards a kind of ill-defined pacifism?

This is one more example of Europe sitting around and acting self-righteous while they have us carry out their dirty work, all the while holding the trump card that (in theory) they would go even further than we would, if they had to.

They don't have to spend money on defense. We do their defense for them. And they criticize us for doing it. And all the while they are saying they wouldn't bother with the precision weapons and actual troops on the ground, they would just wipe "rogue states" off the map entirely.

And we let them get away with this hypocrisy.

Oh well, the convention isn't over yet. Maybe this will be brought up.


Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Al Jazeera Will Broadcast More Of The Republican Convnetion
Than CBS, ABC and NBC Combined


SF Gate reports on Al Jazeera's coverage of the Republican National Convention:



For 40 million viewers in the Arab world, Al-Jazeera, a Qatar-based satellite television channel, provides a window into the intricate world of American politics. This week, its 16 reporters and staff will air 13 hours of broadcasts from the convention -- more time than the combined coverage of America's major television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC.


That is a travesty and ABCCBSNBC should be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure Dan Rather is turning over in his grave at this very minute. Al Jazeera's focus on the issues at hand is a clearly the result of the fact that the Arab world is not yet dominated by American Hegemony.


Back to SF Gate:


For many of Al-Jazeera's viewers in the Middle East, these insights into the American political system are more than an excursion into foreign politics, said Hafez al-Mirazi, the Al-Jazeera Washington bureau chief.

"American politics for them is almost domestic politics," said al-Mirazi. "The Arabic society wants to know how serious are the statements they hear about America's commitment to democracy."

Al-Jazeera's coverage of the U.S. political process may be equally important for Washington, analysts say. The success of the U.S.-led war against international terrorism and the course of its occupation of Iraq -- two issues that dominate the presidential campaign -- ultimately will be affected by the Arab world's perception of America's intentions.

"We failed to conduct our diplomacy with the Middle East, which led to resentment toward U.S. policies" there, said Najib Ghadbian, a professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Arkansas.

"If a credible channel such as Al-Jazeera covers the U.S. extensively, I think the educated and more sophisticated audiences may see that, yes, there is something to what the U.S. is saying, and maybe they are really interested in bringing democracy to the region," Ghadbian said.
Al-Mirazi agreed.


Al-Jazeera, which airs news and public affairs programs round-the-clock, also struggles to shake the image of a channel biased against America and Israel. Its broadcasts of unedited videos of Osama bin Laden, its often provocative talk shows and its gruesome coverage of the war in Iraq have earned it nicknames such as "Taliban TV."


A U.S. bomb hit Al-Jazeera's Baghdad headquarters last year, killing one reporter and contributing to the channel's strained relationship with the White House. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq war "violently anti-coalition," and last month Iraq's pro-American interim government shut down the network's Baghdad offices for "inciting violence."

"It's important to change our image from 'Al-Jazeera, comma, Osama bin Laden's mouthpiece, comma,' " said Stephanie Thomas, the Washington bureau manager for the channel. "We have no agenda, no spin. We want senior American policy-makers to go on the air and talk to our viewers."


This seems like great news. I do wonder what they choose to edit out and how their commentators spin the content.

Thanks to Instapundit for making me aware of this.

Let's All Put A Moratorium On The Sam Harris Mentions Please


My friends out there in blog land. Please, stop giving Sam Harris attention. Every time you mention his book he probably sells another 100-500 copies, at least. His ideas are anachronisms posing as secular prophecy.

Here's what Publishers Weekly had to say about his book:


In this sometimes simplistic and misguided book, Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another.

Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris.

Predictably, he argues that a rational and scientific view—one that relies on the power of empirical evidence to support knowledge and understanding—should replace religious faith. We no longer need gods to make laws for us when we can sensibly make them for ourselves. But Harris overstates his case by misunderstanding religious faith, as when he makes the audaciously naïve statement that "mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not." As William James ably demonstrated, mysticism is far from a rational enterprise, while religion might often require rationality in order to function properly. On balance, Harris's book generalizes so much about both religion and reason that it is ineffectual.


Now, I am not as well-educated as Sam Harris. All I have is a B.A. from a lame State University. I am mostly self-educated. If I recall correctly, Harris is in the Doctoral Program at USC. Very impressive. But, tell me, with such a high-powered education, how is it that he missed the fact that these ideas, which he propounds as if he were the first to pluck them from the Tree of Knowledge, have actually been argued on a Western culture-wide level for several hundred years already.

