The short version: Independent thinkers are ucky and quite possibly dangerous. Leave policy to us professionals, 'k? Now go back to sleep, sheep. (Via the Corner.)
#1
This peckerwood gives voice to what the BBC and TRANZI elites believe. In their Orwelian world they are the truth sayers and givers, no other source of information should be permitted. Simply astounding.
#3
As per Post 9-11 anti-Net rants > Example - alleged failures in USCIA-INTEL > prefer to depend wholly, absolutely, undeniably, unequiv and unconditionally on personages = Agencies/Orgs whom by their own criticisms EITHER FAILED UTTERLY TO PREVENT 9-11, ANDOR CONSPIRED TO ENABLE 9-11 AND HATED DUBYA'S HATED WOT, including for America to ignore any and all PLANS = PRE-PLANS FOR MULTIPLE TERROR STRIKES + CASUALTIES, + DO NOTHING EXCEPT DEPEND ON FRANCE OR THE ANTi-AMER UNO, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST??? You know, why the GLOBAL RADIC ISLAMIST STATE/CALIPHATE, includ Amer under same, is a mere LOCAL POLICE/LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM???
Posted by: Bon Scott ||
11/20/2006 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The number of cases involving rough violence against individuals on public property has risen sharply since the beginning of the 90s, when I started my work in Malmö. The perpetrators of robbery and bodily harm on public property are almost always immigrant youngsters. This is well-documented, but the authorities responsible prefer not to report it. It would be against the countrys integration propaganda, so they prefer to remain silent.
The fact that also the number of rapes in Malmö has grown sharply is related to the fact that 40% of Malmös inhabitants have a different ethnic background, and where the mens power over the women is total. Their view of women is so totally alien to us Swedish men, and they continue to live according to their culture without regard to the fact that they are in a different country with different laws. Unfortunately, this attitude is being reinforced by Swedish authorities and courts who show regard for the suspects culture when making decisions.
This police officer confirms also the negative reception which police and emergency services encounter in Malmös immigrant suburbs.
Many immigrants have not the slightest respect for Swedish cops. Youre often treated like a trashman. Immigrants have so far only met representatives of the immigration and social services. They have been treated very friendly and seen all their demands met.
Certain routine matters, such as a driving license check with an immigrant in Rosengård, get easily out of hand and develop into a major incident, where all patrol cars must intervene to re-establish order. Thanks to cellphones, many supporters gather when we intervene in Rosengård. If we stop a car for a routine check, the entire clan shows up to work against the police.
Unfortunately, large parts of the Swedish populace have a biased view of what is going on, and this is owed 99% to the partial view of reality provided by the mass media. For example, often the term youth gang is used, instead of using plain language and saying that those causing the problems are criminal gangs of Albanian origin as is the case in Landskrona.
Id like to emphasize that its not Per or Stina who act like dirt. It is immigrant gangs who try to take control and spread fear among normal people. Unfortunately, society has shown such a degree of unbelievable leniency towards this kind of behavior, that there is reason for serious concern with regard to future developments.
This is what leads me to think that French society and its system of government have evolved neither on the anti-Semitism issue nor on the issue of the interference of the executive in all State mechanisms. And if they have evolved, it is probably backwards
Translated from the French by Sanda Kaufman and Llewellyn Brown
An Anti-justice Justice, an Attempted Holdup Text at link.
What do Chirac and Delanoë know about Charles Enderlin? Where do they meet him regularly? We were under the naïve impression that our colleague was a permanent correspondent in Jerusalem, not at the Elysée Palace or the Paris City Hall
(Charles Enderlin in Metula - photo Menapress -)
Translated from the French by Sanda Kaufman and Llewellyn Brown
by Douglas Feit
Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong.
I know, because I worked intimately with him for four years, from the summer of 2001 until I left the Pentagon in August 2005.
