Monday, August 21, 2006

A Voice of Their Own

The Guardian describes the tide of young Muslim men coming to see an unnamed "prophet" in East London. It recalls if nothing else scenes from Christianity's apostolic age. It features a man discoursing in an exotic language simultaneously translated into many tongues for eager listeners. The gathering is thronged by a crowd from all walks of life, eager to start a pilgrimage about which little is known -- except that salvation lies at the end of it. Men who would never have acknowledged each other socially gather and share a makeshift meal together. This is radical Islam in the heart of the West.


Thousands of young Muslim men are attending meetings in east London every week run by a fundamentalist Islamic movement [Tablighi Jamaat] believed by western intelligence agencies to be used as a fertile recruiting ground by extremists. ... The organisation - influenced by a branch of Saudi Arabian Islam known as Wahhabism - has already been linked to two of the July 7 suicide bombers ... The jailed shoe bomber Richard Reid is also known to have attended Tablighi meetings. ...

one person spoke admiringly about the "main man" ... "We can't call him a prophet," he said. "No one can be a prophet. But when you meet him you'll realize. He's helped a lot of people in Walthamstow to follow the right path, the path of the prophet. He'll talk to you openly this evening and everything will make sense." ...

The largest room was reserved for the main speaker, an elder from Preston who spoke in Urdu. His sermon was relayed through a microphone to five other rooms in which interpreters provided simultaneous translation into English, Arabic, Sinhala, Turkish and Somali.

The English-speaking room heaved as a sea of faces, white, black and Asian, spilled into the hallway. Most were teenagers and men in their 20s and 30s dressed in Islamic dress, caps and beards. Some came in suits and ties, others in jeans and hoodies. There were old men too, who weaved slowly through to the front of the room, and a few young boys.

After an hour the preacher concluded with a call for followers to join the effort and commit to a trip away. "We must leave our houses, our businesses, our families, for a short period of time, and follow the path of Allah and practise the ways of the prophet, going from mosque to mosque," said the interpreter. "Then [the behaviour] will become second nature to us. We shall go to India and Pakistan for four months to follow these ways."

What Tablighi followers call "the effort" - travelling around the country for three days or 10 days, depending on their level of commitment - is key to the organization. Once they have completed the first stage, they may undertake a 40-day trip, which is likely to entail travel around Europe. ...

A former body builder showed pictures on his mobile of the "pumped-up gym fanatic" he used to be. After spells in prison, he said, he went on a life-changing four-month trip to Pakistan. "I went to places you wouldn't believe," he said. "There are people in Pakistan and India who know less about the prophet than people in east London."

Across town in posher part of London, Jenni Murray, presenter of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour is finalizing plans to kill herself when she gets seriously sick.

She is sealing a pact with two friends that they will assist each other to die if any of them is diagnosed with a debilitating and incurable illness. Methods they might use include injections or smothering with a pillow. This is despite a law outlawing assisted suicide, which Murray says is sustained by a religious minority. ...

Publicity material for the show says that Murray "does not want to look after her sick and aging mother, and plans to end her own life when she becomes a burden to those around her". The network said: "Jenni is angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, women are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents."

The contrast between the expectant, almost ecstatic Muslim gathering and sour bleakness of a middle-aged BBC presenter arranging her own suicide is striking. Where one sees the glimmer of life even in hardship and death, the other delivers a final judgment on the meaning of postmodern life: a pillow over the face in a musty room after the last glass of wine. Who thought that radical Islam stood no chance against postmodern glitter did not know Islam. Churchill knew it and said "were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."  TE Lawrence understood  Islam even better. He knew the Arabs as masters of myth.

Their largest manufacture was of creeds: almost they were monopolists of revealed religions. Three of these efforts had endured among them: two of the three had also borne export (in modified forms) to non-Semitic peoples. Christianity, translated into the diverse spirits of Greek and Latin and Teutonic tongues, had conquered Europe and America. Islam in various transformations was subjecting Africa and parts of Asia. These were Semitic successes. Their failures they kept to themselves. The fringes of their deserts were strewn with broken faiths.

Lawrence, had he lived another half century, would have seen Europe not only relegate its one Semitic faith to the museum and the other to the -- well -- and install its own shoddy and broken Marxist manufacture in the official pantheon where its gangrenous influence would suffuse everything. And against Islam, a dynamic creed which could make inroads even against Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, the West's broken postmodern idols were not even in the same weight class. Ben Stein, writing in the New York Times sensed that against the immaterial tide weapons alone would not avail.

Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? ... If Israel cannot get it together to fight a serious war against a group, Hezbollah, that the State Department identifies as a terrorist organization, who will? ... Now, who’s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest. ...

What stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They’re heroes and saints as far as I’m concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we’re all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?

Ben Stein's key insight, one which he unfortunately does not pursue, is that while liberalism is willing to leave anyone "out there all alone to die" at the sign of the first inconvenience, there are components of the West -- and the non-Muslim world -- willing to stand in front of the iceberg. And the willingness to resist tyranny grows proportionately to the cultural distance from liberalism. Yet liberalism has and continues to set the West's agenda in the fight against Islamic fascism. Given that the key activity in Osama Bin Laden's campaign so far has been about creating and manipulating identities; I hope to address two issues in the coming posts. First, can the resistant parts of the West create a consciousness explicitly opposed Islamic fascism? And if so, can this identity of resistance wrest the Western agenda from liberalism?

Outside the Tablighi Jamaat's mosque there are ordinary men for whom a glass of wine and suffocation are not the goal of life. They are pilgrims too, but they gather in the cultural shadows, heeding neither Mohammed nor the high priests of liberal culture. They have no banner, though they will find one.

And how beguile you? Death has no repose
Warmer and deeper than the Orient sand
Which hides the beauty and bright faith of those
Who make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

But who are ye in rags and rotten shoes,
You dirty-bearded, blocking up the way?

We are the Pilgrims, master; we shall go
Always a little further: it may be
Beyond the last blue mountain barred with snow,
Across that angry or that glimmering sea,
White on a throne or guarded in a cave
There lives a prophet who can understand
Why men were born: but surely we are brave,
Who make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

151 Comments:

Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

The sixties generation brought us to this point, and until the elitist minority is expunged, nothing will change fast enough except by the serendipitous event, probably a dramatic terror attack. Then it will end in the same way as the Berlin Wall fell, a spontaneous unforeseen event will finally cause people to take off the blinders and the gloves. Islam will be escorted, by the scruff of the neck, out of Europe and the West. I can feel it, taste it, and smell it. Onward Christian soldiers.

8/21/2006 07:37:00 AM  
Blogger Joe Florida said...

In the late 80's, freshly out of high school I went to England for the first timeto see some family. One of places I toured was "speakers corner" in London. There was an old christian preacher there that stood on a box and evangelized while people stood around hurling insults at him.

There was another, much larger gathering there too. Full of stern looking men silently listening to their imam. No one hurled insults at him. His "sermon was so angry towards America that I became concerned for my safety because I was wearing a USS carl Vincent cap.

Islam, if the religon itself is to be our enemy, is a great enemy indeed.

8/21/2006 07:37:00 AM  
Blogger soflauthor said...

Is it possible that Malcolm Gladwell’s epidemiological view of change can be applied to the apparent rush to radical Islam by tens of thousands (millions?) of otherwise westernized Islamic youth? Is what Wretchard has described in this post a harbinger of a “tipping point?”

Gladwell describes his ideas:

"One of the things I explore in the book is that ideas can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is. One chapter, for example, deals with the very strange epidemic of teenage suicide in the South Pacific islands of Micronesia. In the 1970's and 1980's, Micronesia had teen suicide rates ten times higher than anywhere else in the world. Teenagers were literally being infected with the suicide bug, and one after another they were killing themselves in exactly the same way under exactly the same circumstances. We like to use words like contagiousness and infectiousness just to apply to the medical realm. But I assure you that after you read about what happened in Micronesia you'll be convinced that behavior can be transmitted from one person to another as easily as the flu or the measles can. In fact, I don't think you have to go to Micronesia to see this pattern in action. Isn't this the explanation for the current epidemic of teen smoking in this country? And what about the rash of mass shootings we're facing at the moment--from Columbine through the Atlanta stockbroker through the neo-Nazi in Los Angeles?"

I can only surmise that this is what is happening within Islam, aided by infectious agents (Immans) and mass media examples (“martyrs”).

If this is the case, if we've reaching the tipping point with radical Islam, I’m not sure we can stop it. We can only hope that like many viruses, it ultimately kills its host.

8/21/2006 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

I think the public is far ahead of the democracies' political leadership on the desire, and the need, to rip the destructive elements out of the body politic. Without regard to or consideration of consequences, a person who stands on a street in London with a sign praising Hezbollah or jihad is an enemy of the state and should be dealt with as such. Who would feel lessened if the muslim cleric exhorting the death of your daughter had his head exploded?

What we wish for is a deus ex machina. A shadow group of ruthless men able and willing to crush the bodies and the spirit of these muslim pilgrims wherever they find them. Somebody else to do what we will not.