These ideas reached their culmination and finally aquired their lethal power from, most notably, Nietzche and Marx, among other nineteenth century philosophers and social theorists.

These are the ideas that spawned the 20th century. These are the ideas that led to Stalinism, Nazism, the two World Wars, the Holocaust, Pol Pot, etc. All of those twentieth century catastrophes were the logical extension of the the ideas that Harris now puts forth as if they were original.

These ideas have already been thoroughly discredited.

So, why give him any credence? Each mention increases the sense of legitimacy he enjoys in society. With legitimacy comes power and influence. Do you want to contribute to the proliferation of discredited and dangerous ideas?

Ideas are capable of breeding terrible monsters.

America Is Optimistic - Britain Is Sour And Negative


Shout for joy, Melanie Phillips is back from vacation:


Optimists and reactionaries

Having just spent three weeks in the US, I was struck once again by how similar and yet how very different that country is from Britain. The thing that really hits you between the eyes is the optimism. You meet it again and again in everyday situations, particularly in the cheerfulness with which Americans deliver any services that are required. Instead of the surly jobsworths of Britain who are always doing you an enormous and onerous favour, American waitresses, counter staff, car park attendants and the rest all convey the impression that they are actually delighted to share the human race with you.

This sunny attitude is surely rooted in America's belief in itself as a force for good in the world, the certainty that American values can make the world a better place. This, of course, is precisely what gets up the nostrils of the cynical, sour, negative Brits.


I want to cut in here and say that when I visited England I found the people to be very pleasant. I did not have the typical American experience of rude waiters, shopowners, or people who would not help with directions. The English people were very helpful and polite. But, of course I, Pastorius, am one of the most charming people you will ever meet (see the rest of this blog for proof - that's a joke, ha ha).

However, I also found the English people, in general to be dour and almost ominously quiet. Same thing in France. There was an almost palpable, but inexplicable feeling of oppression. By oppression, I do not mean governmental oppression, in the classic sense. Instead, I mean a kind of spiritual oppression; the grief and despair of a people who see no hope.

It was a very strange feeling.

That's all completely subjective, of course. But, I'll bet Melanie would agree with my description.

Back to Melanie:


And maybe this helps account for the astonishing and irrational hatred of President Bush. For the dominant force in British society is the opposite belief, that this country's values are rotten and have to be replaced -- and indeed that the whole edifice of western culture is oppressive and coercive and has brought only misery to the rest of the planet. It is a profoundly reactionary viewpoint, anti-progress, which is increasingly having the effect of returning us to a pre-modern state of social anarchy -- despite the fact that it is espoused by people who call themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive'.

There was a time, of course, when liberal progessives believed they had a mission to improve the world by promoting values such as truth, law, justice, morality and freedom. That, of course, is precisely what Bush believes he must do (and, for that matter. so does Tony Blair). For that, he is denounced and vilified as a war-mongering imperialist. Democratic nation-building is now regarded as the new fascism. But the fact is that Bush has stolen the clothes from off the progressives' backs. Ironically, it is now Bush, the man of the right, who is the optimist who believes in building a better world. It is the left, by contrast, who now believe in preserving the tyrannical and murderous status-quo. In this respect, indeed, Bush is not conservative at all but an old-fashioned liberal radical (which is why truly reactionary conservatives such as Pat Buchanan hate him too, and have ended up singing from the same hymn-sheet as the progressives.)

And by golly, do they hate him. For although Britain has far more comprehensively lost its nerve and moral fibre, the culture of irrational hatred, lies and sheer unadulterated spite is raging in the US too like a forest fire. In a Borders bookshop in New York, I leafed through the following new titles: 'The I Hate (Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice) Reader -- Behind the Bush Cabal's War on Terror'; 'The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)leads America'; 'All the President's Spin: George W Bush, the Media and the Truth' (sic); 'Billionaires for Bush: How to Rule the World for Fun and Profit'; 'Now They Tell Us: The American Press and Iraq'; and the number one New York Times bestseller (natch): 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right' (yes, really).


I see these books on display all the time, as well, but I have my own little way of dealing with the situation. I simply go around the store and pick out stuff like Pam Anderson's book, Mad Magazine, Romance novels with lurid covers, and, last but not least, Mein Kampf. And then I bring to Bushitler display and simply intersperse my collection of silliness and idiocy with all the hate-Bush books.