Through countless meetings and private conversations, I came to learn his traits, frame of mind and principles -- characteristics wholly at odds with the standard public depiction of Rumsfeld, particularly now that he has stepped down after a long, turbulent tenure as defense secretary, a casualty of our toxic political climate.
I want to set the record straight: Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld's drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department -- where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell's tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred -- or even that the Cold War was over.
Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.
Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld often is misread. His politics are deeply conservative but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.
Those of us in his inner circle heard him say over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don't suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.
If an ideologue is someone to whom the facts don't matter, then Rumsfeld is the opposite of an ideologue. He insists that briefings for him be full of facts, thoughtfully organized and rigorously sourced. He demands that facts at odds with his key policy assumptions be brought to his attention immediately. "Bad news never gets better with time," he says, and berates any subordinate who fails to rush forward to him with such news. He does not suppress bad news; he acts on it.
Rumsfeld's drive to overhaul the Pentagon -- to drop outdated practices, programs and ideas -- antagonized many senior military officers and civilian officials in the department. He pushed for doing more with less. He pushed for reorganizing offices and relationships to adapt to a changing world. After 9/11, he created the Northern Command (the first combatant command that included the U.S. homeland among its areas of responsibility), a new undersecretary job for intelligence and a new assistant secretary job for homeland defense.
Seeking to improve civil-military cooperation, Rumsfeld devised new institutions for the Pentagon's top civilian and military officials to work face to face on strategic matters and new venues for all of them to gather a few times a year with the combatant commanders. He also conceived and pushed through a thorough revision of how U.S. military forces are based, store equipment, move and train with partners around the world -- something that was never done before in U.S. history.
On Iraq, Rumsfeld helped President Bush analyze the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Given Saddam's history -- starting wars; using chemical weapons against foreign and domestic enemies; and training, financing and otherwise supporting various terrorists -- Rumsfeld helped make the case that leaving him in power entailed significant risks.
But in October 2002, Rumsfeld also wrote a list of the risks involved in removing Saddam from power. (I called the list his "parade of horribles" memo.) He reviewed it in detail with the president and the National Security Council. Rumsfeld's warnings about the dangers of war -- including the perils of a post-Saddam power vacuum -- were more comprehensive than anything I saw from the CIA, State or elsewhere. Rumsfeld continually reminded the president that he had no risk-free option for dealing with the dangers Saddam posed.
Historians will sort out whether Rumsfeld was too pushy with his military, or not pushy enough; whether he micromanaged Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, or gave them too much slack. I know more about these issues than most people, yet I don't have all the information for a full analysis. I do know, however, that the common view of Rumsfeld as a close-minded man, ideologically wedded to the virtues of a small force, is wrong.
Rumsfeld had to resign, I suppose, because our bitter and noxious political debate of recent years has turned him into a symbol. His effectiveness was damaged. For many in Congress and the public, the Rumsfeld caricature dominated their view of the Iraq war and the administration's ability to prosecute it successfully. Even if nominee Robert Gates pursues essentially the same strategies, he may garner more public confidence.
What Rumsfeld believed, said and did differs from the caricature. The public picture of him today is drawn from news accounts reflecting the views of people who disapproved of his policies or disliked him. Rumsfeld, after all, can be brutally demanding and tough.
But I believe history will be more appreciative of him than the first draft has been. What will last is serious history, which, like serious literature, can distinguish appearance from reality. Paging Ken Adelman...
#1
Thanks, .com.
If one just reads through a large volume of writing on Rumsfeld and sorts out the provable BS and fallacies, Feith's picture is pretty much what's left.
#2
Rumsfeld had to resign, I suppose, because our bitter and noxious political debate of recent years has turned him into a symbol. His effectiveness was damaged. For many in Congress and the public, the Rumsfeld caricature dominated their view of the Iraq war and the administration's ability to prosecute it successfully. Even if nominee Robert Gates pursues essentially the same strategies, he may garner more public confidence.