8/21/2006 07:58:00 AM  
Blogger Faeroe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/21/2006 08:04:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

peterboston wrote:

What we wish for is a deus ex machina. A shadow group of ruthless men able and willing to crush the bodies and the spirit of these muslim pilgrims wherever they find them. Somebody else to do what we will not.

Something like what we did here after far less provocation.

8/21/2006 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Faeroe said...

I give you John Kerry: "I'm concerned that [Lieberman] is making a Republican case." ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq.

It isn't the rhetoric that Kerry is opposed to, it is the position. Kerry, as perfect an avatar of the post-modern West as I can imagine, is a shepherd of the entropic movement that wants us all to drink the wine. Heck, he'll make it easy, with the government, read your dollars, to pay for it.

What he objects to most vehemently, it seems, is that our ('us' being both too broad and too difuse to accurately label) effort in Iraq, just as those here at home, to show that there is more to live for than the uber-hedonism Kerry so effortlessly embodies.

The sin Lieberman commits in the eyes of the Church of the Left, is that he does not accept going quietly, or speedily, to the grave.

Lieberman has a creed of survival that is in direct opposition to the romanticism of death that suffuses the Left and Kerry's deepest motivations.

Kerry and the Left worship at the sacrifical alter, while Lieberman and we who fight, fight in recognition that we must deny ourselves such nihilstic, onanistic pleasure in order to create a world that grows and fosters transcendance beyond our mere existence.

8/21/2006 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger rhhardin said...

``Postmodern'' is too broad, or wrongly stereotyped.

Here's Derrida on terrorism, neatly destroying every argument on the left

http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/derrida.terror.txt

Postmodernism is as forward-looking as anything.

I'd distinguish it from the National Public Radio or academic form, which likes the sound but doesn't quite get the point.

8/21/2006 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger Dewage said...

The young muslims are looking for their new Christ. In my personal experience, if you look for something, you usually find it.

The western liberals, caught up in the guilt of their post-modern creature comforts, but lacking the spine to cast-off their materialism, are looking for punishment.

Who among us are the most likely to stand up and fight for the future of out country? Why, look! It's the young Protestants who believe they can change their lives here on earth for the better.

And they say it's not a religous war...

8/21/2006 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger James Kielland said...

80% of British public wants to ditch the US in war on terror...


"A majority of British people wants the Government to adopt an even more "aggressive" foreign policy to combat international terrorism, according to an opinion poll conducted after the arrests of 24 terrorism suspects last week.

However - by a margin of more than five to one - the public wants Tony Blair to split from President George W Bush and either go it alone in the "war on terror", or work more closely with Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4PEQWBK1NNRJ5QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/17/nterror17.xml

8/21/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Yep, there you have it from the keyboard of PB,
"... a deus ex machina. A shadow group of ruthless men able and willing to crush the bodies and the spirit of these muslim pilgrims wherever they find them. Somebody else to do what we will not.

Just to be sure, PB speaks not for me. I have no desire for the shadow group to work my suppossed "will". I wish not for others to do what I will not.

I support and will defend the Constitution, PB is a NAZI, pure and simple. A coward that would have others do his dirty work, work he is afraid to step up and do for himself, if truely needed.
Waiting for the Brown Shirts of the 21st century to rid us of the undesirables.

Thank you, but no.

8/21/2006 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

DR

Glad to see you back. The dark clouds of pessimism seem to have dissipated a bit in your absence.

I think you will find my comment a logical extension of the Keyser Soze thread. Some of us just don't want to admit what scurries around in the dark corners.

As for defending the Constitution what have you done personally to back up your endless lament about border violations? Nothing I would expect.

8/21/2006 09:03:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

DR has been out of town so his moment of clarity can be excused.

If I am not mistaken the purpose of Wretchard's last few posts has been to provoke thought and discussion on the limits of self-restraint that we, as indidividuals, and as the West, can, should, and ultimately desire to impose against the onslaught of an implacable enemy.

If the query bothers you DR perhaps you should retire to your bunker and hope for the best.

8/21/2006 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Faeroe, I really appreciate how you framed all that. It isn't the bumper-sticker Lieberman/Kerry debate, but it is damn sure the truth of it. Connecticut Yankees and King Arthur's court, it's everywhere, this profound decision hanging fire.

8/21/2006 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

The identity-election you are searching for is already taking place in many individual Western minds simultaneously. The Mutiny of Flight 613 is but one of many anecdotes that provides evidence of this.

Right now, the Islamists are raising the temperature on our society. Like a liquid slowly heated from the bottom, we have initially absorbed and dissipated this energy with out any real change in the over-all system-state. Were the Islamists to stop right now, no macro-scopic evolution would take place; the system would merely return to an asymptotically stable position. However, their early successes, our limp reactions, and the distinct feeling of progress are all acting as positive feedback forces for the Islamists and their energy input. This rising heat, which seems unlikely to relent or taper off, guarantees that, sooner or later, a threshold will be crossed.

Currently, the evolution of the West is largely beneath the radar. And yet, like Benard cells suddenly forming in a heated liquid, the microscopic changes that are taking place--the shifts that one can see only anecdotally--will eventually self-organize into criticality.

Nobody can predict how that criticality will actualize itself in the real world. However, that we are approaching it is beyond dispute.

8/21/2006 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I voted for those that suport my position on Border Security.
Those that feel that groundkeepers and nannies more important than US security maintain their majorities in Congress and at the White House.

I have yet to advocte the killing of those responsible for crossing the border nor those not enforcing the Law. I have always campaigned for legal remdies, not Brown Shirts or mobs. Nor even habu's sniper rifle, wielded by "A shadow group of ruthless men" that work outside the Law.

I have always advocated enforcing the Law, supporting the Constitution, not working outside it.

I read the 1000 plus entries in the last thread, the tone remains the same PB. If anything my positions were well advanced throughout the thread.

Stopped and saw some friends of Jr's in Russell, KS. A dinner party for Jr, well over a dozen middle aged middle Americans. My positions were held by the majority, there.
All I need do was listen and nod.

8/21/2006 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

james kielland wrote:

However - by a margin of more than five to one - the public wants Tony Blair to split from President George W Bush and either go it alone in the "war on terror", or work more closely with Europe."

That might be for the best. Bush wants to win the war on terror by changing countries into democracies. The Brits might just want to go kill terrorists instead.

8/21/2006 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Russell, Kansas, surely has a memory of a previous prairie fire of vigilantism. The Missouri/Kansas Civil War, not far from living memory, was so violent and bloody that the nation has largely expunged it from memory.

8/21/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

You miss the point DR.

The concept of "Enemy of the State" is almost completely alien to Anglo-American jusrisprudence. I would have eliminated even the almost but for tersita's example.

If we are going to plumb the limits of self restraint then there should be no locked doors.

8/21/2006 09:36:00 AM  
Blogger geoffgo said...

Teresita,

Or, the Brits might become an incubator. Either way, they may be right.

8/21/2006 09:39:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Divide and conquer, eh, James? Nothing like a split in the Anglosphere to usher in the new age of whatever.

The polls that count are the ballot polls on election days.

Many political operators are gliding around these days pushing polls in front of noses, "what do think of this? What do you think of that?"

What these polls reflect is dismay at the enemy's resilience, and disappointment that this war has not responded to the western counterattack as well as initially hoped.

And that ain't news. It's yesterday's revelation, and today's point of departure.

8/21/2006 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The "Enemy of the State"?
The US is at war or it is not.
How is the enemy defined?
By this Adminisration, Islamo-Fascists, a radical fringe of the Religion of Peace.

And this is a position they have just recently arrived at, publicly.

Today the President tried to explain how all the threads of Mohammedan terrorism were wove together.
Where is the "Powerpoint" show?

The Constitutional course, that's the Course we stay, and should, regardless of the disappointments along the way.

If the delegitmization of Islam, as a religion, can be obtained by Statute then all Musliims could be classifed as enemeies. Their hate speech judged equivalent to the KKK's. Until that occurs, though, they have the full protection of the Law, such as it is.

This we defend
'Cause you go to War with the Laws you've got.

8/21/2006 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

wretchard wrote:

"This is radical Islam in the heart of the West."

and what was he referring to? He was referring to? A gathering featuring “a man discoursing in an exotic language simultaneously translated into many tongues for eager listeners.” And folks like PB are yearning for “A shadow group of ruthless men able and willing to crush the bodies and the spirit of these muslim pilgrims” or Faeroe who feels we must “fight in recognition that we must deny ourselves such nihilstic, onanistic pleasure in order to create a world that grows and fosters transcendance beyond our mere existence.”

A bit of hyperbole here with wretchard setting up a strawman to be attacked. Reading what’s been written here you would think that the good ole USA has been occupied by Islamic extremists, their boots firmly applied to our necks while the ‘liberals’ sit in comfort watching TV and snacking. The reality is that our troops occupy Muslim lands and it is we who are trying to force our ideology down their throats. Radical Islamic extremism is definitely a problem but our approach to combating it has been horribly misguided and counter productive.


p.s. DR, I'm with you on Rule of Law and all that but I am constantly puzzled by your Law and Order rhetoric framed by you belief that the US should not partake in any international law.

8/21/2006 09:51:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Ash, this then I'm off for the day's adventure.

