| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Intemperate thoughts about Hasan, WOT & the 'Blind One' |
| 2009-11-08 |
| I read a blog entry on American Thinker that asked a great question. Since I'm increasingly skeptical we'll hear of the facts about how Hasan slipped under the radar (reports are that his home was awash with law enforcement the morning of the attack, due to his 'giving away' all his possessions and dressed in traditional muslim garb), the 'question' reminded me of a report that I subconciously suppressed, as it made me 'extremely angry' (being lumped into a group due to a paranoid government hyper-focused on domestic ideologues that used a broad brush to include 10s of millions of patriotic Americans). The question was, "Who was the more likely terrorist?" According to this report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf DHS doesn't have a CLUE. 'Muslim' entries in the report: Zero 'Islam'?: Zero 'Christian'?: One 'Veteran'?: Eight 'Rightwing': FIFTY Who is 'rightwing'? (I'm ignoring the title of the report to make a point. Obviously it lends to the use of the word within) From Wikipedia: "Right-wing libertarianism (sometimes known as libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism) supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and advocates policies such as property rights, free markets and free trade. Russell Kirk believed that freedom and property rights were interlinked.[49] Rafael Di Tella (Harvard Business School) and Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[56] Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." I think we've been provided a particularly unique insight into the mechanics of how this administration plans on using the resources of the Government of the United States of America against its enemies, and who it believes those enemies are (remember the transition of 'war on terror' to 'contingency operation'?. From Andrew McCarthy's piece from the National Review online edition, Mar. 27, 2009, he states it best: "Saul Alinsky, Obama's community-organizing inspiration, wrote at length about words in Rules for Radicals, about their power to inspire and to enervate. "In communication as in thought, we must ever strive toward simplicity" when it is our purpose to inspire. Such a purpose calls for "a determination not to detour around reality." An opposite purpose, Alinsky writes, calls for an opposite approach. Avoid the "force, vigor, and simplicity" of the right word, and "we soon become averse to thinking in vigorous, simple, honest terms." Instead, "We strive to invent sterilized synonyms." Such "new words," Alinsky taught, "mean something different, so that they tranquilize us, begin to shepherd our mental processes off the main, conflict-ridden, grimy, and realistic power-paved highway of life." Tranquilized, we will sleep. As we found the last time we tried this, our enemies won't." I'll refrain from biblical references and instead refer to a Hindu passage from around 800 BC: "Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind." Of course, I cannot close without observing the 'hidden' metaphorical relationship of current events to the Hindu story of Ganesha, where when Ganesha was born, his mother, Parvati, showed off her new baby to the other gods. Unfortunately, the god Shani (Saturn), who is said to have the evil eye, looked at him, causing the baby's head to be burned to ashes. The god Vishnu came to the rescue and replaced the missing head with that of an elephant. Elephant? (I think you get the point. Ok, a 'reach'...but stay with me here...) Shani? (I won't go there now, but you get my drift. If not, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shani and you WILL) Vishnu? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VishnuGandhara.JPG The four-armed male-form: The four arms are said to indicate his all-powerful and all-pervasive nature. However, this metaphorical reference could be said to have his 4 arms represent the 'four branches of US government': Executive, Legislative, Judicial and, we cannot neglect, The People. So, methaphorically-speaking, to replace BO (the Blind One) 'we' (referring to the 'people') truly do have to 'twist a few arms' to take this country back from the hands of a handful of fascist progressives. (my odd sense of humor requires leaves me with one other observation, but I'm restraining the urge to make the observation with my desire to not poison this post with 'rightwing' commentary & dilute the message with humor. However, permit me to harken back to Revolutionary times, when a lone rider is alleged to tear through the streets, calling out "__" , "__". Get it? Ohhhh...the metaphors...I'd rather be waterboarding) |
| Posted by:logi_cal |
| #1 RENSE > [TELEGRAPH.UK Artic] FORT HOOD SHOOTER - MUSLIMS SHOULD RISE UP [ + attack Americans in retaliation for US war agz Muslims in Afghanistan = AFPAK, etc.]. HASAN = US SHOULD BE IN THE WAR. versus PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > [Mounting Evidences]TALIBAN STILL WORKING FOR THE CIA [ + PAKI ISI Agency]??? US + TALIBAN PROXY are adhering or following 1980's POLI SCI DEMI-GOD "ZIGGY" ZBIGNIEW BZREZINKSI'S PREMISE [book] OF A "GLOBAL ZONE OF PERCOLATNG CHAOS" designed tp prevent RUSSIA = COLD WAR USSR [now CHINA"]from becom an IMPERIAL POWER again. Ziggy's "Zone" encompasses CENTRAL ASIA, TURKEY, + WESTERN CHINA, + ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, PERSIAN GULF, + AFPAK, WORLD REGIONS WHICH ARE MAINLY MUSLIM. The abovesame Muslim regions described in Ziggy's book is seemingly incompatible wid the agendums of so-called ILLUMINATI whom are deemed as "SATANISTS". * PDF POSTER > opined that "'TRUE US POTUS'" IS OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOT the Bammer; AL QAEDA is POTUS OSAMA'S CABINET-GOVT, + ISRAEL EXISTS ONLY BECUZ POTUS OSAMA BIN LADEN IS "HALF-JEWISH"??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-11-08 21:59 |