Exactly what someone here (I believe TW) mentioned right after Rummy's resignation. He was the sacrificial lamb, but hopefully Gates will pursue the same changes/shake ups at DoD. And, he'll probably be loved (or at least, not portrayed as such a devil) for it. I'm not military, but it seems to me there's still some holdouts from the Vietnam school of thought left at DoD that need to be cleaned out. And, while I believe that technology will allow us to fight "more with less", I'd also caution we need to be careful about cutting the ranks too much, especially with N. Korea, China et. al. on potential hit lists of the future.
Posted by: BA ||
11/20/2006 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Technology is a tool. The troops are the real weapon. A classic example is Israel's recent conflict with the Hezb in Lebanon.
#4
Rumsfeld demanded the military convert from large division-sized forces to smaller Brigade Combat Team (and air-deployable) teams. It's much easier to build up a force than to gear down. It's much easier to deploy smaller forces and rotate them than to deploy huge, cumbersome, and ineffective bureaucracy-rigid forces. Rumsfeld's way cut the number of general-officer slots, which is why he was castigated by the military elites. I hope Gates continues many of Rumsfeld's policies.
We have far too many bureaucrats in all levels of government. We need to cut the numbers by 40%-50%, maybe even 75%. Rumsfeld was well on his way to doing that, which is why there was a revolt. Nobody in government wants any cuts in government, because THEY might be next. Apparently, though, the only way to cut government is with the sword. We're not at that point yet, but we're moving in that direction. Somebody needs to notice.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/20/2006 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Actually, OP, you're right on the money. I work at a Federal Agency, and we've followed the teachers in their push for "smaller class sizes." They've already cut out first-line managers (although, they're still paid the same, just called "experts" instead of having management responsibilites). But, when they did that, all the sudden they noticed (horrors) the average manager oversaw something like 20 people. I guess there's some union rule that has to be 11 FTE/manager on average. So, they've just "created" new management positions (this was all under Clinton).
But, through natural attrition, the Federal Gov't is gonna be a LOT smaller soon. The Feds as a whole have something like 50% of their entire workforce eligible for retirement in the next 4-5 years (baby boomers). Of course, under the old CSRS system, that's a guaranteed pension for the rest of their lives. Us "newbies" are under a 401(k) type system, which is a separate bank, so we won't drain the system, like the CSRS folks, who'll retire drawing from the general fund. Could be interesting few years here soon.
Posted by: BA ||
11/20/2006 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Very few Palestinians have openly condemned Hamas and Fatah for not putting aside their many differences. Nevertheless, there has been general disbelief at how long it has taken for the two sides to agree on something -- anything -- that might restore the outside money that has fuelled Gaza and the West Bank for decades.
As always, ZERO questions were asked regarding why, after billions of dollars and dozens of years, the Palestinians still have nothing to show in the way of a functional economy. The term: "One massive welfare state" springs to mind.
Yet, perversely, at the same time, there has been stubborn pride at how Palestinians have managed to withstand strict western donor sanctions that have cost the territories about $100-million a month in lost revenues.
That money accounts for half of the Palestinian Authority budget. It is what has paid for a grossly bloated bureaucracy, overlapping security services as well as for hospitals and schools to care for and educate what is one of the world's fastest growing populations.
One of "the world's fastest growing populations" has no economic engine. What happens when a lasting peace is achieved? How will this nation of beggars support all of these children? Obviously, the answer is none of the above. NO peaceful resolution is anticipated for this Arab whipping boy and NO self-support is required for these professional parasites who feed upon the world's largess.
So, despite having been made miserable by the economic blockade, Palestinians have continued to cleave to an unwinnable political position even as it holds them and the shattered peace process hostage. This pride has, in turn, provided Gaza and the West Bank's perpetually bankrupt political masters with an excuse to continue dithering.
Which is why killing off their leadership would send such a strong message. Like; "Lack of progress comes with a price tag attached."