I am not part of the "International Community", though I travel Internationally.
I owe no loyalty to the UN nor Paris, Tehran or Tel Aviv.

The "Judges" of the International System are not qualified to sit in Judgement of me or mine.
All the proposed International structures that I've seen proposed limit my liberties beyond those limits allowed to my Government.

I'm a Nationalist, ash, not an Internationalist or a One Worlder.

And habu, as long as you are on the porch of your Monatana ranchhouse, shoot all the trespassers you desire.
Come down to my town and start shooting those you decide are Mohammedans, the cops will hunt you down like the Baseline sniper, which is none to effectively, to be sure.

8/21/2006 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Ash, how does it feel to wake up in a new world every morning?

Oh, there are western armies in the Orient? For shame! Oh, we distrust the UN Court of International Law? For shame!

Yes, if history always begins in the present moment, and everything leading up to the present moment is a blank unknown, then experience will mean nothing, and your position will be valid.

8/21/2006 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Exactly, rufus, if the US Government decides it needs to eliminate specific threats in the Mohammedan Wars, fire away.

If a group of selfselected ruthless men decide that my neighbor is a "threat", with no more evidence than his name, ethnic or sectarian background, I'll stand with my neighbor.

8/21/2006 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

DR said:

"If the delegitmization of Islam, as a religion, can be obtained by Statute then all Musliims could be classifed as enemeies. Their hate speech judged equivalent to the KKK's. Until that occurs, though, they have the full protection of the Law, such as it is."

Interesting point that highlights the absurdity of the present intellectual dilemma. The US Constitution was created and implemented by white Protestant Englishman, who were mostly God fearing, land owners and wealthy merchants. They spoke a common language. Over time, the constitution was streched to cover groups which would be unrecognizable to the creators of the document. When the constitution protects even those that would destroy everything it stands for, we reach the Irresistible force paradox:

"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"

We very well may have to decide that we cannot be all things to all people. We can choose to be something others need to aspire to and if not, they must leave. Islam is not a religion in any way comparable to Christianity. It is more akin to Nazism or Communism. It can and should be given the status of a registered foreign hostile society adverse to US principals and hospitality.

8/21/2006 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

habu
Start your own Insurrection, aye.

Starting in Montana or Florida? Cannot get the votes. so take up arms and remake the System?
You and Tim McVeigh.

I agree, habu, that the Federal Government is broken, the Judges corrupted by their Power. The Executive working on his own New World Order agenda rather than mine.
But the President was elected, the Judges appointed and confirmed.
The Congress, the "People's Voice" silenced by Systematic graft and corruption on all sides.

Make your case better, habu, get folks to listen to reason.
Win the next election.

Maybe you should run for office, 'stead of skeet shooting with your new neighbor.

8/21/2006 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

"If we ever give up the desire to help people who want to live in a free society, we will have lost our soul as a nation," Bush said.

I wish he would read the constitution and better yet understand it. Since when is our national soul dependent on the aspirations of others and our national resolve responsible to grant them?

8/21/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Papa Ray said...

Like I've said before, there is a lot of great minds and higher education here.

But, I still (really) believe that very few of you really, really get. it.

This is not a subject that you have a lot of time to debate. The plan you see, is that Islamic (insert your description of what they are or should be called here) plans to either convert every last one of us or subjugate us under Islam and it's laws, killed on the battlefield or pen us up to be slaughtered at their will.

You won't find a moderate Muslim who will admit to that, but it's true and they know it. They are almost as afraid for their own lives because they know that the coming Islamic Empire won't abide with any moderation.

You will be a true believer or you will be punished.

I'm not good with words, but I know there are many that are that are saying the same thing. Saying that we can't live with Islam and any talk otherwise is a waste of time and effort.

And we don't have a lot of time. I am not going to let my GrandChildren fight my war.

As far as this thread goes, here is how I see it here where I live. We are fed up, pissed off and just a little ways from doing something about it ourselves.

We have exausted our patience with our corrupt congress and our President who seems to have lost his nerve.

Extreme? no, it's getting common place. Three years ago I would have said that this attitude would be impossible.

It's worse in other parts of this country, just starting in most and none of us want to wait for another big bang or thousands of us to die.

But those who don't understand the threat or don't want to, call us racists or warmongers or worse.

Well, we fit neither description. We are Americans who want to follow the law of the land, but fear for our families will soon change that.

And we are willing to give our lives in the defense of our families and way of life, so that our kids and grandkids do not have to.

That fear for our families is something that the Muslim community should understand and heed. Because fear is the greatest destroyer, bar none.

I'm too old to go back over the wire, but I and millions just like me will sure take care of our families here at home.

Mark My Words!

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

8/21/2006 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/21/2006 10:40:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

papa ray, maybe you should take a step back and get a grip - you are sounding just plain scared and it is hard to be rational when your painties are in such a bunch. Try to remember FDR's words:

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"

8/21/2006 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

That's kinda the way it looks around here, too, Papa Ray. The enemy ain't so hard to identify. I'm an hour from the UT campus and a good third of the faculty there knows exactly how much trouble the country is in and is loving every minute of it. The comeuppance of evil western culture.

We're not so far from the Weimar Republic as we think.

Ash, good show on figuring out that Papa Ray is scared. Of course, he just SAID so, that he was afraid of losing our country to something alien and evil, so I guess you only get half a hooray.

8/21/2006 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Old Neocon said...

You can't replace something with nothing.

The Islamists have a depth of belief that the West has lost. That enables them to committ to the death.

Unless enough in the West can match their committment, the West will lose. It will vanish or be overrun.

There is an elephant in the room. We know what it is, but hate it and are trying to ignore it.

The elephant is that the West must match the Tslamists in faith. The elephant is the need to re-Christianize.

The famed Brit/Harvard historian (and acknowledged atheist) Niall Ferguson wrote that in the Guardian (7/31/05) right after the UK subway bombings of 7/7/05. His titla: "Heaven Knows How We'll Rekindle Our Religion, But I believe We Must." He guessed at ways to re-Christianize the UK.

The kind of faith needed is Christianity, and the kind that proselytizes and grows at that. The only Christianity that still grows and proselytizes is conservative, evangelical Christianity. The Jews, bless them, don't proselytize. How else can re-Christianizing the West happen? And how else can the West survive?

Most of the young Americans risking their lives in the armed forced today are evangelical Christians. Most (not all) of the patriotic Americans willing to die for their country are evangelical Christians. (The statistics are there.)

If re-Christianizing the U.S. and the West is what is needed to survive this long war, what about patriots who find this repugnant? How can they swallow this?

Actually, we already know what we have to do. When something has to be done, good people will lead, follow or get out of the way.

8/21/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Beside throwing a hissy fit DR is missing the whole point of this thread and the last few preceding it.

The query is not what any individual would do outside the law but what society as a whole may be willing to do to redfine itself to meet the challenge of an implacable enemy over there, but one that also lives within its midst.

At least 17 of the British plotters lived in the same neighborhood and attended the same mosque. So far as I know the same clerics are still there preaching the same hate and recruiting the next batch of mass murderers.

Does the next victim have to be your child to call these men the enemy?

8/21/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Joe Buzz, are you saying that even an atheist should be able to show up in church on Sunday, and lend his presence to the body forming to hold the line against the Islamic attack? That all it requires is to put community ahead of self?

8/21/2006 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

rufus, I know you watch ole Larry Kudlow--or you oughtta, anyway, being in the markets--he's on CNBC @ 4PM Central. Anyway, that's his prescription for the 'next step' we should take, to dust off the applicable laws and go after the Imams in this country. There's a variety of ways, I would think--starting with 'hate speech' as a violation of civil rights to a peaceful non-violent domestic tranquility.

8/21/2006 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

2164th opined,

The sixties generation brought us to this point, and until the elitist minority is expunged, nothing will change fast enough ...

Well, I see your point and partly grant it; a big part of our problem is my generation. Yet of the few of us I know quite well and in depth, I myself turned on a dime on September 12, 2001, and all the others are following me in turn, slowly but surely...even without so far -- thank G_D -- a following event of the magnitude of 7/11...


So don't be too hard on all us hippies. Though I believe we may be, in contrast to our parents' generation, who were "the greatest" (and of these in my circle only my dear father, a flight engineer on a B-series bomber, survives) the "worst generation"...


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy wrote:

"Ash, good show on figuring out that Papa Ray is scared. Of course, he just SAID so,"

That's right, he did say so, and that is the problem. He, and so many of you others, are afraid of whay MAY happen, what COULD occur, and not on WHAT is actually happening. It is like the whole G.W.Bush scaremongering meme -'What if a TERRORIST had a NUKE in a suitcase - be afffraaaid, be veeerrrry afraid - bomb and occupy Iraq'.

How is Mr. Bushes plan been going since he's been elected? Do you feel safer now then 4 years ago? Judging by the posts here y'all are gettin' more scared by the day, so I guess that means "Bomb Iran and lynch any brown skin in the US"

8/21/2006 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

gerry said:

The kind of faith needed is Christianity, and the kind that proselytizes and grows at that. The only Christianity that still grows and proselytizes is conservative, evangelical Christianity.

You mean the only only Christianity that proselytizes sheep in other flocks in Palo Alto, California is conservative, evangelical Christianity. Catholicism is out there in the real mission field (Africa, Asia) gaining net converts, not just sheep-stealing.