Sudanese Government Supports Killing and Raping Black Men, Women and Children


Thanks to JihadWatch.org for making me aware of this article from the Khaleej Times Online:


Janjaweed shares camps with Sudan govt army: Human Rights Watch(DPA)27 August 2004

WASHINGTON - With a UN sanctions deadline looming, an international human rights group on Thursday charged that the Sudanese government army was sharing at least five camps with Janjaweed militia blamed for massive ethnic cleansing in western Sudan.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said the five camps were among 16 Janjaweed miilitia camps identified through its investigators in West and North Darfur.



Smoking gun; the Arab Muslim government of Sudan is sponsoring the genocide and enslavement of the black male population, the enslavement, torture and rape of black women, and the enslavement and rape of black children.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

It's Time To Deconstruct Europe


I make fun of the concept of "nuance" here quite often. However, as a person who spent the formative years of my life studying (not studying well mind you, but studying none the less) philosophy (Hume, Spinoza, Niethzche, Sartre being my favorites), and critical/social theory (Baudrillard, Marx, Weber) I developed a great respect for real nuance:


nu·ance
A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.



I believe nuance requires the suspension of dogmatic belief and the application of what Christians call the Fruits Of The Spirit (Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, etc.) to the ultimate end of fairness and objectivity. Nuance is not the goal. The goal is truth and goodness, or to come as close to truth and goodness as is possible given our limitations.

The problem with European nuancin' is, the nuance is the goal. In this sense, it is an endless evasion and obfuscation, expressing a desire to avoid the responsibility of making tough, dare I say it, adult decisions.

The European character has been devastated by the slime and muck of it's own doings. World War I was an absolute horror, followed shortly thereafter by World War II and it's unprecedented genocide (German and Russian) with the participation of almost the entire continent.

Since WWII, Europe has been sitting with the reality of the results of their own minds. "This is what we do when left to our own devices? " But, instead of moving on to the next question, ("Why do we do this?") they universalize their horror and lash out at the whole world. They are like a murder defending himself in a court of law. "I didn't do it. I wasn't there. And even if I was I was only doing what I was told. It was their fault. They did most of it. They put a gun to my head and made me pull the trigger."

And the most important point in their long, rambling final argument to the jury is Bushhitler. The sick minds of the Europeans have once again conjured up a monster befitting their vision of the world. But this time, it is a monster of projection, a cinematic monster. What an irony that while it is, supposedly, the U.S. that destroyed the dialectic of history, creating a self-reflexive media-dominated society, endlessly regurgitating it's own entrails as enterainment, the reality is it Europe who killed history. They had to. There really was no other choice. It was either kill history or be confronted with, and take responsibility for, the reality of their own monstrosity.

Bushitler is Europe's vomiting up of the bloody contents of their thoughts and dreams. Bushitler is a completely self-reflexive construct of the European simulacrum. Bushitler is entertainment for a Europe which has unchained itself from the demands and responsibilities of history.

As Baudrillard said,


"Today's abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality; a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it."


Europe's secular incantation of "nuance" for the purpose of evasion, has led inevitably to conjuration of Bushitler. The Bushitler construct, with one awful psycho-nuclear blast has accomplished the destruction of memory which Europe required. It has obliterated the real landscape of the world and left Europeans living in a simulacrum. A world without origin or reality.

It is time for Europe to deconstruct itself, to tear down the wall that separates them from history, responsibilty and reality. Europe has a lot to offer. The Europeans, with their belief in the continuous thread of Christianity, and their courageous Reformation, built Western Civilization. This Western Civilization, given our current circumstances in the War On Terror, is the best thing we have, and it is the only hope for the spread of freedom throughout the world.

We need you Europe. Get well soon.

French Media Lies About Kerry's Daughters Being Booed At MTV Awards


No Pasaran posted a comment this morning stating that French TV is in full Pravda mode. The issue is that while John Kerry's daughters were clearly booed, and booed heavily, on the MTV Awards the other night, on French TV it was a bit different:


LCI, French cable news channnel, showed the Kerry sisters on the MTV Music Awards with the booing edited out and an added commentary on how Kerry is coronated by American youth.


Now, the reality is there were boos and cheers. It seemed about 50-50 to me. Both sides expressed their opinion enthusiastically, and that's why I say the booing was heavy. It was loud and clear.

The last time I saw someone booed so heavily at an awards show was Michael Moore at the Academy Awards when he delivered his "Shame on you Mr. Bush" speech.