Even the international sympathy and the concomitant political capital that the Palestinians garnered after 18 civilians were killed during a botched Israeli operation 12 days ago in the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun was squandered last Wednesday when a barrrage of crude Qassam rockets fired from Gaza killed an Israeli woman and severed the legs of an Israeli man.
And here the media sorely needs a major pimpslap. They perpetuate the myth that errant Irraeli artillery fire caused the al-Athamna family's demise instead of holding them responsible for storing explosives in their own home. Further, they fail to note how one Israeli fatality was a Muslim man nor do they mention that the terrorists time their rocket launches to conincide with when Israeli children are walking to school. Evil.
Not only Israel. It's worse in the rest of the western world, where the opinion is not as cohesive and where the issue is not seen as existential.
Efraim Inbar
One of the strategic misconceptions demonstrated by Israel's military and political leadership during the war against Hizbullah in the summer of 2006 was the exaggerated fear of casualties. Indeed, OC Manpower Maj.-Gen. Elazar Stern, complained after the war that the IDF had displayed "over-sensitivity" to loss of lives and disclosed the fact that one of the battles during the 2006 Lebanese war was called off because of a few casualties.
Yet, given the clear threat posed by Hizbullah, there was enthusiastic public backing for offensive operations, even when military casualties were inevitable. A huge majority of Israelis lent full support to the war. They wanted an unequivocal victory and were ready to pay a high price for achieving it. Many who were living in bomb shelters during the war expressed such a view. Even parents who had lost a child in the war backed the operation's expansion.
While the need to avoid reckless loss of human life is self-evident, Israeli society has in fact shown great resilience in war, as documented by several studies. It stood strong in the face of the terror campaign launched by the Palestinians in September 2000, designed to break the spirit of Israeli society. Similar determination and willingness to carry the brunt of the battle was exhibited by the Israeli home front during the recent war in Lebanon.
The reluctance to commit ground troops to battle betrays a terrible gap between Israel's leadership and its people. Israel's political and military leaders mistakenly believe that Israeli society is tired of the protracted conflict and is unwilling to pay the price of continuous war.
Ehud Olmert said as much in the past, reflecting a sense of weariness at the leadership level. Decision makers in the Oslo process, particularly Yitzhak Rabin, were also motivated by such sentiments and by a similar misperception of Israeli society. Ehud Olmert, June 9, 2005, speech to Israel Policy Forum in New York.
"We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies."
The Four Mothers movement that advocated unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon (probably one of the factors that led to the government's May 2000 decision to pull out) was an additional manifestation of the same syndrome.
THIS MOOD, which has prevailed among Israel's political leadership since the 1990s, affected the military command during the recent war against Hizbullah, and casualty aversion became a main feature of Israel's military modus operandi.
Academics argued that Israel, like other Western democracies, has difficulty waging war because of casualty aversion. However, such an assumption about the Western style of war, at times described as "post-heroic" warfare, is not grounded in fact. Actually, many studies show that casualty phobia is not a dominant characteristic of the US general public. On the contrary, the American political leadership can tap into a large reservoir of support for military campaigns that entail a high human price, provided that those operations have a chance to succeed. Is that sure? Are the msm factored in?
The public is defeat-phobic, not casualty-phobic. Moreover, mounting casualties are bearable if the goals of the military missions are seen as politically important. This is patently true of Israel as well.
Strategically, Israel's reluctance to commit troops in battle is counterproductive because it signals weakness. The widespread perception within the Arab world that Israeli society is extremely sensitive to the loss of human life, invites aggression.
It was largely this perception that motivated the Palestinians to start a terror campaign against Israel in September 2000. This view is also the basis of the "spider web" theory concerning Israel, propagated by Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah - namely that Israel's emphasis on the value of human life as well as its self-indulgent Western values render it weak and vulnerable. (the israeli society as a complex, intricate structure very impressive in appearance, but easily disrupted, hence the spider web)
The fear of military casualties and the subsequent hesitation on part of Israel's leadership to conduct military operations also constitute a violation of the basic social contract around which a state is built. In accordance with the social contract, citizens give up some of their liberties and are prepared to be taxed in exchange for the state's commitment to provide them with security. Something France for one is less and less able to do, even as the State is more and more bloated...