8/21/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

There ya go, Ash, "blame Bush" for inheriting the world that Clinton built.

You've just sounded the November Dem campaign theme. Might work, too.

Problem is, it's a lie, and even you should be asking yourself how much longer our culture can survive such lies.

8/21/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

a following event of the magnitude of 7/11...

Of course I meant to write "of the magnitude of 9/11" -- though Great Britain's 7/11 was bad enough.

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Please do not feed the troll.

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Another little tickle, Ash--just so's you don't embarrass yourself with it again, FDR's 1st inaugural speech was in January of 1933 and obviously wasn't talking about the soldiers and weapons and intent of the Empire of Japan or the Nazi war machine. It was about finding a way out of the economic depression. I'm sure even FDR would never have used such a motto in regards to enemies trying to kill us.

8/21/2006 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Americans fight, and we're good at it. Have we grown soft? Maybe, but at the end of the day, we will fight and win agaist all comers. I'm not worried about that.

I'm much more worried about the lack of vision and leadership in Washington, and I've got to fault the President. The country needs a much clearer message. We don't need hyperbole, and we don't need candy coating.

What precisely is the threat? What is our national interest? What do we intend to do about it?

The threat--radicalized Islam has many faces. Let's name the most dangerous and eliminate them. Radicalized Islam has affiliated with Iran and its proxies. Iran must not be allowed to develop WMDs. We should be preparing for war with Iran. Radicalized Islam has the capability to seriously disrupt our economy through asymetric terror, and disruption of oil supplies. We need to get serious about homeland security--I think our present efforts are pathetic. We need to get serious about energy independence. As a symbolic gesture, let's drill ANWR tomorrow, and start putting up drilling platforms in every coastal area that has promise. Let's develop military plans to occupy strategic foreign oil fields as necessary. Let's double or triple defense spending.

The Middle East is a mess. If we can realistically help, let's try, but at the end of the day our unequivocal message must be that we will not be threatened, or attacked. Iran will not go nuclear. Israel will not be threatened or attacked. We will take your oil if we have to.

If we can't execute this stategy today, let's change the plan and get ready. The day is coming.

8/21/2006 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Jamie, that was Britain's 7/7. "7/11" is of course Texas' favorite fine wine chain store.

8/21/2006 11:56:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

This brief essay, Looking Into The Abyss, by Dean Barnett, is most interesting in light of the present discussion (follow the link and read it all):

BUT NOW WE’VE REACHED a historical juncture where we’re looking into an abyss. The amount of people in [the Middle East] who desire war is unknown, but we do know that their numbers go far beyond Al Qaeda and its spin-offs. The threat is not limited to terrorism; the truly existential threat comes from popular governments that intend us harm and who are unlikely to be deterred or contained.

In late 1938, Winston Churchill passed a London restaurant and heard great bonhomie coming from within. Churchill said to his companion, “Those poor people. They little know what they will have to face.”

The same can now be said of American society today. Some people choose to believe that the greatest threat to our way of life is George W. Bush. These people deserve the condemnation that history will heap on them.

Others more acutely recognize the threat, but are hamstrung by their fealty to political correctness. If a major daily paper ever wrote an essay like this one, CAIR would pitch a fit. Writing pieces like this invariably brings angry rebukes from those who refuse to look into the abyss and would rather focus their considerable capacity for rage at less formidable targets than hundreds of millions of angry, dangerous people.

But an abyss is what we face. And looking away won’t change a thing.

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

So the Liberal intellectuals want to die and return to their evolutionary dirt, and the intellectual Islami's want to die and return to their moon god Allah. And they both blame all their problems on Christians who want to live.

Jesus says death is the last enemy and I believe Him and I believe He rose from the dead. That's my choice of what to believe.

So Christians forgive these guys for blaming us for their problems and still try and be helpful and kind to them. So what's new?

Once these groups or individuals embrace death, sooner or later they head for the coolade. And they go again and again and again until they succeed. Occasionally they can be distracted long enough to repent and turn around and embrace life.

Right now Christianity seems to be in repose. The preaching of the cross and the resurrection have been dismissed as mythology. Too bad! That's the only way out of their dilemma.

Perhaps we could get the Libs and the Islami's to fight each other. Sort of a win-win situation for all of us. I jest. This is big time tragedy approaching. It doesn't have to be.

I pray that Uncle Sam is able to keep his collective footing in these fractious times; here and abroad. In Jesus name I pray. Amen

8/21/2006 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ardsgaine said...

Liberalism, by which I assume we all mean classical liberalism, not Marxism or democratic socialism, is a political system. It is not a system of morals. To the question the pilgrim asks, why are men born?, liberalism provides only a negative answer: We are not born to enslave or slaughter each. There is a single moral principle underlying liberalism, that each man has the right to his own life, but different people place it within different moral systems. Liberalism doesn't insist that they agree so long as they respect the principle. If these people hold beliefs that contradict the principle, if the principle becomes secondary to them, or if they abandon it altogether, that is their fault, not the fault of liberalism. It means they did not value their right to their own lives highly enough. Either other things were more sacred to them, or they decided that nothing was sacred. Either way, they sold themselves out.

To the pilgrim I say, don't look for another man to tell you why you were born. If you would be brave, then determine your own purpose in life.

8/21/2006 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Geistern,

No, I was not referring to you. Sorry you thought so. Your comment was fine (not that I am any kind of authoritative arbiter).



Buddy,

Yes, ff course, I meant 7/7. Thanks.


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

Buddy Larsen,

re: fear itself

There you go again, interjecting historical context and facts into a perfectly egocentric rant. There's just no way to talk to you Bushies.

8/21/2006 12:19:00 PM  
Blogger just a marine said...

I hope to address two issues in the coming posts. First, can the resistant parts of the West create a consciousness explicitly opposed to Islamic fascism? And if so, can this identity of resistance wrest the Western agenda from liberalism?
(from wretchard)

Yes, and yes. What a difference a day makes.

Events on the ground will wear down the enthusiasms of youthful innocence, transnational purity, and the nobility of primitive authenticity.

Most peace-is-the-path people will fade away much as those faded away in the late 1930s after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939. The Soviet invasion of Finland was the final straw for many of them to withdraw from overt political activity.

The liberal support in the west of Islamic fascism will only go underground to rebound another day.

Those left politicking will be the practical operatives who know they are defending their families. The saying from the movie “The Outlaw Josie Wales” (which cleaned up) still applies: “Don’t pee down by leg and tell me it’s raining”.

The wild card is the western and eastern media in wresting the agenda from liberalism.

I don’t know, but my guess is that nationalistic peer pressures will force both more accurate reporting, and control from the professional media manipulators. This is revolutionary given the new 20th century power of media to concentrate the ideas of so few into the minds of so many.

I think the western concepts provide the best hope for mankind to continue to exist on this earth, and will predominate. Lord, I hope I am right.

And please always remember the criminal element in those who guise themselves in political clothes.

8/21/2006 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Re Eggplant's mention of the pernicious and lingering effect of Communism, the worst is possibly the demographics (scroll down a third) that work so against the west: the democratic socialism with which the west fought off communism has come to make babies nearly unaffordable.

Taxation--to support the previous generation--cancels the ability to produce the next one.

8/21/2006 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Allen, right--note that FDR did not repeat that motto eight years later, in his speech of December 1941.

8/21/2006 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Old Neocon said...

teresita,

You are right. And in a longer comment, I would have spoken of the Catholics as well. Actually, in depth of their commitment and in their willingness to prosetylize, evangelical Christians and Catholics are finding themselves back-to-back fighting buddies these days.

8/21/2006 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/21/2006 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Old Neocon said...

epictetus,

I second all of that. And would just comment that the ideals of the Continental Army, and of the population they came from, held to the Christian faith. And that those ideals of liberty originated out of the Christian foundations of the West. Such historians as David Landis of Harvard agree.

So that there should be one more component then, faith, in what is needed long-range for our survival

8/21/2006 01:03:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Whit, the wedge is the United States military, its standards and values, and the people who support it, and who embody those standards and values.

8/21/2006 01:13:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I'd like to say that the wedge is a turn away from self-worship and a return to Godliness--but that's gotta come from within, and so is much less reliable and immediately practical than the currently armed & ready.

8/21/2006 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Old Neocon said...

buddy,

That's right, for now. But long-term, nothing else will work without that.

8/21/2006 01:22:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

gerry, truer words were never spoken--

8/21/2006 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

British Law Has Not Silenced Calls to Kill for Islam
Despite a new law curtailing extremist speech, some Islamist leaders declare it the duty of British Muslims to kill for Islam. Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site celebrating suicide attacks in Iraq. Useful Idiot's Assasin
---
---
I think it is now clear that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and no one will stop it.

For all the talk in support of the Bush Doctrine and preemption, the administration has effectively rejected them. And the Democracy Project is not possible if the will to first destroy the enemy is not backed up by military action intended to defeat the enemy.

I am a great admirer of President Bush. He faces a Fifth Column in the liberal media, the Democrat party, and the judiciary, which have shamefully used the war to try to weaken him and his office.
But every president, including Abraham Lincoln, has faced domestic opposition during war at some level.