What is wrong with the French press that they would want to hide the fact that there are Americans on both sides of this issue?

The polls show a dead heat. Now I know it's a little hard to understand logic when you are so busy nuancing everything, but what that mean is there are just as many people on one side of the issue as there are on the other.

Monday, August 30, 2004

Dead Man Blogging


IraqWarWrong posted up today on why he filed me under "Bad People" on his blogroll. :


I just noticed that noted jazz bass player Jaco Pastorius (from what I could glean) wonders aloud (well-- in blog form,) about the way I link to him on my controversial blogroll.'

This affords me an excallent opportunity to expound a little bit (more then before) on my blogroll policy.

For, you might have wondered (like I do occasionaly)(until I remember the answer), Why do I link to a person's name (e.g. in case of Pastorius, its Pastorius) and not website "name" (in his case "cunanas" or something)?

You see, the answer is simple. It's because I like to Focus on the Person.

Let's take example. Instapundit. Instapundit is not a person. There is no person named Instapundit. "Instapundit"-- is just nonsense word (made-up relly). I don't even know what it means.

I name people not made-up things.Why should I let these people hide from they're wrongness from behind Internet sudonyms? Tha'ts cowardly. Truely cowardly.

And so anyway, the same all goes for (just learned his first name is Jaco) Pastorius. Welcome to my blogroll, noted jazz bass player Jaco Pastorius(never been a big fan in admittance, for my money best bass player will always be-- GEDDY LEE/ RUSH; #2 FLEA), even though you are wrong about what the Iraq war was, and cannot evade responsibility from you're wrongness. Why? Because I've called you out personally, by you're name, Jaco. See how that works?signed,iraqwarwrong (The Proprietor / "The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog")


You see now, this is exactly what I did not want to have happen. I didn't want people to know my true identity. That's why I only use the last name.

Now some angry person who thinks the Iraq War Is Wrong (i.e. not right) will come and stalk me when I'm out on tour with my band Weather Report. I can see the headlines already,

"Famed Jazz Musician Jaco Pastorius Beaten To Death By Thug."

But, I must say, I still admire IraqWarWrong for the depths to which he's willing to go in the name of his convictions.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Howie, We Hardly Knew Ye


I still think Howard Dean was too high-strung to be President of the United States, but Jeez, read this. I believe the guy would have been a Prez with a sizable endowment:


The Forgotten Crisis

By Gov. Howard Dean M.D.

As everyone who reads this column knows, I strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I did not believe the president was being truthful with us about the potential dangers Saddam Hussein posed to our safety. I also criticized the president for not using institutions such as the United Nations in a cooperative way to help accomplish a goal most Americans shared, which was to limit the destructive role Saddam played in the region and in his own country.

However, I have also said that the U.N. bears a portion of the blame for the Iraq war. The U.N. did not understand that sometimes action is necessary and talk is not enough. There is often too much dithering in the European Union and at the U.N. when action is needed. The shameful reluctance of the European Union to intervene forcefully in Bosnia in order to stop genocide is one such instance. The ultimate failure of the entire world community, including the United States, to stop the massacres in Rwanda is another example.

The U.N. does not seem to learn very fast. In Sudan, Africa's largest nation geographically, a terrible ethnic cleansing has been going on for more than a year in the western Darfur region where government sponsored Arabic speaking Sudanese militias have been systematically moving black Muslim Sudanese off their traditional lands.


I just have to step in here and say I really commend Howard Dean for all of this because he is speaking the truth, with one exception; the massacre in Sudan has been going on for twenty years. During the first nineteen years Arab Muslims were killing two million (primarily) black Christians, and that was ignored. It has only been during the last couple of years, when they moved on to their black Muslim brothers (primarily Sufi, to my understanding) that the world (apparently, including Howard Dean) has finally stood up and taken notice.

Howard Dean for President 2008 !??!!???!????


Over one million people have been displaced. Systematic rapes, burning women and children alive, and other forms of murder and intimidation are the preferred methods of the roving gangs called the Janjaweed. These gangs, supported sometimes directly by Sudanese government forces, are burning villages and sending their populations either to mass graves or, for the lucky ones, to foul refugee camps along the border with Chad.

This spring, the U.S. pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council threatening sanctions on Sudan for their disgraceful conduct. The already weak resolution was watered down at the request of a number of countries, including the Europeans. Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam.

We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.


Amen, Brother. Shout it from the mountaintops.