The state is a social institution whose raison d'etre is to provide its members with security by using its coercive organs, such as the police and the military.
The Zionist rationale was founded on the desire to end the helplessness of the Jew in the Diaspora by building a Jewish state whose main function was to defend its Jewish citizens - by force if necessary. Recently, we have seen an incredible inversion of the Zionist and the statist rationale. Tranzis at work.
There is greater tolerance of civilian casualties than of military losses. While foolproof defense is not always a realistic goal, the Jewish state seems to have difficulty in fulfilling its most basic function - providing security to its citizens.
Four thousand Katyushas during the last summer as well as the continuous downpour of Kassams on Israeli settlements in the Northern Negev raise the question: Why should Israelis pay taxes to build and strengthen an army, if the state is reluctant to use the military force at its disposal for the protection of its citizens?
The author is professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.
The rationalist would find a common Thucydidean denominator in all this madness, one of lost honor and rampant envy. There is wealth aplenty pouring into Iran and Iraq through oil that is sold at a high price in a world market whose sanctity is ultimate protected by the United States. So the poverty there of radical Islam is not material, but one of the soul.
There is a sick ingenuity of a sort that can disguise terrorists as state policemen in Baghdad to kidnap and torture the innocent, and outwit Humvees with land mines. The improvised explosive device, with help from Iran, gets ever more complex. And there is a great deal of mental energy, time, and money that went into making rockets and suicide belts or even the graphics on a bin Laden infomercial.
How odd that Iranians cannot design a car or computer, but can with the proper instruction manual spend millions of hours putting together Western-designed centrifuges, like the stamped lettered-parts of a build-it-your-self intricate model toy.
So again, the problem with the radicals in the Middle East is not the lack of capital or mental energy. Rather under the influence of Islamism and autocracy a deep-seeded cultural malady distorts human effort and creativity solely for destructive purposes. In all of these places, radical leaders such as a Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, or Sadr--the same thug has a thousand faces that come and go as we saw with Zarqawi, Saddam, and Arafat--are, like the Sultan and Grand Vizier of old, as fascinated with the West as they despise it.
So we are at a crossroads of all places in Iraq. The war there has metamorphosized from a successful effort to remove a mass-murdering dictator into the frontlines of the entire struggle between Islamic radicalism and Western liberality. If we withdraw before the elected government stabilizes, the consequences won't just be the loss of the perceptions of power, but perhaps the loss of real power. What follows won't be the impression that we are weak, but the fact that we are--as we convince ourselves we cannot win against such horrific enemies, and so should never again try.
That stumble will send a shudder throughout the so-called West that will be felt worldwide. It will insidiously show that the premodern world proved the master of the postmodern, as al Qaeda's Alfred Rosenberg, the pudgy Dr. Zawahiri, boasted all along--whose followers will not be happy with a successful defense when they think they can go back on an even more successful offense.
In the end, the Islamicists' best way to blow up the world's Starbucks or to turn off freewheeling American television is ultimately with a whimper, not a bang. They need not plant a hundred thousand bombs across the Westernized globe, but simply to cauterize its very spinal cord in the United States--the willingness of the American public, as in the past, to confront only the latest challenge to their freedom and all the ripples from it.
#1
There is wealth aplenty pouring into Iran and Iraq through oil that is sold at a high price in a world market whose sanctity is ultimate protected by the United States.
With a Canadian citizen raped, tortured and murdered by Iranian state agents it seems to me Canada could make a killing licensing privateers to commandeer Iranian tanker traffic. This provided, of course, the United States Navy found it had better things to do than guarantee the safety of tonnage in service to a people who cry "Death to America."