The president has not helped himself by failing to effectively rally the American people to his side. He has access to media outlets, such as talk radio, the Internet, and cable channels, which either didn't exist or were in their infancy in the past.
He has failed to explain consistently the worldwide consequences of Islamo-Nazism
, its geographical reach, the military and economic demands it places on our country, and so forth. FDR used maps to show the danger the U.S. faced from the Axis powers expansionism. Subsequent presidents did the same to show the spread of Communism. A president must try to build political and popular support for war.
He must push back against those who preach appeasement and not allow them to define the terms of the debate.

Mark Levin

8/21/2006 02:00:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

Doug, Mr. Bush did just that in Iraq and look how that turned out. Sorta like the boy who cried wolf now that the railing is about Iran.

8/21/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

See what we're up against, Doug? Ash isn't concerned with the reality of the world--he's playing with his gotcha debate points.

And there's millions of Ashes, and (somehow) they get to vote.

We have a licensing system for other skill-sensitive activities, but no one need prove illunacy in order to vote.

8/21/2006 02:14:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

sparks fly wrote:

Jesus says death is the last enemy and I believe Him and I believe He rose from the dead. That's my choice of what to believe.

Actually, Paul said that. (1 Corinthians 15:[26] "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death") And like a few other things brother Paul said, he was not exactly correct. Without death, wealth and power would continue to accumilate in fewer and fewer immortal hands, and old ideas would never give way to new ones. Without death, people would not feel the vitality of living that the very brevity our our life stimulates, and the Earth would continue to fill up with people until everyone was eating those funny green graham crackers Charlton Heston found out about.

8/21/2006 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

dave h

Unfortunately we probablly need a Demo, to illustrate the stones to act.

I nominate Hillary.

8/21/2006 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Habu,

You really need to watch your diet.

Speaking in a merely medical capacity here.

(That shiny stuff and that crisping ring are really not good for one.)


;-)

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 02:39:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Doug,

I'm inclined to agree with Mark Levin...

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Jamie's right--do not eat the shiney part or the crisping ring. I finally learned that, after several bouts of *terrible* indigestion.

8/21/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

Teresita!

By common "Christian" confession the books of Corinthians are the Word of God and Jesus is God. Father,Son and Holy Spirit are One and of one mind. Paul the Apostle is exactly correct. Death is the last ENEMY. Death was defeated at the Resurrection. This is part of the settled foundation of "Christian" theology. You refer to Paul as "brother". Is that mockery? You may be a Christian but your theology is not christian. Feminism is not Christianity. Christians don't worship women. Women are worse liars than men. Just look at the Clintons. Hillary is far more odious than Bill and that's not an easy thing to accomplish. Trollery be gone!

8/21/2006 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger phil g said...

Teresita,
There's plenty of evangelical protestants out in the bush fishing for souls. Stats I've seen indicate that the evangelicals are doing this with much more energy and better net results than the Catholics. I myself don't care one way or another as long as someone or everyone is out harvesting souls.

8/21/2006 03:11:00 PM  
Blogger Starling said...

Wretchard quite appropriately addresses Flecker's "The Golden Journey to Samarkand" to those who are yet, but soon, to find their banner.

I address these verses to "the main man" of Walthamstow and to those who gather under his banner of hate:

I know you who scratches at the door. You hop upon the shoulders of a guest to enter My House.

I know you. You have become subtle and resourceful, Even more resourceful than many of Mine.

You hast fastened your clasps and prepared your garments. You have even studied all My expressions.

I hear you pronounce even Joy. But here I shall stop you.

You do not dare pronounce the joy of love. Your joy is the joy of hatred.

But behind hatred is hovering the loathsome shadow of doubt. And doubt is not worthy of a shield.

I will receive your arrows in My Shield. But if you will persist, I will send you with a smile--but one.


Leaves of Morya's Garden, 1924, Paragraph 372 (trans from the Russian).

8/21/2006 03:11:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

P-Tater,

Go ahead and sneak over to the bakery some night and check out behind the place in the you-know-what for the left over, unsold croissants. They are quite good. You won't be disappointed. Most French bakeries won't let them get over four hours old before they'll toss out the unsold ones.

I don't like to say anything against Habu but in this case he is quite wrong, to disavow all things French like that, and throw out the baby crescents with the bad butter, as it were...

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

P-Tater,

I wasn't aware that the French had been driven from Froghooler.

What was the date of that battle?

Did they withdraw without putting up a fight?


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger felix said...

Very interesting as to causation of appeal of radical islam. However in the meantime, we have to protect ourselves, so, at least for the USA, my suggestion.

[Proposed] DECLARATION OF WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM

Joint Resolution Declaring that a State of War exists between Radical Islam and the Government and People of the United States and making provisions to prosecute same.

Whereas the extraterritorial movement known as Radical Islam has planned, advocated, and committed unprovoked acts of War against the people of the United States of America

Whereas, numerous representatives of said Radical Islam have announced that their exists a State of War between radical Islam and the United States,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, that a State of War now exists between Radical Islam and the United States and is hereby formally declared. The President is authorized and directed to employ the military forces of the United States as needed and the resources of the Government to carry on the war against Radical Islam. Further, recognizing the danger posed by individuals who are loyal to Radical Islam who are now or may in the future be residing in the United States and its territories, the President and the Attorney General of the United States are hereby authorized to identify such individuals, take them into preventive custody, and deport them from the United States.

For purposes of this Declaration, Radical Islam is defined as those individuals or organizations who advocate, support, plan or execute jihad attacks against the United States and its foreign allies and interests or those who support the overthrow of the Constitutional government of the United States and in its place the establishment of Sharia law. Further, the distinction is made herein between Radical Islam and Moderate Islam (the later being expressly excepted from the intent of this Declaration.)

8/21/2006 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The evidence continues to pour in that the Islamic World is undergoing its own great awakening.
An abyss is what we face.
And looking away won’t change a thing.

8/21/2006 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger pst314 said...

"`Postmodern' is too broad, or wrongly stereotyped. Here's Derrida on terrorism, neatly destroying every argument on the left"

When leading postmodernist Paul De Man was exposed as a Nazi collaborator, Derrida attacked those who had exposed him, resorting to every sort of rhetorical sleight of hand, as well as personal attack. In that affair he revealed himself as deeply dishonest--which is the fundamental reason why postmodernism should be rejected.

And of course leading postmodern theorist Michel Foucault praised the Ayatollah Khomenei and his fanatical program.

8/21/2006 04:26:00 PM  
Blogger Prodicus said...

Opinion polls only tell half the story.

I'm British. I read last week's UK poll as a criticism of the (perceived) ineptitude of the Bush administration in (not) planning (adequately) for the post-war situation in Iraq, coupled with belligerent talk without the follow-through. Shades of the Falklands. Like Reagan over there, Thatcher was without doubt the post popular post-WW1 leader this country has ever had. (If you don't believe me about that, check the contemporary opinion polls.) We like decisive leaders, even if some of us rubbish them when they're gone (to our shame).

The British public is divided into the soft-left-mushy-thinkers, brainwashed over three decades by the overwhelmingly left-of-centre media in our country, and the feet-on-ground, bullshit-aware clear thinkers (like me, of course) who absolutely *do* see the threat from Islam and wish the Americans would bloody well get on with thumping some of its overseas leaders. This group thinks that if only we Brits could get our left-leaning opinion leaders to shut up for a while, we could do a better job than our Yank cousins (expressed as 'more aggressive foreign policy'). There's really no conflict here. They are shades of the same gut reaction.

Electoral realities do not figure in public opinion as they do in the minds of politicians who therefore tread more warily than the voters. Eventually, though, public opinion will out, and overwhelm or sweep away politicians who deny it. Before Britain falls to any enemy, whether religious or military, the people will speak. As the poet said: 'We are the people of England, and we have not spoken yet'.

We had a politician here three decades ago who became notorious when he warned about precisely what is happening now. It became impossible even to mention his name (Enoch Powell) in polite society. He was chucked out of his (Conservative) party, even though he was personally liked and respected, even by his political opponents. In a 'duologue' programme on TV, his interlocutor being his fiercest opponent in Parliament, the young chairman tried to intervene to disadvantage Powell, only to be rebuked by Powell's opponent (Richard Crossman, opponent but personal friend) with: "My dear chap, we really don't need you in this conversation."

The late Powell was not a skilful political operator, even though he briefly held government office (resigning twice on matters of principle). He was an intellectual and a man of considerable courage. A very young teacher in Australia at the outbreak of WW2, he resigned immediately and came home to join the Army. He was promoted from private soldier to brigadier-general within two years, on the general staff in the Far East war, in charge of intelligence and planning, at the age of 29.

Enoch Powell was a classicist, and he once, quite unaffectedly, quoted Virgil in a fearful (lit.) speech on immigration, then rising fast: 'Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.' The press, not famous for its familiarity with classical references, reported this sensationally as 'Powell's racist Rivers of Blood speech', and that is how the speech is still described. He was not a racist at all, and was in fact well-liked in his racially-mixed constituency. He was also a humane and honourable man. His enemies in the media notoriously tried to dig up some dirt on him for a TV biography ('spare no expense - find the dirt') and they found none.

