Friday, June 24, 2011

Remember the good old days when dissent was patriotic?

Well, it ain't no more!

It was never a matter of principle but always a question whose dirty little war is it. Or rather, it is not war when they do it.

Just for the record, this is in no way an endorsement of Bush policies, especially not the war in Iraq. And it still remains to be seen how much the new-found peacefullness of the Republicans is principled and how much opportunistic. Still, it's so great to see Obama, Clinton and co. exposed as the frauds that they are and that they did it on their own.

Massive ownage

This urban dictionary term is the only one adequate to describe the tearing down of John McCain by George Will(hat tip, Ilana Mercer). When the quintessential establishment Republican commentator like Will turns anti-war, things are really going bad for the interventionist crowd.

I'd just like to call your attention to the last paragraph:

Regarding Libya, McCain on Sunday said, “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today.” Wondering is speculation; we know this:

When a terrorist attack that killed 241 Marines and other troops taught Reagan the folly of deploying them at Beirut airport with a vague mission and dangerous rules of engagement, he was strong enough to reverse this intervention in a civil war. Would that he had heeded a freshman congressman from Arizona who opposed the House resolution endorsing the intervention. But, then, the McCain of 1983 was, by the standards of the McCain of 2011, an isolationist.

That must've hurt...

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

So ridiculous it isn't even funny

The absurdity of modern globalist liberalism will never cease to amaze me. What never? Well, hardly ever...Because the latest incident, or rather the details of it, in the UK of which I learned from Lawrence Auster's blog left me, for a moment at least, dumbfounded.

The story seems simple enough: a black activist Shirley Brown from Bristol got in a heated argument with a town's council member of Hindu origin over a project that was supposed to have the city atone for it's role in slave trade some three centuries ago and used an ethnic slur in the process. She was investigated, dragged to court, found guilty of "hate speech" and sentenced. So far, so good, at least the law, no matter how bad and preposterous is applied consistently(or so it would seem).

Then Mrs. Brown begins shooting her mouth off. Get this gem of a quote:

"It was a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes though, and I feel the price I've paid for mine has been too great. I've been publicly humiliated and my reputation has been ruined. I'm devastated that after all my hard work for the community I've got a criminal record for racism."

Leaving aside the fact that Mrs. Brown's peers(not just in Britain) never hesitated to "humiliate" and "ruin the reputations" of others accused of the same "crime", there is a strong touch of irony in the whole thing, one that was not lost on View from the Right's commenters:

So wait, the person who demanded 750,000 pounds of taxpayers' money "to atone for Bristol's historic role in the slave trade" wants forgiveness for past mistakes? How come the white people of Bristol don't get forgiveness for past mistakes, especially for mistakes committed centuries ago, that nobody alive today had anything to do with? How come the white people of Bristol don't get any credit for Britain abolishing the slave trade?

Re-read the last quote and tell me: what's wrong with this picture?

And it does not end there. Commenters also wondered whether the law would have been applied if the offended party was a white man. The answer, sort of, comes from Mrs.Brown, again:

"Of course I shouldn't have used that word, but to me it meant that she was denying her cultural roots, rather than anything racial. It wasn't about the colour of her skin, or about her behaving in a white way."

So, while expressing that she expects forgiveness for using an ethno-racial slur Brown uses a racial stereotype against whites. You couldn't make this up!

One wishes it was made up, though. Because once the initial, natural "couldn't have happened to a more deserving person" sentiment subsides, one is left with a sickening feeling that such absurdities are the norm of the society. Norm that is a seed of it's inevitable destruction.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Anti-interventionist right: new principled policy or hyperpartisan anti-Obamaism?

Pat Buchanan's latest column gives some interesting insights into how the debate about the wars in Afganistan and Lybia(the latter which is slowly sliding into oblivion with the former all but there already) in the US Congress and in the public in general has shaped up and gives us some amazing, not too well known facts.

One could hardly imagine a Dennis Kucinich resolution getting "Yays" in double figures so the news that 148 members of the house voted in favour of it certainly gets attention, to say the least. That the majority of those were Republicans propably left most people speechless. And when they heard that among those Republicans were people such as Allen West and Michele Bachmann they almost certainly went to their windows to check if there is a pig or two flying by. Who says Obama can not produce miracles?

As if that was not enough of a surprise, Buchanan also tells us that finally a prominent relatively mainstream politician decided to openly advocate a full and complete withdrawal from Afganistan. The politician in question? Sarah Palin. It seems that her firing of McCainite foreign policy advisers and replacing them with more realistic people was not just for show. I suppose that jumping early-on and without thinking on the anti-Ghaddafi bandwagon was a bit imprudent, especially while ignoring the precarious financial state of America as well as the fact that even her supporters were far from gung-ho for that war. Oh, and there was the small matter of some unsavoury facts about Lybian "rebels" surfacing in the meantime...Now, in the true fashion of a politician, she tries to tiptoe away from the issue hoping that the public will forget her initial belligerent enthusiasm(and sadly, a great many will). Come on, Sarah, how difficult is it to say:"I made a mistake, we should never have gotten involved"?

In all this some questions loom large: how much of this new-found Republican/right anti-war sentiment is a result of a thought process based on principles and how much is it simply knee-jerk opposition to President Obama? Would we see something similar happening if McCain were elected in 2008? The answer to the latter is most likely "no way". But paradoxically this does not mean that pure partisanship motivates the Republican opponents of war. Quite the opposite, released from the obligation of having to support "their man", many Republican congressman opened their eyes for facts that have been suppressed by the establishment and saw that the picture of the world was far from simple and straightforward. Besides, time has not stood still and many things that have happened over the past decade contradicted the elated mood policymakers in Washington tried to exibit when describing the results of their adventures in Iraq and Afganistan. Ideology was at total odds with reality and no amount of canard-repeating could change that.

While it may be to early to state it for sure, it is likely that the anti-war sentiment grasping the GOP is more of a principled then partisan nature, especially since many of the Republican House members that voted for the Kucinich resolution would not be elected or would not have gained prominence had John McCain won in 2008.

One thing is sure though, just like the issue of excess governement spending, principled opposition to war has gained momentum and entered the mainstream of the US politics. It is important to keep it going and drag as many people in it as it is possible. And converts, such as the above mentioned Sarah Palin, should be welcomed. Yes, I might have sneered somewhat at her apparent change of heart, but it was about the fact that she would not admit the error of her ways, not the conversion itself. In fact, having been a close associate of one of the ultimate proponents of perpetual war and bearing in mind her popularity, she has the potential to utterly crush the pro-war establishment if she would openly refudiate(pun intentional) their position.

As I started this entry with surprises, I'll end it with one. The pioneering anti-war sentiments among Republicans began almost a year ago when an author wrote this:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war--and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Who was this? Ron Paul? Nope. It was Ann Coulter, believe it or not!

Monday, June 06, 2011

That's the way it works

I haven't blogged at all about the arrest of general Mladić since there is only so much vile hate-propaganda against one's own people that a person can take. Because that was what the mainstream "reporting" about it consisted of, both in Serbia and outside.

Now that things have cooled down somewhat, I can recommend an article by Julia Gorin that doesn't deal directly with the issue itself but does say a lot about the surrounding stuff. It gives out the mindset and the thought-process(so to speak) of the anti-Serb media and establishment as well as the Hague tribunal modus operandi.

Aren't you relieved you are part of such a civilization?