#2
I don't understand the conditional sense of the question. We've already stumbled; the question is whether we'll bother getting back up.
In all of these places, radical leaders such as a Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, or Sadr--the same thug has a thousand faces that come and go as we saw with Zarqawi, Saddam, and Arafat--are, like the Sultan and Grand Vizier of old, as fascinated with the West as they despise it.
Anyone else think "The Thug of a Thousand Faces" would make a great title for a book?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/20/2006 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
By Spengler Wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women. The French sold their women to the German occupiers in 1940, and the Germans and Japanese sold their women to the Americans after World War II. The women of the former Soviet Union are still selling themselves in huge numbers. Hundreds of thousands of female Ukrainian "tourists" entered Germany after the then-foreign minister Joschka Fischer loosened visa standards in 1999. That helps explain why Ukraine has the world's fastest rate of population decline. On a smaller scale, trafficking in Iranian women explains Iran's predicament.
To understand Iranian politics, cherchez les femmes: the fate of Iranian women sheds light on the eccentricity of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. By Spengler's Universal Law of Gender Parity, the men and women of every place and every time deserve each other. A corollary to this universal law states that the battered Iranian whore is the alter ego of the swaggering Iranian jihadi.
Iran's plunging birth rate, I observed in essays past, will burden the country with an elderly population proportionately as large as Western Europe's within a generation, just at the point at which this impoverished country will have ceased to export oil. By 2030, Iranian society will collapse.
One does not have to destroy an opponent's military forces to defeat him. Russia collapsed without a single shot fired when Mikhail Gorbachev and his generals understood that they could not compete with Ronald Reagan's United States. The Islamic world also has been defeated, by a globalized economy in which the US dominates the top, and China blocks entry at the bottom. As the most urbane people of Western Asia, the Persians grasped the hopelessness of circumstances quicker than their Arab neighbors. That is why they have ceased to bear children. Iran's population today is concentrated at military age; by mid-century, today's soldiers will be pensioners, and there will be no one to replace them...
Much more good analysis at the link. Read it all...
Posted by: Fred ||
11/20/2006 13:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone forward this to Mark Steyn. This is easily the best news I have read in five years.
I am attending the Restoration Weekend, where yesterday I spoke on a panel about the jihad in Europe along with Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, and Walid Phares. I am honored to be in such company.
Anyway, I'm trying to keep up with the news as best I can while I'm here, but I am a bit behind, and I suppose that by now the entire world has seen the video and heard the stories about Mostafa Tabatabainejad, the UCLA student who was tasered in the UCLA library after refusing to show ID to campus police, or to leave the premises. Michelle Malkin has useful background and commentary here.
The story is all over the TV news, CAIR is already on the case, evidently trying to spin the incident as an example of "Islamophobia." An investigation is certain to come, and almost certain to find the officers involved guilty of using excessive force.
Even if they did, however -- and I am not presenting that as conclusively established -- it is noteworthy that this story has received exponentially more attention in the media than this one. Nor has CAIR taken any trouble to say anything about it.
In one story, a Muslim in the U.S. is tasered in what may be a police brutality case. In another, a Muslim (probably) in the U.S. is arrested with information about nuclear materials and cyanide. Neither story may be representative of the status or disposition of the Muslim community in the U.S., but one gets a barrage of media attention and the other is ignored. The mainstream media, it seems, is engaged in storytelling and myth-making. They are constructing a picture of Muslims victimized in the U.S. by racism and bigotry. The Tabatabainejad story fits that agenda, or at least appears to. But the Dinssa news item may tell a different story: of Muslims plotting our destruction. That does not fit the prevailing mythos. So it goes relatively unreported. As the "cash & cellphone suppository" one, I'd guess.
If the Judeo-Christian West and the rest of the world threatened by the jihad today is to prevail, this media mythmaking must be exposed and challenged. It is happening today, what with the fauxtography revelations, the exposure of Dan Rather, and so on. But it must be understood that the immense coverage given to the Tabatabainejad incident, and the relative silence about the Dinssa arrest, is just as much part of the media dream factory as fauxtography. It is all part of an attempt to refashion the world after their own desires, burying reality in the process. And that, of course, will make it all the easier for reality to bite us.
It would be refreshing to see CAIR announce, if Dinssa is definitely a Muslim, that it is redoubling efforts to teach Muslims in America to reject the jihad ideology and live in peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. But they won't do that, not in this case or in any other case involving Islamic terrorism, because that is not the story they are trying to tell, or the myth they are trying to construct.
He could have gone further - there is a confluence of purpose between radical Islam and leftists living in the West. Both wish to bring down the West and feed on its corpse, and without actually having a conspiracy to do so play off each other as long as it supports their common goal. The fact that each loathes the other is irrelevant in their minds because each assumes that once the West is dispatched then the other will fall soon after.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/20/2006 6:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think it may have benefited Fjordman to take one more step back in time, even further past the Civil Rights movement, to see where the seeds of Multiculturalism were planted. Much like the well-camouflaged elitist racism and anti-Semitism of today's modern liberal left, so is it possible that Multiculturalism blossomed as the tainted fruit of bigotry's poison tree.
The concept of individual ethnic communities living apart from each other, yet supposedly retaining equal protection under the law, did not originate with the Civil Rights movement. During the Reconstruction era immediately following Americas Civil War, Washington DC made some attempts to protect the fledgling civil rights of newly freed slaves. When Reconstruction ended, federal troops were pulled back and a spate of discriminatory legislation known as Jim Crow laws was passed in Southern states.
Arguing that it was perfectly legal to provide separate accommodations for Blacks and Whites led to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legitimized the concept of Separate but Equal. While it may have had no intention of watering Multiculturalisms nascent roots, this segregationist policy definitely reinforced formation of the enclave mentality that faltered temporarily in the 1950-60s only to return with a vengeance during the immigration booms extending from the 1970s onwards.
Multiculturalism represents a through-the-looking-glass version of Jim Crows Separate but Equal doctrine. Only, instead, it is now lustily cheered on by those who orginally seemed to fight it during the Civil Rights era. Just as with the lefts fascination regarding Marxism and all things anti-American, they have since discovered that shattering this nations melting pot into its constituent fragments is the best way to bring about our countrys demise. In a complete and total perversion, the lefts moral relativism has embraced Separate but Equal and made it its own.
So long as some vestige of equal protection under the law can be twisted into use, this hideous charade will continue to play out. It will remain of service only while equal protection continues to shield extremely unequal imposition of preferred factional rules for individual societal enclaves. Witness the constant demands of immigrant Hispanics to have Spanish be installed as a de facto second language. Even more disturbing and far more exemplary is how American Muslims seek selective imposition of sharia law within their own communities. Whether it is insisting upon halal school meals or outdoor broadcast of prayer calls from morning to night, these encroachments upon overall public equality are fed by the tap root Multiculturalism has sunk deep into the water table of segregationist tradition.
#3
One of the bitterest, racists twists to this particular doctrine is played out in schools, where kids are taught that self esteem is not connected to real achievement. My friends who teach in one of the most rabidly multicultural districts around have mostly quit because the administration will not support the teachers who demand that students take responsibility for their actions. Of course, the minorities who go through this system are only marginally employable, if at all. Potential rabbles to rouse.
Madison Metropolitan School District, I'm talking about YOU.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
by Douglas Feit
Wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women. The French sold their women to the German occupiers in 1940, and the Germans and Japanese sold their women to the Americans after World War II. The women of the former Soviet Union are still selling themselves in huge numbers. Hundreds of thousands of female Ukrainian "tourists" entered Germany after the then-foreign minister Joschka Fischer loosened visa standards in 1999. That helps explain why Ukraine has the world's fastest rate of population decline. On a smaller scale, trafficking in Iranian women explains Iran's predicament. 