Powell's name comes up more and more in conversation these days. Not among the political classes, naturally, for whom he remains untouchable, but among the voters. One begins to see 'Enoch was right' bumper-stickers, and his name comes up without heckling, in public debates. Unfortunately, Powell's name has to a great extent been appropriated by the most thuggish of the nasty neo-fascist parties and their brute followers, which is a pity. For he was right, and would weep to see the danger now facing his country and Western society in general.

The point of this post is to illustrate, with respect, to American readers of this blog, that British opinion is not easily gleaned from the British media. The man in the street (is one still allowed to say that?) is well-aware that the BBC, our main news source, is biased to the left and to (in the terms of this blog) appeasement. The media even spin opinion poll results to suit their agenda - but they underestimate the clear-sightedness of the electorate.

Please do not believe that the British hate America. Those here who can afford to visit your country on vacation do so as often as their budgets allow. I can promise you that, given a choice between the American way of thinking and, for example, the French, we are, as a nation, very much closer to America. We like French food better, and France is closer, but that's about the sum of it. Instinctively we dislike the dirigisme of the France-dominated EU and wish to go our own way. Much like you, really.

I wonder if the ghost of Powell, a prophet not entirely without honour in his own time, but increasingly quoted now, is not rising to rebuke his countrymen and challenge them to face the reality he faced thirty years ago.

My one fear remains 'boiling-the-frog': that the fifth column will steal our weapons (I speak metaphorically, about freedom of speech above all) from us before we decide it is necessary to use them.

8/21/2006 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger Prodicus said...

Sorry - typo - I meant to type 'WW2'. not "WW1".

8/21/2006 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Enemy in Uniform

And Now, Islamism Trumps Arabism

8/21/2006 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Doug,

See my post 12:01:44 PM above.

;-)


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger Starling said...

thank you for that post prodicus. thank you very much.

8/21/2006 04:38:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Prodicus,

Thank you for that.



Enoch Powell was handled quite badly by the US press of that time, as well.


***

Please post frequently.
;-)

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I remember--Powell was portrayed as the "British right-wing fringe" in the US press.

8/21/2006 04:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

He can't, Jamie, dave h already took up his turns.
(On the first day, I might add:
Whatever happened to the 2 posts for the first 50-100 rule? ;-)

8/21/2006 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Better to s Complain at the 700 Club.

8/21/2006 05:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Where would we be now:
"Ford assumed the presidency in August 1974, after the Watergate scandal forced then-President Richard Nixon from office.
He then pardoned Nixon.

Ford narrowly lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.
"

8/21/2006 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

'"Jenni is angry that...."' Such a wretched, spoiled child. It is one of my never-ending fascinations that Western liberalism has resulted in the levers of the culture being entrusted to wretched, spoiled children.

One of my regular points of contemplation is whether those wretched, spoiled children are worthy of the lives and limbs of those who protect them. After I left AcDu and until 9/11, I was sure not. 9/11 made sure there were, and are, people worthy of the sacrifices of those good men. The voices of the wretched, spoiled children are ascendant, again, however.

8/21/2006 05:38:00 PM  
Blogger Db2m said...

DR, get a grip!

Call your congressman tomorrow, and let him know how you feel!

(press 2 for English...)

8/21/2006 06:11:00 PM  
Blogger felix said...

Habu_3,
It makes sense to me to have a Declaration of War. The Radical Islamists say they are at war with us. President Bush, once every every 6 months, says we are at war with radical Islam. So if we are at war, well....then why not go ahead and declare war. Like focus, goals and objectives, etc.

8/21/2006 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger trainer said...

"And in the homeland, American citizens are armed."

Ah yes, the ultimate protection of the other Amendments. Amazing that the liberials want to disarm all of us - including themselves. One would think that a fear of neocon hegemony would keep the lefties arm'd up.

We are already seeing mutiny among the travelling public, firearm sales and training have skyrocket'd...one might think that a wise public is preparing for something they fear the government can't handle.

In reality the 'elite' types in America are few and far between...just rich, noisy, and self-important.

The true Jacksonian America is waking up.

Good, I'm in.

8/21/2006 06:23:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

bjbarron wrote:

"The true Jacksonian America is waking up.

Good, I'm in."

Isn't Andrew Jackson the guy who urged folks to raid Indian villages, kill all Indians, burn the their fields and destroy their livestock. Sorta like Saddam is on trial for for doing to the Kurds?

8/21/2006 06:33:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

rufus said:

I guess one way to keep people from reading the Koran would be to go back to the days in which only the Priests are allowed to know how to read; Does that sound good?

We are approaching that now, when the fast food cashiers just press the buttons with the little pictures of your food.

8/21/2006 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

I would ask again that we not feed the troll.


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 06:57:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

jeffe
There is one thing that rufus, habu, doug and myself, amongst others, have all sworn to defend.

It is the same thing that each Marine in Iraq or Soldier in Korea has sworn to defend, each and everyone.

There is a rally point.

It is the Constitution,
always has been.

8/21/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

jeffe
There is one thing that rufus, habu, doug and myself, amongst others, have all sworn to defend.

It is the same thing that each Marine in Iraq or Soldier in Korea has sworn to defend, each and everyone.

There is a rally point.

It is the Constitution,
always has been.

8/21/2006 07:04:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Jamie, I prescribe for you this.

8/21/2006 07:04:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

El Jefe (sorry, grew up speaking Spanish) ;-)


That was a very good comment.


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 07:06:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/21/2006 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

"Why were such morally indefensible policies adopted? Because many white Americans regarded Indian control of land and other natural resources as a serious obstacle to their desire for expansion and as a potential threat to the nation’s security. Even had the federal government wanted to, it probably lacked the resources and military means necessary to protect the eastern Indians from encroaching white farmers, squatters, traders, and speculators. By the 1830s, a growing number of missionaries and humanitarians agreed with Jackson that Indians needed to be resettled westward for their own protection. Removal failed in large part because of the nation’s commitment to limited government and its lack of experience with social welfare programs. Contracts for food, clothing, and transportation were awarded to the lowest bidders, many of whom failed to fulfill their contractual responsibilities. Indians were resettled on semi-arid lands, unsuited for intensive farming. The tragic outcome was readily foreseeable.

The problem of preserving native cultures in the face of an expanding nation was not confined to the United States. Jackson’s removal policy can only be properly understood when seen as part of a broader process: the political and economic conquest of frontier regions by expanding nation states. During the early decades of the nineteenth century, Western nations were penetrating into many frontier areas, including the steppes of Russia, the pampas of Argentina, the veldt of South Africa, the outback of Australia, and the American West. In each of these regions, national expansion was justified on the grounds of strategic interest (to preempt settlement by other powers) or in the name of opening valuable land to white settlement and development. And in each case, expansion was accompanied by the removal or wholesale killing of native peoples. "

Jacksonian Democracy

Indian Removal

Period: 1820-1860
k

8/21/2006 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Yes, Buddy, thank you. I've been a Dinocrat fan for quite a while, but I hadn't seen what you referred me to.


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 07:11:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

"The 1987-88 crackdown was aimed at crushing independence-minded Kurdish militias and clearing all Kurds from the northern region along the border with Iran. Saddam accused the Kurds of helping Iran in its war with Iraq.

Kurdish survivors say many villages were razed and countless young men disappeared."

Saddam Hussein to face charges Monday in high-profile Anfal case

8/21/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

jamie, I know you would rather avoid any unpleasant truths, but it is an ugly world and it is better to confront reality instead of burying ones head like an ostrich hoping things will just get better.

8/21/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

p.s. jamie, I'm sure you know all about the 'enthusiasm' ex-smokers, ex-alcoholics, and ex-liberals bring to their new found lifestyle. Well, take a close look at your intellectual history.

8/21/2006 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

dave h said:

No, Hillary would never undertake the pre-emptive action that will be neccessary to get us out of this mess.

In fantasyland maybe. The real world won't stand for another pre-emptive action like Iraq. The Bush doctrine is dead and Bush ain't even out of office yet.

8/21/2006 07:27:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

epictetus

2) Regime Change Iran. We cannot let the current Iranian regime get (more) nukes in the short-term.

1) "Rediscover" the US's message of liberty and freedom and proclaim it to all the world


There is a cognitive dissonance in your strategery here. If liberty and freedom is for all the world, and if Iran in in the world, then Iran has the liberty and freedom to refine uranium to weapons grade and assemble it into bombs.

However, if Iran must not get an atomic bomb, then liberty and freedom is only for those regimes we deem worthy.

8/21/2006 07:44:00 PM  
Blogger luc said...

Papa Ray said... 8/21/2006 10:37:06 AM
I came late to the thread so I can post my agreement with your post only now.
I believe that you attitude embodies what made America great and, without putting words in your mouth, I do not think you would have any difficulty understanding that Bush’s statement regarding “the desire to help people who want to live in a free society” does not indicate that he should reread the constitution.
I also think that there are some of the posters here, Ash is not the only one but he will do as an example, who are enamored of their constantly negative thought processes and will turn every statement into its negative no matter how unlikely that is. That, in my opinion, is not a sign of either a great mind or higher education and most probably indicates the presence of some personality problem.
Cheers

8/21/2006 07:51:00 PM  
Blogger demosophist said...

There are over 205 comments to this page, and although I haven't had time to peruse them all it'd be interesting to see how many have any recommendations about, or even consider, the emergence of a "new liberal paradigm" that adds something critical to classical liberalism. Perhaps that's not needed, and the posters I read are correct that all we really need to do is "get back to basics" and things will sort themselves out.

However, didn't the previous ammendments to classical liberalism, wrong as they might be, come about because of gaps or inadequacies? And weren't the ammendments at least temporarily effective, even if they were only lifeboats?

Is this really just John Kerry vs James Buchanan? (I know Jim isn't running for anything, but I can't think of a classical liberal whose running for office.)

I guess the respons is that the fact that no classical liberals are running means that we aren't giving that outlook a chance... but I wonder if the real reason isn't that we're just too pragmatic to buy into an ideology hook line and sinker, even it it's our own.

I mean, that sorta seems wise to me. The problem is that it just leaves us with an amorphous swamp of unproven notions. No really new ideas out there at all?

8/21/2006 08:07:00 PM  
Blogger Kinuachdrach said...

Interesting discussion. Thank you, Wretchard et al. Maybe it points to an underlying theme -- the West (however defined) will need to be thoroughly retooled before it can meet the challenge of the jihadists.

We all know that Western "democracy" is increasingly disfunctional. The "fighting age male", for most of history one of the most important members of society, is ignored if not reviled by too many of the opinion leaders in western society. Yet correcting these distortions is going to take more than a few votes cast in an election. Changing solidly entrenched interests may require another Civil War.

Enemy without, enemy within -- the odds for the West winning the conflict with jihadists do not look good. But if the West does survive its internal fight, its bloodied population will have no compunction about visiting death on a huge scale on its external enemies.

8/21/2006 08:11:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Luc, my middle daughter just completed her degree in Slavic languages, and you remind me of something I've noted among her Slav friends for whom English is the second language: they are very direct and expressive, and use the language wonderfully well for it.

8/21/2006 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Should be about August 22 in Tehran about now.

8/21/2006 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

dave h said:

An american city nuked would probably trigger a response causing unimaginable casualties in Muslim countries.

If an American city gets nuked (assuming it was from a bomb smuggled in on a cargo container and not a missile which can be tracked by the Air Force) every Muslim sultan, emir, and supreme potentate will instantly call the American ambassador in to his palace and disavow doing it, leaving some asshole smirking in a dark bunker somewhere. Then we're right back to where we were in the days after 9/11, trying to find out who to blame. In that case we held the Taliban in Afghanistan responsible for supporting al-Qaeda and took them down, and there was just enough political capital left over in the heartland to embark on the Iraq adventure. Losing a whole American city would refill again our half-empty glass international good will, and we'd have another mandate to strike back, but this is the new world of assymmetrical warfare which renders the old hardware impotent by denying a clear target.

8/21/2006 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

'Islamofascism':

The term "Islamofascism" was introduced by the French writer Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978. Rodinson was a Marxist, who described as "fascist" any movement of which he disapproved.

The majority of European Muslims do not approve of terrorism. But there are majorities and majorities. According to a recent poll, a full quarter of British Muslims believe that the bombs of last summer in London were a legitimate response to the "war on terror."

Islamofascism

8/21/2006 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Dawnish, that is.

8/21/2006 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Buddy,

I think they mean 'infidel' August 22. Few more hours yet. Hold on to your hat.

8/21/2006 08:35:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Recently I have stumbled on a very curious genius, Dr. Robert Godwin, who calls himself "Gagdad Bob," and whose writing casts an eccentric but at times brilliant light on our current situation. I recommend today's post, of which I excerpt a few lines:

At bottom, what the [sixth] commandment is emphasizing is that life is sacred--it is of infinite value; therefore, do everything you can to honor and protect it. Clearly, not all cultures do so. Some, as in so much of the Muslim world, worship death, not life. And this inversion is reflected throughout these sick cultures, in that they are “fruitless.” That is, they produce nothing but misery, both to themselves and to others. They produce nothing for the body, i.e., no medicines, no new ways to produce food; they produce nothing for the mind, i.e., no science, no translations of books, no freedom of inquiry; and they produce nothing for the spirit, i.e., only the spiritual shackles of their medieval death cult.

Most soul murders are undoubtedly committed by those who are already so spiritually damaged as to be functionally dead. These undead souls such as a Nasrallah, an Arafat, or an Amahdinejad, speak to us from “the other side,” from the shadow world that is created when the soul has been so damaged that it essentially exits the body, leaving only a human animal in its place. But other demonic energies rush in to fill the void, so that the individual becomes a sort of “antihuman.” At their core, they are filled with unbearable envy toward the living, and the only way they can assuage this envy is to kill and kill plentifully. Life is a reminder of their own walking death, hence, “death to Israel,” that primordial symbol of life: l’chaim.


Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 08:40:00 PM  
Blogger Mollie said...

GO TO GOOGLE.
Type in "failure".

Then type in "liar"

the bastards.

(hat tip Gateway Pundit.)

8/21/2006 08:54:00 PM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

I wonder if our guest tonight Prodicus modeled himself deliberately after the Prodicus (Πρόδικος), an early sophist, but an esteemed one, mentioned by Plato?

Jamie Irons

8/21/2006 09:01:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

OBL gotta love it!

8/21/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Buddy:
Progressive Hitler Youth.

8/21/2006 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

catorenasci said:

No, indeed. Every society has the right to defend itself against aggression and threats. Iran with nuclear weapons, given its espoused hostility to the United States, Israel and the West generally, is an existential threat. The demands of liberty do not require that we succumb to that threat, nor that we await the first blow.


But Iran's aggression and threats so far amount to a lot of jawboning, which the United States does too, and a lot of missile exports to the Levant, which the United States does too, but not even a single first use of nuclear weapons, which the United States did do. Twice. Once you declare that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable for countries which pose an "existential threat" then it's open season on the United States.

8/21/2006 09:35:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

habu_3 wrote:

George Will has written that anyone who wants to understand how American government works shouldn't read the Constitution, but rather open the Washington, D.C., phone book and observe all the organizations, associations, and lobbies with the word 'National' in their name.

Oh, did George Will write that when he was the Washington columnist for the National Review? (evil grin)

8/21/2006 09:39:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

The Roe Effect? (snip)

if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%.

8/21/2006 09:45:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

This is for folks who like the president.

8/21/2006 10:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Click around a bit, it's flash file.

8/21/2006 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Papa Ray said...

Written above (by someone who knows the answer well)

"What have you got that you can realistically expect sombody else to die defending for you? And what have they got that you would die to defend for them?"

If he is a father or grandfather, I would defend them (his children) with my life.

America is it's children, we are the protectors of this great Nation, until we pass that great responsibility on to them, as they will pass it on to theirs.

America is special, we are special and don't let anyone tell you different.

God did shed His Grace on us, and we will value and protect this Republic from all of it's enemies..forever.

For our Children.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

8/21/2006 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Agreed.
And then there's that extra special granddaughter!

8/21/2006 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Buddy,

Roe effect. Thanks. Demographics. Gotta love 'em. We win in the end.

8/22/2006 12:09:00 AM  
Blogger sam said...

Germany Goes to the Middle East:

Berlin has already dispatched an advance team of experts to Lebanon to assess the situation on the ground. Germany's planned UNIFIL participation comes at a crucial time and sends an important political signal, not only to Israel, but also to countries such as France or Spain, both of whom are so far very reluctant to make any major troop commitments and are waiting for other key Western and Muslim powers to come forward.

For Germany, the prospective deployment of naval forces marks an historic step which further illustrates the country's growing stature as an important actor in international
security affairs, both in the Middle East and beyond.

Germany

8/22/2006 12:13:00 AM  
Blogger Db2m said...

I rise in da middle of the night with a headache, and the world is still here.

Fine wakeup. Re-Joyce, Doug, and feel free to bounce off pun...

Night, all.

8/22/2006 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger Starling said...

Buddy Larsen said..." The Roe Effect? if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%."

Buddy, here's an article from the American Conservative that explains how the fertility gap drove the last election:

Baby Gap: How birthrates color the electoral map

8/22/2006 12:33:00 AM  
Blogger sam said...

Bush stands by Iraq until 'job is done':

Mr. Bush yesterday also:

• Said he is comfortable with the $110 billion that the federal government has committed to rescue, recovery and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina, but said those on the ground should be patient as the efforts continue.

• Defended his nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, in the face of criticism from conservatives who think he will approve over-the-counter sales of Plan B, a morning-after contraceptive pill widely attacked in pro-life circles as an abortifacient.

• Said the United Nations faces a test later this month as the deadline approaches for Iran to suspend its nuclear program and must move quickly to approve sanctions if Iran doesn't meet the target.

Bush Stands by Iraq

8/22/2006 01:10:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...

I hate to say it but the UK is on the receiving end of good old Psychological Warfare from radical Islam.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as:

"The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives
."

Which looks like what we are seeing in the UK now.

First some real terror then the psychological warfare.

Here is a little Asian history which seems to have all of the modern attributes which the UK is dealing with in some degree (propaganda mixed with intimidation and terror).

[From Answers.com]

Genghis Khan, leader of the Mongols in the 13th century, AD, united his people to eventually conquer more territory than any other leader in human history. This was indeed an exceptional accomplishment, but would have been impossible to achieve had it not been for the use of psychological warfare. Next to mobility, defeating the will of the enemy was the greatest weapon for the Mongols. Before attacking a settlement, the Mongol general would demand tribute and submission to the Khan or otherwise threaten to attack. The Mongols would threaten a village with complete destruction should a single arrow be fired. Most of the initial nations to be conquered, such as the nations of Kiev and Khwarizm, refused to surrender.

Consequently, the Mongol general would engage his cavalry in a series of brilliant maneuvers that slaughtered the enemy. He would spare a few, however, allowing them to take their tales of the encroaching horde to the next villages. This created an aura of insecurity with the resistance, eventually supplanting the will of the villagers. Often times, this in itself procured the Mongol victory.

Another tactic employed by Genghis Khan was the nocturnal use of fire to create an illusion of numbers. He ordered each soldier to light three torches at dusk in order to deceive and intimidate enemy scouts. In one infamous incident, the Mongol leader Tamerlane built a pyramid of 90,000 human heads before the walls of Delhi, to convince them to surrender
.

See: History of psychological warfare

[Techniques]

Techniques of propaganda... are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

Argumentum ad nauseam: Uses tireless repetition. An idea once repeated enough times, is taken as the truth. Works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

Bandwagon: Bandwagon and inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."

Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory.

Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice.

Common man: The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person.

Direct order: This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process. The propagandist uses images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily.

Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness in lieu of spreading more sadness, or using a good event to try to cover up another. Or creating a celebrateable event in the hopes of boosting morale.

Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person during a court session, or possibly a battle, etc. Pseudoscience is often used in this way.

Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience foregoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application is not considered.

Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position.

Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.

Red herring: Presenting data that is irrelevant, then claiming that it validates your argument.

Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned.

Slogans: A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. For example, "blood for oil" or "cut and run" are slogans used by those who view the USA's current situation in Iraq with disfavor.

Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.

Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation

Transfer: Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images.

Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc. are virtue words.


See: Techniques of propaganda generation, 40% down

8/22/2006 02:03:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

Why was Liberalism a strong enough ideology to defeat Fascism, Japanese Militarism, Communism, and the Confedo-Fascist slave owners during the Civil War but now suddenly it’s the ideology to blame for all the West’s woes?

The only way the Jihadis can defeat the West is to both divide it and to divert us away from the organizational model that has led to our global hegemony. Those who try to manipulate the Jihadi threat for their own personal political fetishes are indeed doing the work of Allah, or of Satan, or of both; by splitting the West and trying to divert it away from Christianity and Liberalism.

8/22/2006 03:02:00 AM  
Blogger goesh said...

-and here I thought they were the poor, the tired, the oppressed, the hungry, wanting but a small slice of the pie and fair shake from life....they're going to have to kill a bunch of us to make room it seems. Wait! I thought it was Detroit you were talking about, but it's London. Well now, I suspect if the disenfranchised Muslim youth of London started rioting and burning cars like they did in France, most Brit citizens would stand by like passive, dumb cattle crying for the police just like the French did. Don't you?

8/22/2006 04:55:00 AM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

Tere"state department" wrote:

"But Iran's aggression and threats so far amount to a lot of jawboning, which the United States does too, and a lot of missile exports to the Levant, which the United States does too, but not even a single first use of nuclear weapons, which the United States did do. Twice. Once you declare that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable for countries which pose an "existential threat" then it's open season on the United States."


It's always been open season on the US. It is better to be feared than respected by your enemies but unfortunately we soon may not have either.

8/22/2006 05:14:00 AM  
Blogger The Wobbly Guy said...

Perhaps Epictetus is right. The only way we can ever get the 'liberals' on our side is for the US to elect a democrat as president. But that's not enough.

Once a democrat is in power, he or she must make a deal in good faith with one of our enemies, which then proceeds to stab the US very deeply in the back. It's only at that moment that the 'liberals' will finally wake up and realise the magnitude of our enemies' ambitions.

8/22/2006 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

gokart-mozart said...

There is no such thing as "international law", in fact, the very concept is oxymoronic. For there to be such a thing (binding on any American, anyway), the legislative powers which we possess by virtue of our sovereignty would have had to be assigned to some entity other than the Congress, over which we possess absolute control, and they haven't been.

To which said... CatoRenasci said...

"International law" essentially represents a Hobbesian state of nature in which force is the ultimate arbiter. Ultima Ratio Regis as the French used to cast into their cannons. To the extent international law represents anything other than 'might makes right' it is a set of self-constraints - rules - that the great powers impose upon themselves and others - whether by treaty or usage - to ameliorate the effects of the pure state of nature.”

Sure, ultimately might makes right even at the level of individuals within the US. If you are very powerful you can ignore the law, which is tautological because your power is defined by how much contraint there is on your behavior. So, it is a cop out to argue that there is no international law because might makes right. The key is that we structure our interactions as humans through rule of law and we vest power in that law. There need not be one world government in order for rule of law to exist in the international realm for we voluntarily submit to treaties and we enforce those treaties through the power of our government conjoined with others.

8/22/2006 08:08:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Congratulations, Ash! You've achieved pure jabberwocky!

8/22/2006 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

CatoRenasci, I appreciate your well reasoned arguments but I fail to see how international law is different in kind, then say, the Union of States which produced the USA or the current union being formed in Europe. A binding dispute resolution process can be agreed to (i.e. NAFTA) and, yes, a nation can ignore the resolutions (i.e. softwood lumber) and similarily an individual US citizen could ignore the law of the US given he/she had the power to do so (tautology). Again, I'm suggesting the two situations are not different in kind. The key seems to lie in the power of the dispute resolution process and the reluctance of individuals and states to give up some freedom of action. This is a problem but not an insurmontable one as evidenced by successful unions and formations of legal systems already in existence.

8/22/2006 08:58:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Ash, I want you to send me $100. Okay? First, let me say, you don't really have to send the money. But I do want it on record that you owe it to me. No need to protest, as it won't save you any money, because you don't really have to pay it anyway.

8/22/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy, is there some contract between you and I that I am unaware of?

8/22/2006 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

CatoRenasci, you are not arguing that 'international law' does not exist are you?

"No nation state that ranks as a power - even a regional power - is prepared to surrender its sovereignty in the ways that the individual American states have, and that is the difference in kind."

I agree except that the phrase "ways that the individual American states have" suggests a difference in degree as opposed to kind. Many nations agree that they will forgo committing genocide without feeling their Sovereignty has been unduly impinged.

It is this notion of "sovereignty" that bothers me, as if it is an absolute. Nations regularly cede sovereignty through the signing of treaties and, yes, they always reserve the right to opt outwhile an individual citizen can emigrate though extradition treaties limit that gambit to some degree. There is no escaping the world, so I can see a difference in kind in that sense. Sovereignty is also enshrined in the UN conception of the world and that is beginning to change as we see the problems associated with allowing the government of a Sovereign Nation to abuse its people with little consequence because they are sovereign. Simply allowing the most powerful to violate Sovereignty on ad hoc basis based on self-interest leads to a war torn world where justice has little weight.

8/22/2006 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Das said...

A very smart bio engineer pal is working on calculations to extract fuel from algea. His initial take is that we can raise enough to provide for total US oil needs. The cost would be around 40 billion though...

8/22/2006 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Ash, why complain, you don't really have to perform on your obligation.

8/22/2006 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Catorenasci, I'm not sure why he 'finds it troubling' either, but the attitude contained in Ash's jaw-breaking pretzel ("Simply allowing the most powerful to violate Sovereignty on ad hoc basis based on self-interest leads to a war torn world where justice has little weight") is explored by Micheal Barone here.

8/22/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Well written CatoRenasci and I agree. It is not the concept of sovereignty that I have trouble with but rather the sancrosact nature with which it is treated. DR would argue that signing the ICC treaty would violate the Sovereignty of the US and hence cannot nor should not be done. On the other hand violating Iraq's sovereignty, or Iran's is not a problem for many. A double standard?

It has been a pleasure!

8/22/2006 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Yes, let's define "justice" -- unless we do, this discussion has no foundation.

Ash will find, as he begins to define "justice", that the concept becomes endlessly subjective (and thus in breach everywhere there is another being), unless there is a body of law defining it, and a power to enforce that body of law.

The Tranzi mind is sweet, in concept (who is not 'for' Utopia?).

Historically, though, whenever it has gained power, those not in agreement with it have become "non-persons", and, well, so much for their ideas about "justice".

8/22/2006 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

What about "Anfal justice"? Fine -- and legal -- for Chemical Ali's nation, but not so 'just' if you're a poisoned Kurd baby.

8/22/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger Edwin said...

One of your best, Wretchard, and that is saying something. Absolutely brilliant.

8/22/2006 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

"Maus" is chilling. Been around awhile, if it's the cartoon version from the early 70s to which you refer. Your warning words are very clear, and clearly true.

8/23/2006 09:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger