|
Sunday, September 28, 2003
The Carthaginian Solution
At the beginning of Robert Heinlein’s brilliant book Starship Troopers, there is a scene where a naïve young schoolgirl tells her teacher, a veteran, that violence never solves anything. He asks her what the city fathers of Carthage would think of that. They, she says, wouldn’t have anything to think of that because Carthage was destroyed. Violence, he tells her, has solved most of the problems in the history of the world. This might not be pleasant, but it has the great advantage of being true, something generally lacking in liberal shibboleths.
The modern left has never grown out of their foolish schoolgirl phase. They flitter about in flowery pink dresses (quite literally in the case of liberals of a certain inclination) and spit out banal and widely discredited platitudes as though they were Gospel. A refusal to admit the efficacy of and need for violence is naïve at best and wilfully and dangerously stupid at worst. As the saying goes, war has never done anything… except end slavery, Nazism, and Communism- with all of that, I might add, coming in just the last one hundred and fifty years.
We will win the War on Terrorism when we come to grasp the mathematics of the situation. Our enemies lack the strength to mobilize great armies or to build great weapons. They seek to defeat us by breaking our resolve with their fanaticism. They mean to force us to buckle and retreat when we are faced with a wave of suicidal murders that will kill without regard for any distinctions between the civilian and military or without any regard for the civilized rules of warfare.
In any population there is only a limited body of people willing to serve as suicide attackers. It is noteworthy that in the Japan of the Second World War, a totalitarian state where the primary religion was the worship of the Emperor, the Japanese military was unable to find more than a few thousand people willing to volunteer for suicide attacks. By the end of the Battle of Okinawa the pool of willing participants had already been effectively sapped, with future suicide attackers being coerced into action by threats.
Among a Palestinian population of several million, and a wider Islamic population of about a billion people, only a few hundred have volunteered for suicide attacks against Israel, even despite living an atmosphere of constant anti-Israeli incitement and anti-Semitic hate and with the assurance of their religions leaders that martyrdom for Islam will bring them eternal pleasure in paradise (as well as material rewards for their family here on Earth).
Whack a Whacko:
What this means, in essence, is that there is only a very limited number of people who will willingly conduct suicide attacks. It is therefore of the first priority that as many of these people as possible be killed and that they be killed as quickly as possible. Because it is impossible to tell which al-Qaeda or Hamas associate is a planner and which is the next suicide bomber it therefore follows that mere membership in any Islamic terrorist group must now be sufficient cause for a sentence of death, preferably administer via bullets, bombs, or missiles.
The United States should adopt Israel’s policy of the targeted assassination of terrorists- expand it and widen its geographical reach. All members of al-Qaeda and similar groups, from Osama Bin Laden on down to the janitor and messenger-boy should become a target for assassination. This reach should extend to people in foreign nations, including ostensible allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who provide moral, material, or financial support for terrorists. Nor does this need to be a strictly military affair, the US Government could offer to pay a bounty of a million dollars for the every confirmed death of an al-Qaeda member and offer Presidential Pardons and sanctuary to those who commit crimes in a good-faith effort to kill terrorists. A special web site could be established to publicize the names, pictures, and home addresses of those identified as supporters of terrorism. In all likelihood this would not lead to many kills, but it would probably force more second-tier members of terrorist organizations to move underground, where access to money would become much more difficult. Also, a few car bombings or brutal murders in broad daylight might deter others from becoming involved with terrorists.
Earlier, when I wrote of the “mathematics of the situation� I was referring to the fact that, once the pool of suicide terrorists had be cleansed, the war on terrorism will be effectively over for the time being. Without dedicated suicide terrorists, all of the infrastructure in the world will be of little use to their masters.
According to some reports the United States presently has about three thousand terrorists in custody at various points around the world. None of these should ever be allowed to leave alive. Many will be found guilty of crimes and can be swiftly executed, others can probably be driven to suicide by constant torment, others still attired by poor living conditions. Taking more prisoners, specifically those who lack intelligence value, should be a decidedly secondary priority. It is far better to have a terrorist dead than alive. After all, who knows what could happen if Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton was to become the President? Those terrorists could be let out of Gitmo the next day and be applying for a California Driver’s License the day after that.
It must be noted that simply killing all of the present-day terrorists will not end this war forever, but rather that it will simply end it for now. As you read this there are children being born in the Islamic world who, left unchecked, will grow up to be future suicide bombers. The real ‘root cause’ of this war is the inability of the Islamic world to deal with its own failures and the efforts of Moslem leaders to channel the ensuing anger into external aggression, with the end result of such efforts being that roughly 90% of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world involve Moslems attacking non-Moslems.
The Collective Responsibility of the Islamic World for Terror:
Before I go on, I think it’s important to discuss for a moment the popular myth that people bear no responsibility for the actions of their government and ought not to be made to suffer the consequences of the actions of the same. This is an absurdity.
It is only natural that populations which support and allow terror should be made to suffer the consequences of that terrorism. In the Palestinian Authority, where people danced upon the streets to celebrate the September 11th attacks, and all across the Islamic world there are tens of millions of people who have been complicit in the rise of Islamism. By failing to remove their terror-supporting governments and continuing to offer their personal support to terrorists, the populations of many terror-supporting states have made themselves valid targets for reprisal.
Now naturally this does not mean that I am suggesting that we build death camps for these people. Such tactics are not only immoral, but they are self-defeating as well. The point of making the Islamic world suffer some of the consequences of the actions of their leaders is to break the hubris and confidence of the people in order to allow an effective reconstruction to take place.
Iraq, I believe, is ideally suited to be the prototype for the reconstruction of the entire Moslem world. Its people were already broken by a decade of war and sanctions and, at any rate, they never fully bought in to the lies which as so popular in much of the Islamic world.
In the long term, in order for there to be peace, it is not enough to exterminate the terrorists: we must rebuild the entire Islamic world along Western lines via a process of neo-colonialism. We not only change the culture of the Islamic world, but we must threaten and bribe the right people in an effort to create a harmless and defanged religion. The pap spouted by the Islamic clerics at special ‘interfaith services’ in the United States- the stories about how ‘Islam means peace’ and ‘Jihad refers to an internal, personal, struggle’ would serve well as the basis of a perfectly benign religion.
Reconstruction will take decades, hundred of billions of dollars, and probably thousands of American lives. However, it is worth it because stopping the rise of the Islamist menace today will save the lives of millions of Americans which would otherwise be lost as soon as the terrorists acquire the weapons with which to match their hate.
Uncle Billy’s March:
It’s all well and good to talk, as the left does, about peaceful reform. But the kind of radical reconstruction required of the Islamic world rarely comes quickly and is rarely initiated internally. Repressive societies are destroyed more often by the likes of William Tecumseh Sherman’s men in blue and George Patton’s crusading Third Army than they are by cautiously-worded resolutions of the United Nations’ General Assembly.
Before we can build a new Moslem world we must burn down the edifice of the old. Sherman said that the purpose of his march through Georgia and the Carolinas was to fill the South with such a loathing of war that it would be a hundred years before they’d even think of rising again. We must do the same in the Moslem world. We must send our troops marching through Araby.
There will be no end to this war so long as the Islamic world is filled with notions of their own superiority and invulnerability. We must use the means of war to educate those people to the fact that their God will not save them. We do not need to kill great numbers of them to do this. Sherman certainly did not. Rather, we need to teach them the futility of resistance and the falseness of their own creed. It is a popular and self-evidently stupid myth that defeat will strengthen a culture or religion- more often it will destroy it. The Islamic world is a little slice of the Middle Ages, transported through time to the modern day.
The end to this war must be positively Carthaginian. This does not mean that we must do exactly as the Roman did and destroy the land and the people for these resources, both people and land, are far too valuable to waste. What we must destroy instead is ideas- the outmoded culture of the Middle East, the myth of Muslim superiority- and the prevalent versions of the Islamic religion which provide the intellectual, moral, and legal justifications for terrorism.
We must conquer their countries and we must salt the fields of the mind from which repellent Islamist ideas have grown.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
‘Bush’s Watergate’
At long last the Democrats and their media allies have what they have long wanted: a scandal in the Bush White House to which they can, with some degree of credibility, add the suffix ‘gate.’ The scandal revolves around Joseph Wilson, a former acting Ambassador to Iraq, and his wife, Valerie Plame, who has been described as a ‘covert CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction’. In a July, legendary columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame’s identity as a CIA agent, citing two ‘senior administration officials’ as the source for the information. The supposed ‘scandal’ here is that disclosing the identity of a covert government operative in such a fashion may possibly be in violation of two Federal laws. Worse still, it has been strongly suggested that one of Novak’s sources was Karl Rove, the President’s closest political advisor. With the CIA now making a formal request that the Justice Department investigate this matter, I fully expect ‘Rovegate’ or whatever else the media dubs the scandal to become a big deal in the coming weeks.
All of the enemies of America will pounce upon this scandal in an effort to attack the good of this country’s cause. Wilson and Plame will become leftist folk heroes, extolled in the international media as the latest victims of the Zionist and/or Neoconservative conspiracy. Inevitable comparisons will be made between Bush and Nixon. ‘What did the President know and when did he know it?’ will be asked once more. We will be warned that having Administration officials reveal the identity of a CIA operative (if indeed that is what happened) endangered US intelligence operations. We will be subjected to endless and turgid Congressional hearings on the matter, with the limp-wristed faction of the Republican Party allowing the Democrats to use them for the purpose of indulging in their favorite past-time, which was illegal in a number of states until the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
Before we go on, I think it’s worth clarifying: it’s pretty clear that this woman wasn’t exactly an agent in the field running James Bond-type operations. Most likely she was someone operating under diplomatic cover, supposedly working for some branch of the State Department but really working as someone investigating WMD programs. Her life was never in danger. At worst, she will never be able to work in the field again and to that I have this to say: good. Laws designed to protect the identity of covert agents are designed to protect those serving their country, not those acting to protect their party. If someone did disclose her identity, it was a great act of patriotism.
The real scandal here isn’t that someone disclosed the identity of this woman: it’s that this woman was working for the CIA at all. Her husband is clearly a partisan and stridently leftist Democrat. He’s written articles for The Nation which, in the 1960’s, was described as a ‘scurrilous magazine which has supported many communist causes’ and about which little has changed since. Why was a man such as this selected to investigate reports of Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger? There is no evidence that the man had any particular expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction and, by many reports, the investigation he launched in Niger was spotty and incomplete. All of this practically screams two words: ‘whitewash’ and ‘sabotage’. The latter is particularly significant in that it raises real questions not only about the loyalty and reliability of Valerie Plame, but that of the CIA as a whole.
Largely undiscussed, but of the utmost significance, is the politicization of the CIA. There are many operatives playing politics from within the Agency and, contrary to Hollywood stereotypes, few of them hail from the Republican side of the aisle. The CIA has never recovered from the incompetence of William Colby and the treasonable conduct of Stanfield Turner both of who, as Director, gutted the service. In more recent years the CIA has been infiltrated by an increasingly large number of liberal academics whose ideological blinders and cowardice have done untold damage to the US intelligence community.
The CIA (and, indeed, the entire US Intelligence community) needs the services of a man like the late James Jesus Angleton, who was the long-serving Director of counter-intelligence. The disloyal must be rooted out and removed from the service of the government. We cannot be fighting a war where some of our front-line soldiers feel that they own a higher loyalty to the Democratic Party than to the Republic.
Whoever revealed the identity of this woman did a great service to the country by (hopefully) ending her career. The security of the nation is far too important a matter to be trusted to Democrats in any way, shape, or form. It is the leftists within the CIA which ought to be being investigated here, not the White House.
The President must deal with this head-on. If someone in the White House did leak this information and it turns out that such a leak was in violation of the law, the President should pardon that individual without delay. The President ought to clean house at the CIA. He should go before the nation and explain how he has learned that political partisans within the CIA have harmed American interests by putting sectarian interests before the good of the country as a whole.
Own up to it, but do not admit to doing anything wrong. Forthrightly defend what was done and attack your attackers for siding with those seeking to undermine America. By acting decisively the President can seize the initiative and launch a devastating political counter-attack which will savage the traitors who are howling at the gates.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
The Human Rights Problem at Guantanamo Bay
For once I agree with Amnesty International and the rest of that sorry lot: there is a human rights problem at the prison camp established for terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The problem is as such: the terrorists there have human rights: they shouldn’t. By many accounts the Gitmo prison camp has become something of a Club Med for terrorists, who are given good food, prayer mats, and other luxury items. According to some recently-released prisoners the guards are even buying the prisoners things with their own money and several of them have been convinced to convert to Islam. Something must be done to improve the human rights situation at Guantanamo Bay.
For all of the fuss that was made over Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees not being treated as Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention, the conditions at Guantanamo would seem to be far superior to those in a typical camp for prisoners of war. This must stop immediately. The terrorists there are lucky that the United States has allowed, for now, them to go on living. They should know no comfort or solace in their remaining time upon the Earth.
The main practical reasons for keeping Prisoners of War alive is to give your enemy an incentive to keep the prisoners that it holds alive. Al-Qaeda and its ilk, to say the very least, do not do this. Any American captured by al-Qaeda will almost certainly die relatively soon after their capture. Therefore, there is no reason to keep al-Qaeda prisoners alive except in cases where they might have valuable information to disclose.
Certainly, historically, the members of fighting forces such as al-Qaeda have not been considered prisoners of war. The sort of men who fight out of uniform, conduct terrorist bombings, and operate in the same fashion as the Islamist does do not deserve the protections or the honor of a solider. A spy or bandit caught out of uniform is subject to summary execution in the field. By right all members of al-Qaeda and groups like it should receive nothing more than a single bullet in the head (or rope around a neck and a tree) followed by a quick trip to an unmarked grave. If such a general policy is unacceptable for foolish sentimental and political reasons then, at the very least, we should endeavour to make the remainder of their lives as unpleasant as possible (as well as to reduce their numbers by attrition).
These terrorists should not know a restful night of sleep or a warm and satisfying meal. Instead they ought to be fed meagre rations (preferably with pork as the main staple of their diet) and their receipt of even those rations ought to be made conditional upon the performance of hard labor.
What would I have them do? The first idea which comes to mind is to force them, at gunpoint, to sew Israeli flags, but that hardly seems to be strenuous enough. My preference would be to force them to manually dig and refill graves for sixteen hours a day. This would not only be backbreaking and frustrating- it would also alarm many of the detainees. Just whose graves, they will wonder, are we digging? This way, when some of the terrorists inevitably are killed while attempting to rebel or die by other means, there will be plenty of places to dump them.
Those who can be proven to have committed crimes should face a military trial followed by a swift execution. The rest ought to be provided with sturdy sheets along with rafters to which those sheets might be easily secured.
Right now great lengths are being taken to show respect for the Islamic religion- all of these efforts should end right now. Prayer mats and Korans should be confiscated. Efforts should be taken to deliberately disorient the prisoners in an effort to prevent them from determining where they must turn to face Mecca. Loudspeakers should be set up to broadcast a constant stream of anti-Islamic propaganda.
The discovery of an apparent Islamist spy ring at Guantanamo also makes something else quite clear (something, I might add, which should have been clear a long time ago): no Islamic soldiers should be allowed to serve at the camp. As I have said elsewhere, in a time when the United States is at war with a power which claims to speak for Islam (and which has great support in the Islamic world) no Moslem soldiers should be deployed anywhere they might be directly involved in dealings with al-Qaeda or its associates. Moreover, the men assigned to Guantanamo Bay should be carefully screened to remove those with a strong humanitarian streak. Those assigned to the camp should be hard-core Islamophobes, angry men who’ve lost wives, sisters, brothers or fathers to the terrorists: people who will show no mercy to the human refuse that al-Qaeda members, supporters, and sympathizers are. By means such as these, Gitmo might be made into the Islamists’ Andersonville.
These terrorists who we face now are sub-human scum. They do not deserve to be treated with any decency or respect, but rather as garbage to be disposed of as is convenient to us. They are monsters: murderers, evil and indecent men who are incapable of love or honor. These ‘men’ deserve nothing more than swift exile to hell, any existence that they know in the interim ought to be characterized by nothing more than pain and suffering.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Can Moslems Serve?
Sergeant Assan Akhbar. Sergeant John Allen Muhammad. Sergeant Ali Mohamed. Captain James Yee. What do all of these men have in common? They all served in the US Army, they are all Moslems, and they are all traitors. Akhbar killed several of his fellow soldiers in a grenade attack during the Iraq War. Muhammad was an unreliable solider who, after leaving the Army, killed ten people in a series of sniper attacks. Mohamed set up the terrorist cell which eventually bombed the US Embassy in Nairobi. The latest man on the list, Captain Yee, is a Chinese-American who converted to Islam in the mid 1990’s. Eventually he became an Islamic Chaplin and was regularly hailed in the media as an effective illustration of a loyal practitioner of the religion of peace. Oh yes, and was a terrorist too- that part is a little hard to forget. Given all of this, the question must be asked: can Moslems continue to be allowed to serve in the American Armed Forces, or does their presence constitute a security risk?
There will be those who will accuse me of racism for even raising such a question. How dare I question the loyalty of Islamic soldiers serving on the front lines? But events now leave us with no choice. Moreover, it is clear that al-Qaeda is deliberately infiltrating the US Army- Yee suddenly rejoined the Army after living in Syria for four years, Mohamed came to the US Army by way of the Egyptian one. A good first step would be to forbid the service in the US military of anyone who has lived in an Islamic country for an extended period of time and was not on government business of some sort. This might sound unfair to some- but allowing someone to join the US Army after a half-decade sojourn in Araby is like allowing someone just back from a six-year stint as a Factory Worker in the USSR to join the Marine Corps circa 1953.
Whether we like it or not the War on Terrorism puts us up against people who claim to be fighting on behalf of the Islamic religion. The Islamist creed is strong, especially among new converts to the religion (which a majority of Moslems in the US Army are) it is hardly unexpected that some will take seriously the calls for Jihad and attack their fellow soldiers. This problem is made much worse when these men are deployed to the Middle East where they are subjected to a constant stream of Islamist propaganda and called upon to fight their fellow Mohammedans.
Some have advocated the immediate discharge of all Moslems in the Armed Forces. I would not, perhaps, go that far. The discharge of those practicing the Islamic faith would unfairly punish actually loyal Americans simply upon the basis of their religion. Rather, a through investigation of the backgrounds of all Islamic soldiers must be undertaken and those whose loyalty might be even considered somewhat suspect must be immediately removed from the service. Many will call such investigations ‘McCarthyism’ and they’re right if, by ‘McCarthyism’ they mean ‘investigations that remove disloyal individuals from the government.’ Still, these investigations will find that only a minority of Moslems have terrorist ties or suspect loyalties- so what shall be done with the rest?
I think that we ought to look to history for a solution to this problem. In the Second World War Japanese-Americans, while forbidden from serving in the regular army, were allowed to join the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which became one of the most distinguished units of the entire war. Deployed for service in Italy, members of the unit fought with fanatical and suicidal bravery thereby proving that they were as loyal as any other Americans.
This would be an excellent model to follow today. Most estimates suggest that there are somewhere between five and ten thousand Moslems in the US Army, the majority of them black converts. These men could be reassigned to a new ‘Islamic Brigade’, which could then be deployed to some theatre where they would be unlikely to have to fight against their fellow Moslems and where they might be kept away from the influence of radical Islamists. The men could be carefully monitored, with those showing radical tendencies being speedily discharged. They could be placed under the spiritual guidance of extremely carefully vetted moderate Islamic clerics and guided towards a peaceful and ‘Americanized’ form of Islam.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Committing a ‘Hate’ Crime
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.�
-Leviticus 18:22
Canada is suffering from an advanced case of moral degeneration. At some point we choose to concede that sodomites, the idle, drug addicts, and all-purpose perverts of every stripe are the equal of hard-working and God-fearing people and, having conceded that equality, we have rapidly found our former positions reserved. In modern Canada the deviant man now holds the whip over the normal one. It is as if a great wave of insanity washed across the land, sweeping away the old and firmly planting the seeds of moral debasement.
One of the primary differences between conservative and liberal morality would seem to be as such: while conservatives recognize the capacity for human evil and wish to take actions to minimize it while encouraging virtue, liberals wish to eliminate evil and sin by redefining all that is sinful as virtuous.
I don’t believe that homosexuality is a positive thing. I would lump it in with many of the lesser moral evils of our society: soft drug use, alcoholism, and prostitution. Like those, it is one of those things which will always be with us, and one whose practitioners are often kind and sympathetic, and we should therefore have tolerance and sympathy for them as people: but not for their sins.
Bill C-250 is a reversal of the old moral order. Its purpose seems innocuous enough: it’s going to ‘prevent hatred.’ Who could be opposed to something as gentle sounding as that? But beneath that exterior lies something far more sinister: it is the criminalization of contrarian thought.
Svend Robinson claims that the need for the bill was made evident by Fred Phelps’ near-visit to Canada. For those who do not know, the Rev. Fred Phelps is a Nebraskan clergyman who enjoys picketing the funerals of AIDS victims waving signs that read, “God hates fags.� In short, Phelps is a crank, an idiot, and a constant source of embarrassment to those with reasonable objections to the homosexual agenda.
So, why then did the mere prospect of a visit by Phelps make it necessary to abridge the freedom of speech of others? The short answer is this: it didn’t. The worst Fred Phelps and his motley band of losers could have done would have been to offend Svend Robinson, which is far from difficult. But, to the best of my knowledge, the purpose of the law is to protect people like Svend Robinson from harm, not to prevent them from twisting their panties into a knot. If we are going to make laws banning things on the grounds that they are simply offensive to the eyes, then I am going to push for a law which proscribes Svend from ever posing nude again, as he has done in the past.
The real purpose here isn’t to prevent people from being physically harmed: we already have laws to do that. The purpose of Bill C-250, and other similar acts, is to criminalize all opposition to homosexuality and to the homosexual agenda. Already, before C-250, we have seen cases where people have been punished and persecuted for their personal and religious viewpoints.
We have seen the case of Hugh Owens, a conservative Christian from Saskatchewan, who was fined $4500 for the ‘crime’ of publishing an ad which provided the chapter and verse for several passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. The newspaper which printed his ad, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined as well.
There was Scott Brockie, the Christian owner of a printing shop in Toronto, who was fined $5000 for refusing to print materials for a gay and lesbian organization because he disagreed with the practices of the group.
Chris Kempling, a teacher from Quesnel, British Columbia, was suspended from work for a month for writing letters to newspapers and politicians which were respectfully critical of the gay rights agenda.
Then there are the cases of the democratically-elected Mayors of Hamilton, Ontario, Fredericton, New Brunswick, and Kelowna, British Columbia, all of whom were ordered by government bodies to declare Gay “Pride� Days in spite of their personal opposition and who were, in two of the cases, fined as well.
In Sweden a Pastor was sentenced to four weeks in jail simply for telling his congregation the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and reminding them that God was still angry with homosexuals and would judge them harshly.
Now I know supporters of the law will remind me that the law supposedly protects religious expression. But excuse me if I’m rather doubtful of such assertions. The provision in the bill protecting ‘religious expression’ only protects such expression when it is made in ‘good faith.’ What exactly does that mean? I expect that we will find that out at about the time the first Minister steps into a jail cell to serve a longer sentence than a lot of murderers in this country serve. I expect that the courts will decide that, by definition, no expression that is ‘hateful’ can be made in ‘good faith’, thereby nullifying what protections were inserted into the law.
Some will attempt to justify their support of C-250 by claiming that their goal is ‘preventing violence against homosexuals’ and they will combine such statements with tearful stories of some poor fellow who was beaten or made to endure harassment because of his sexual preference. Yet that is not what this bill is really about. We already have laws to stop criminal harassment and punish those who assault others. What this is about is the criminalization of thought.
Let me make it clear: I’m not just against adding homosexuals to our ‘hate’ laws. I’m against hate propaganda laws and their ilk altogether. People should be punished for actual crimes- not for mere words. If Fred Phelps wants to come to this country and spew his filth he ought to be allowed to do so, for his own words will indict him far more effectively than our laws ever will. The point of this isn’t to get to the Fred Phelps’ of the world- it’s that it will have a severe chilling effect on any seeking to oppose the homosexual agenda. Many on the Christian right venerate those such as Chris Kempling who have had the courage to stand up to the ‘moral’ left: but few of us have a desire to join them. Most Canadians, including religious leaders, will quickly learn to raise no objection to any gay initiative, lest they make themselves a target of the law.
In recent years Canada has gone through a social revolution with consequences as sweeping and dramatic as the French Revolution. The message of Bill C-250 is this: there is no room for social conservatives at the inn of New Canada. We are now representatives of Canada’s ancien régime and I expect that the revolutionaries mean to dispose of us much as their French predecessors did.
This is no longer about the modification of the existing social order. Rather it is about its obliteration. The moral left in this country does not mean to foster tolerance; they mean to enact a new regime of oppression and repression against their opponents. I do not expect it to be long now before certain segments of our population are demanding not only the punishment of those who dare to recite offending portions of the Bible, but that Bible passages which condemn homosexuality be excised altogether. After all, if portions of the Bible are so dangerous that one can be fined simply for referencing them; would it then not be in the public interest to remove them altogether? A few decades hence, I suspect that Canadian bookstores will have a large section devoted to lurid pederastic fantasies about the rape of five-year old boys (with the free speech martyr John Robin Sharpe being revered as the father of the genre), while the Bibles will be kept behind the counter, wrapped in dark plastic.
The ‘morality’ of the left cannot coexist with the Western Christian tradition. The most powerful enemies of the apostles of hedonistic post-modernism are the Judeo-Christian traditions which have nurtured our civilization through thousands of years of tumult, disorder, and despair. Just as the leaders of the Soviet Union once did, the leaders of the ‘moral’ left know this, and are therefore determined to discredit, destroy, and oppress Christianity.
There is some comfort in that last thought: the leaders of the USSR spent seventy years creating a formally atheistic state. They essentially banned religion, created museums to mock it, and made every effort to destroy Christian mores. But, in the end, they failed. Modern Russia is one of the most Christian nations on the earth. The efforts of the left will fail in the end: it’s merely a question of how many lives will be destroyed, how many generations lost, before they do.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
The Good 9-11
European socialists and their fellow travellers the world over are fond of using the anniversary of the murderous September 11th terrorist attacks to recall another September 11th, that of 1973 when the Marxist government of Chile was overthrown by its own Armed Forces in a coup which leftists believe was instigated and planned by the CIA. This, they feel, is an excellent way of putting an anti-American spin on the day. “Sure,� they say, “it’s sort of sad that three thousand Americans were murdered by Islamo-fascists, but we shouldn’t forget that, thirty years ago, the Communist President of Chile killed himself after he was overthrown.� It’s a way of injecting a little spot of America-bashing into a time where most human beings would naturally feel some sympathy for Americas, a little poke in the eye of the Great Satan.
Chile’s leftist President, Salvador Allende, is and was a deeply cherished hero of the left. One of the few (open) Marxists to ever be elected the leader of a major country, he is mourned as a victim of American ‘imperialism’ and as a martyr of one sort or another. As the standard story goes, Allende was a great hero of the people, toiling away on behalf of the masses, when he was overthrown by a combination of home-grown Chilean fascists and the paranoid CIA which, misinterpreting Allende’s communist policies and rhetoric, suspected him of actually being a Communist. The motives for this, of course, were purely capitalistic in nature: the conspirators were afraid that the virtuous and good socialists in Santiago would force them to share their profits with the proletariat.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Salvador Allende was overthrown because he was an incompetent and cowardly oaf who nearly destroyed the Chilean economy and tried to turn his country into a base for international communist. The hero of September 11th, 1973 was not Salvador Allende, the man determined to ‘save’ his country by turning it into a satellite of the Soviet Union. Rather, the hero of that day was General Augusto Pinochet, the man who saved his country from the ruinous yoke of socialism, the man who anchored the fight of free people’s in South America, and the man who made Chile into what it is today: the most democratic, prosperous and stable nation on its continent.
Though nominally a member of Chile’s (already quite radical) Socialist Party, Salvador Allende was in fact a committed communist determined to take Chile into the Soviet sphere. Elected President with little more than a third of the vote (the rest of the vote was split between a centrist and rightist candidate); his election was ratified by the Chilean Congress only after he promised to respect democratic institutions and the integrity of the Armed Forces. His acceptance of these terms was deemed crucial to his election, as Allende’s acolytes were generally believers in the ‘one-election’ model of social democracy (campaign slogan: ‘Vote for us, and you’ll never have to vote again’), whereby a dictatorship of the proletariat would be established by quasi-legal means (an expansion of state powers by all means available, culminating in the passage of final act which would establish one-man and one-party rule).
During his time in office Allende nationalized more than five hundred companies by means which were unethical and largely illegal. Because an opposition majority in the Congress blocked nationalization by legal means, Allende’s socialist government would take measures (including artificially generated price increases, orchestrated labour unrest, and stock manipulation) to force companies into bankruptcy and then seize them using a long-forgotten Depression-era law which allowed for the temporary takeover of insolvent businesses.
The result of these policies was economic chaos. In the year prior to the Coup, the annualized rate of inflation was 323% and rising each day. Shortages were so endemic that one major grocery chain reported that 2500 of the 3000 products it normally stocked were unavailable. Agricultural production plummeted, with wheat production alone falling by nearly 50%.
By the time that the Chilean military was forced to intervene the country was on the verge of an open Civil War, with arms being stockpiled by both sides. Tons of Cuban munitions were found hidden in the Presidential palace, ready to arm the militias of the ruling party.
In the final year of his rule Allende began to openly defy the Chilean Constitution and Courts. When the Congress passed a law seeking to prevent him from making more nationalizations he sought to illegally veto it. He ordered his Interior Minister not to enforce court orders. Finally, Allende broke his promise to respect the integrity of the Armed Forces, firing several senior officers and replacing them with men politically sympathetic to him. In August of 1973 a plot by left-wing enlisted men within the Navy was discovered. Senator Carlos Altamirano, the Secretary-General of Allende’s own party, proudly admitted to being one of the authors of the plot. That same month Allende sought (and failed) to impose a State-of-Siege upon the country. Finally, on August 22nd, the lower house of the Congress passed a resolution calling for the military to restore order.
For all of the bleating of the left, the involvement of the United States in these vents was minimal. When Augusto Pinochet and the Armed Forces stepped in, they did not do so gleefully: they did so out of simple necessity and they did so largely alone. CIA intervention was limited mostly to assistance to a few strikes and money for a few right-wing groups. The military did not need a foreign push to step in: the Chilean economy was in a state of total collapse, with a once-rich nation being beggared by socialist idiocy. The President and his supporters were clearly taking steps towards the establishment of a dictatorship of their own. Had Chile’s Armed Forces not stepped in when they did, the best that could have been hoped for would have been a long and bloody Civil War, not unlike those experienced elsewhere in the Americas during the Cold War. At worst, a Communist Chile could have become the major Soviet base in the Southern hemisphere, using its secure position to export violence and revolution to neighbouring nations such as Argentina and Brazil. It would have been a disaster for free people everywhere.
Some cry for the Communists who lost their lives in the Pinochet era (most of whom were killed in violent clashes in the immediate aftermath of the coup). But, I must ask, who can honestly claim that fewer people would have died had Allende been allowed to continue in power? Everywhere in the world where Communists have gained total control millions have died. The Soviet Union killed over twenty million of its own people. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killed close to half of the population. The Chinese Communists killed nearly one hundred million people. Communist-instigated civil wars all across the world claimed the lives of millions more.
The left conveniently forgets all of this when they try to castigate America for its Cold War-era ‘crimes.’ The Cold War was a struggle against one of the most evil and malevolent forces in all of human history. It was a battle against an ideology which murdered hundreds of millions of people in the space of just a few decades. The sad history of communism is a history of an evil whose monstrous crimes dwarf those of Nazism, an evil without parallel in all of time. The left likes to talk as if the choice was between a military dictator and a cheerful social democrat except, of course, it wasn’t.
It’s time that we end the distortions and lies about what really happened on September 11th, 1973. That day ought to be marked in history not as one of sorrow, but as a great triumph for Democracy. The overthrow of Allende allowed President Pinochet to implement policies which righted the Chilean economy and paved the way to a smooth restoration of democracy. It secured the Southern flank of the Western alliance in the Cold War. 9-11-73 is not, as some have put it, ‘the other 9-11’: it was the good 9-11. It was a date on which brave men, ignoring the whining of the left, staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour upon the salvation of their people from a great evil.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
The End of the Road
Israel says it is going to expel Yassir Arafat from the territories… sometime in the near future. This is wrong. Not because Arafat deserves to remain on Israeli soil but because Arafat, and those surrounding him in Ramallah (who are sure to follow him into exile), deserve to be dead.
I, along with many others, have long maintained that there will never be a negotiated peace in Israel. This is because each side has core demands which are unacceptable to the other: Israelis say that they wish to go on living. The Palestinians disagree.
In other words, we will only see a real peace in the Middle East when one side has utterly destroyed the other. In a war where one side is implacably determined to annihilate and exterminate the other it is insane to expect the side targeted for destruction to make compromises. I suspect that most Israelis would happily turn over the West Bank and Gaza if they thought it would make any difference. Except we all know that it would not. Suddenly the Arabs would have new territorial demands, new monetary demands: and those demands would be eagerly backed up by the rest of the Muslim world, the United Nations, the European Union, and many millions of terrorist-sympathizers here in the United States.
Really, this conflict doesn’t have much to do with Israel at all. Egypt and Jordan controlled the land upon which a supposed ‘Palestinian State’ is going to be built for two decades and did exactly nothing with it. Palestinians are still living in refugee camps more than five decades after they were displaced in an Arab war of aggression because their ‘brother’ Arabs and Moslems care for them as nothing except as a prop to be used against Israel. The real reason for the constant stream of anti-Israeli hate coming out of the Middle East is the need of Arabs and Moslems throughout the world to explain away their own failures and find an outlet to direct their own aggression. Of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world today virtually all of them involve members of the Islamic faith attempting to kill and conquer people of other faiths or, when such people are not available, fighting amongst themselves. This is about the failure of Moslems and Arabs to deal with the failure of their own societies.
Hitherto, Israel has shown great restraint in its dealings with the Palestinians: even with the most hardened of terrorists. This must stop now. The policy of targeted assassinations must be expanded to cover all known members of and collaborators with Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and the other terror groups. Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian losses, which have been admirable, must be abandoned in favor of a new policy geared towards generating the greatest possible terrorist body count in the shortest possible period of time. Israeli must, for the time being, abandon all feelings of mercy towards the Palestinian people: in three years of war the people of the so-called ‘Palestinian territories’ have made no effort to restrain or stop the all-out campaign of murder launched against the Israeli people by their leaders: now they must reckon the price of their crimes.
Israel’s war is the same as our war. They are fighting the same enemy and, therefore, they must adopt the same tactics. There can be no reasoning with the Islamist, for his creed is fundamentally irrational. Contrary to popular opinion, there can be no compromise with terrorists, for the only ‘good’ terrorist is a terrorist with a bullet in his brain. The only way to stop the enemy is to kill him in great numbers. We must make the enemy wade waist-deep in the blood of his comrades, and then we must blow him to hell.
Now, it is all well and good to kill the terrorists. But what comes after that? It must be reluctantly admitted that the transfer of the Palestinian population may be the only possible resolution to this conflict. So long as terrorist-supporting Palestinians are allowed to live in close proximity with Israelis, we will continue to see Israeli citizens slaughtered as they ride their buses, sit in their Pizza parlours, and wait in line at their discos.
Israel must fight a spasm war, killing all of their terrorists and their supporters: and then it must drive the so-called ‘Palestinians’ away from all Israeli cities and settlements. Let them keep their property- pay them for their homes- but get them away from Israeli citizens. It would be ugly: but it may be necessary. By what other humane means shall we deal with a generation raised amid such anti-Semitic hate and incitement?
The United States should not interfere in this in any way. Polls show that the majority of the American people support Israel. I believe that they fully understand that the enemy that Israel is fighting is exactly the same one as America is fighting, even if our foreign policy elites have yet to grasp this simple fact. Only leftists and foreign policy professionals care about what Israel does to the Palestinians: the President, along with all decent and moral Americans, should ignore their idiotic blathering.
Whatever happens, Israel should make no more compromises or withdrawals. All the so-called ‘cease fire’ did was give the terrorists several months to prepare for a new campaign of death. The effect of every concession to date has been an increase in the boldness of the enemy. Every surrender, every retreat, gives courage to the enemy: they convince them that they can win. The price of Oslo is that Israel must now violently disavow themselves of any such notions.
The Culture Weapon
In virtually any sphere where conservatives contest for control of the culture, the conservative side typically wins or, at the very least, is capable of fighting the left to a standstill. The leftist radio monopoly was utterly shattered by the onset of the era of Limbaugh in just a few short years (much to the benefit of the radio business as a whole). Fox News took just a few years to catch up to (and then overtake) CNN to such an extent that there is no longer any question that Fox is America’s most popular cable news channel. The internet, a playing field without pre-established norms, has what could probably be described as a conservative bent (in general, right-wing sites rank higher in the Alexa ratings, the internet version of the Nielsen’s). Conservative books, despite being shut out of mainstream publishers and lacking the free media accorded to so many liberal books, generally sell better than leftist tomes. In other words, all things being equal, conservative voices will thrive. The question which must be asked then is this: why are films and television so bereft of conservative voices?
The answer is four-fold. First: on some level they are kept out by those who would rather promote a specific ideology than make money. We have seen this for many years in the world of publishing, where liberals whose books don’t sell seem to mysteriously claim much larger advances than conservatives whose do. Ann Coulter recently received an advance of $3 million for her fourth book: after her first three were runaway best-sellers. Feminist Naomi Wolf received million dollar advances even after many of her books tanked. The same is true in Hollywood. Actress Sharon Lawrence, a life-long Democrat, reported being subject to threats and incredulous questioning within the film community after she was simply photographed at a book inaugural event. The only people free to be openly Republican (let alone conservative!) in Hollywood are well-established stars such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and Kelsey Grammer and those whose careers are either over (or not going anywhere) such as Bo Derek, Jerry Doyle (former Babylon 5 star and 2000 GOP Congressional candidate) and Charlton Heston. The only openly conservative writer/director I can think of in Hollywood is John Milus, who has barely been heard from in recent years. One can only imagine what happens to young writers and directors who pitch conservative projects.
There is, however, a second reason for the lack of conservative television shows and films: most attempts to date at ‘conservative’ film have, more or less, stunk. The reasons for this are many and varied- the mini-series Amerika, an epic story of a Soviet occupation of the United States, was one of the greatest flops of the 1980’s because it was horribly acted (with Kris Kristofferson badly miscast in the lead role as an anti-Soviet politician recently released from the Gulag). The noted leftist Kristofferson seems to have been cast, in part, in order to avoid accusations that the film was anti-Soviet.
Ron Maxwell’s Gods and Generals, the great conservative hope of this year, failed because it was either two hours too long or four hours too short. Cut to an awkward length of four and a half hours, the film’s fine portrayal of Lieutenant General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was spoiled by hours of illogically put-together material seeking to tell the story from the Union side, seemingly in an attempt to add ‘balance’ to the film, but really making the plot seem muddled and disjointed. A short (two and a half hour-long) version of the movie would have been a classic- as would a longer version (it isn’t really that the Federal material is bad- it’s just that it has been chopped up into small portions without any seeming logic, other than an effort to appease critics who might otherwise accuse the film of having a pro-Southern bias which, naturally, they did anyways). In other words, many conservative films are ruined because the producers, so conscious of the criticism which will come as a result of the supposed political orientation of the film, overcompensate and make stupid decisions as a result.
Third, some supposedly ‘conservative’ art is just simply bad. No better example can be found of this than the two Left Behind movies which are ‘Christian’ films based upon the best-selling books. As virtually anyone who has seen the movies can attest to, they are simply terrible. They are full of wooden acting and a script so preachy that it would make Oliver Stone cringe. Any call for more ‘conservative’ entertainment must, very emphatically, not be a call for more along these lines. It serves our cause no good to spend millions on movies if what we produce is more likely to hurt than to help.
Finally, too many conservatives have simply given up upon popular culture in general and television and film in particular. This is a very serious error. Popular culture defines the world of young Americans. When the environment in which these people live is filled with liberal filth, they will grow up to be filthy liberals. We cannot separate ourselves from our culture, nor would it be truly desirable to do so. While avoiding the gutter-battles of the Culture War might sound easy in the short term, in the long term it is nothing less than surrender.
So, what is to be done? Simple: conservatives must go west. We need young conservatives to enter Hollywood and seek to make conservative television shows and films and we need old conservatives to work to fund their efforts. We must engage in a Gramscian effort to recapture the culture from within.
This is not as daunting a task as it sounds. Once the money which can be made in the production of films and television shows that reflect conservative values is demonstrated, others will quickly want to get in on the act. Just as Random House has created Crown Forum, a special imprint to publish right-wing books, the studios would soon create their own companies to make right-wing movies and shows.
As soon as conservative media appears, the viewers will appear as well. Imagine if, oh, let’s say the WB (which, on the whole, is probably superior to the other broadcast networks, especially from a conservative viewpoint) decided to run a West Wing-like show created by a Republican. Imagine that show was good. How many viewers would it take from the West Wing, a show watched by many Republican political junkies? How many people would, with suitable promotion, turn their televisions back on to watch such a show?
It is critical that we launch an incursion into one of the last bastions of liberalism. Adding a right-wing presence in Hollywood would help to close off one of the final channels left for conveying unadulterated Leftism to the people. More than that, as talk radio and the internet have, conservative movies and television could win countless converts to the cause.
The battle is ours to win. As it stands we do not even contest the field. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
‘The Front Lines of Freedom’
The War on Terrorism must not be made a slave to the fickle winds of politics. In this war, the stakes are immense: if the leaders of the Free World fail to prosecute this war, then millions will die. In his Sunday-night address to the nation, President George Walker Bush showed that he understands this and that he is fiercely determined to take whatever actions are necessary to bring about the ultimate destruction of the terrorist forces who threaten our way of life.
Two years have gone since that awful day in September when this war began in earnest. We all recall the horror of that day: the burning buildings, the falling people, and the desperate search for the lost. We recall the aftermath as well: the dust-chocked air, the desperate New Yorkers wandering the streets like refugees, every surface covered with posters of the unfound dead. It was a day of shock and agony unlike virtually any other in American history. To find a comparison one would need to reach back to December 7th, 1941 or to the First Battle of Manassas, which began the Civil War in earnest. Perhaps the worst part of September 11th is the knowledge that it could have been avoided.
Finding the ‘Root Causes’ of War:
On that day (and ever since) people have asked: why did they do this? This is a question which has generated more nonsensical and idiotic responses than I would ever care to read, let alone relate to you. The consensus in fashionable circles would seem to be that 9-11 was the fault of the United States, the result of whatever supposed ‘crime’ of America most enraged the particular speaker (US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq were generally the most popular, but more than a few observers also sought to link the attacks to the Indian Wars of the 19th Century, Sherman’s March, and the overthrow of Salvador Allende’s communistic government in Chile). After two years of thought I (and many others) seem to have finally come to the real answer: the terrorists attacked because they thought that America was weak. It is only in the minds of European socialists (and their acolytes in the rest of the world) that weakness is a virtue. The terrorists interpreted the failure of the Clinton Administration to respond decisively to a decade-long campaign of terror as a giant green light, a ringing message to the world saying, “come and attack us, we no longer have the will to defend ourselves.� And so they came.
Insanely, many on the left have attempted to pin the blame for September 11th on President Bush who, I might remind you, had only been in office for months when the attacks occurred. 9-11 was not the result of a few individual security breaches: it was the result of a systematic and decade-long neglect of foreign policy and national defense by a President who, as Commander-in-Chief, appears to have spent much more time pursuing Monica Lewinsky than Osama Bin Laden. Yes, the terrorist attacks happened on that day because there were security lapses: especially on the part of the FBI and the CIA. But, had Bill Clinton lost in 1992, they never would have happened at all.
That, I think, is the greatest lesson of the 9-11 (and, indeed, of the last four decades): no Democrat should ever be trusted to be President ever again. The last four Democratic Presidents have bungled foreign policy on a colossal scale. John F. Kennedy fumbled Cuba policy so badly that he only managed to avoid starting the Third World War by cravenly appeasing the Soviet Union. Little needs be said about how Lyndon Johnson continued the policies of the Kennedy Administration by managing the Vietnam War in the most inept way possible. Had he been an agent of the KGB, he could not have done a worse job. Jimmy Carter signed away the Panama Canal, allowed Islamists to seize control in Iran, and allowed those same Islamists to hold the staff of the American embassy hostage for more than a year. After his time in the White House, Carter did his fellow Democrats proud by negotiating the worst treaty in American history with the Dictator of North Korea, thereby endangering the lives of tens of millions of people.
Bill Clinton, of course, was the worst of the bunch. As much as Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter failed: at least they tried. Bill Clinton has been called the greatest politician of our generation and, I think, that much is true: the man managed to sit in the White House for eight years without taking a single step to increase the security of the United States. Al-Qaeda would bomb the United States and Clinton would do nothing but issue a few stern-faced statements before wandering off to ogle the members of high school classes touring the White House.
In 1993, al-Qaeda backed terrorists killed eighteen American soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia and Clinton responded by withdrawing the troops. It has been reported that Osama Bin Laden himself has said that this was the moment that convinced him that he could fight America and win.
From there the attacks by terrorists escalated in violence and scale. Terrorists destroyed an American barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996: and Clinton did nothing. Two years later they attacked the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: and Clinton did practically nothing. It has been said that Clinton’s pathetic response to the African bombings, lobbing a few hundred million dollars worth of Cruise Missiles at an empty camp and a Sudanese Aspirin Factory, is what convinced Bin Laden that he could pull off the 9-11 attacks and get away with it. In 2000 al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, nearly sinking it and, again, Clinton did nothing. That is the theme of the opening stages of this war: Clinton did nothing. He did nothing and three thousand American paid for his cowardice with their lives. Liberals today, as lacking in morality as they are, may regard Clinton highly, but history will be a much harsher judge. History will now remember William Jefferson Clinton as two things: the second President to be impeached and the second Neville Chamberlain.
Taking the Battle to the Enemy:
We must be thankful today that George Walker Bush was elected President in the two thousandth year of our Lord, for this war will not be won by the weak and passive men. Victory will come to the vigilant, the active, and the brave. This President understands that the ‘root cause’ of September 11th was the appearance of American weakness. This President understands that the only way to defend America is by taking the battle to the enemy, waging a constant and unceasing struggle all along the frontiers of freedom.
By invading Iraq, the United States had taken the battle to the enemy. Every terrorist and terrorist-supporter who meets his bloody and painful end in the Mesopotamian sands is a terrorist unavailable for duty elsewhere. We will win this war when we, as a people, come to grasp the mathematics of the situation. There is only a limited supply of fanatics in the world. Among a world Moslem population of more than one billion, no more than a few hundred have, in the last decade, found the will to personally take part in terrorist attacks. More than that, the sort of people who would engage in homicide bombings are happily also the type of people eager to join in combat elsewhere. In Iraq we are drawing them out and we are cutting them down. We have no idea of how many have actually been killed, nor will we likely ever have an exact count, but we do know this much: the terrorists who are coming to Iraq are also dying in Iraq. The next generation of suicide bombers who otherwise would soon be on the streets of Dallas are instead rotting in the sands and suffering in Hell.
In order to defeat the terrorists we must draw upon the great William Tecumseh Sherman for inspiration. We must take this fight to the enemy: we must invade their countries, burn their homes, and make them feel the price of their treachery. It should be recalled that the civilian deaths caused by Sherman were not particularly high. Rather, he made the secessionists reckon the price of their treason. The goal of his march, Sherman said, was to fill the South which such a loathing of war that they would never rise again. In our fight with the Islamists, we must be marching after him. It is only after the terrorists, and their supporters and sympathizers are made to pay the price of their beliefs that we can truly begin the long process of reconstruction.
We cannot wait for them to come to us, for it will then already be too late. We have to go to their countries and kill them in their fields, their towns, and along rivers with exotic and foreign names. We must pursue the enemy to the ends of the earth, and then we must drive him off the cliffs. Everywhere the terrorists are, we must find them: and we must kill them. We must baste them with bombs and make them bathe in the blood of their comrades. There can be no quarter, no mercy, for such murderous cowards. They won’t fight openly? Then we shall make them fight in the open by seizing that ground which they must contest: their homes.
These are the stakes: we must create a new world, that is to say one purged of the terrorist element altogether, or we must prepare to die in a nuclear blast. There is no middle ground here, no conceivable compromise. Either we must fight, and we must win, or we must die. There is no alternative.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Bustamante's Past
Here's a nice little picture I found, thanks to some 'kind' Aztlanites:
A Dangerous Man
Cruz Bustamante is a dangerous man. I say this not simply because he is a liberal Democrat, through that is worrying enough, rather I say it because he has well-documented links with a racist group which wants to reverse the results of the Mexican War and tear the Southwest out of the United States. Despite being given ample opportunity to do so, he has yet to renounce these links. He has, in fact, refused to do so. The election of Cruz Bustamante would be yet another step on the road to the creation of a post-American California, a chunk of Mexico entirely subsidized by American dollars. The point of this recall is to throw out Governor Gray Davis. However, I daresay, I would much rather see ol’ Grayout stay on as Governor than have a man in that office whose loyalty to the United States would appear to be questionable at best.
You may think that I am exaggerating. If this is so, it is only because you have yet to learn of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan or MEChA). MEChA attempts to pass itself off as a peaceful student group, ostensibly dedicated to improving educational activities for Latino students. Nothing could be further than the truth: in fact MEChA is a violent and treasonous group whose stated aim is to bring about the destruction of the United States. MEChA’s slogan is, “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" (Or, in English, “For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing�). Its constitution calls for a, “struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.� In other words, MEChA’s goal is to rip the Southwest from the United States, by violence if necessary, and to subsequently create an Apartheid state. Members or the organization has openly admitted that, ultimately, they envision the expulsion of all ‘Anglos’ from the Southwest.
During his time as a student as Fresno State University, Bustamante was a member of this group. He claims to have only been a ‘moderate’, which is something akin to claiming to be a ‘moderate Nazi’ or a ‘middle of the road’ white supremacist. That an unrepentant individual with such a history could be the Lieutenant Governor of California, let alone a serious candidate for the office of Governor, is a disgrace. The liberal media seems to think that Arnold Schwarzenegger should be made to answer for the sins of his father. I only wish that they would make Bustamante answer for his own sins.
Too much attention, I think, has been paid to the racial aspects of this. Yes, it is certain despicable that a candidate for Governor would refused to renounce his association with out-and-out racists (a survey of the websites produced by the advocates of ‘Aztlan’ show them to be filled with anti-Semitic, and anti-‘Anglo’ diatribes). But what is in many ways much more concerning is the fact that Bustamante has never renounced the separatist ideology of MEChA nor, to my knowledge, has he been seriously questioned as to his loyalty to the United States. If Bustamante will not renounce MEChA, which advocates secession, the question must be asked: does he advocate secession as well? Does Bustamante think of himself as Mexican or American?
Without any doubt, the media would accuse anyone who asked such questions of racism and anti-immigrant prejudice. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is questioning the loyalty of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is an actual immigrant. Where his loyalties lie is a well-established fact. He is a patriot. Were he a member (or former member) of a group which advocated Austria’s annexation of California, it would be another matter.
When, more than a decade ago, I first read of those who envision a ‘reconquista’ of the Southwest I laughed. That is no longer the case. The matter of the Aztlanites is deadly serious, and it is one which we will have to deal with at length in the years ahead. The two most prominent Hispanic politicians in the State of California, Bustamante and former Assembly Speaker (and near-Los Angeles Mayor) Antonio Villaraigosa were both, at one point, active supporters of the Aztlan concept. Villaraigosa was the President of MEChA’s UCLA Chapter. All across the State millions of young Latino children are having the anti-American ideology of racial separatism drummed into their heads at taxpayer expense. The millions of illegal immigrants who cross the border from Mexico into the United States every year are people who, for the most part, seem have no interest in shedding their Mexican identity and becoming Americanized. Even in the United States, these people continue to believe themselves Mexican, vote in Mexican elections, and raise their children as Mexicans. These illegals, those come without a love of America in their hearts, constitute nothing less than a vast civilian army, seeking to win back by the means of subversion what Mexico lost through war.
That is what makes Cruz Bustamante so dangerous. Already, the stupidity, laziness, and tendency towards pandering of so many California politicians has created a situation whereby illegal immigration is allowed to continue without obstruction and where no effort is made to, having resolved to let the illegals stay, integrate that great mass of people into the American public. A Governor Bustamante would almost certainly work to actively aid the continued infiltration and, indeed, to legitimize that infiltration. Already a bill has been passed allowing illegals in California to acquire California Driver’s Licenses. How long will it be before efforts are made to give them the right to vote (not that many don’t already vote illegally anyways)?
Secession is treason and those who advocate it are our traitors. It is high time to take a long look at just what kind of man it is how now aspires to be the Governor of California.
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
The Long Victorious War
There’s a dirty little secret about the war in Iraq that the mainstream media doesn’t want to tell you: the US is winning the war there and, what’s more, it’s turned the Battle of Iraq into the central point of the War on Terrorism. Far from a ‘quagmire’, the invasion of Iraq was, within the context of the wider war, a master stroke. Two years ago the enemies stuck us on their terms in our homeland- today the inverse is true. The battle we are fighting in Iraq will ensure that we will not see more battles in our own country. Every terrorist who gets a bullet in the brain in Iraq is a terrorist unavailable to wear his Sunday-best explosive jacket onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Rather than being, as Democrats claim, a ‘distraction’ from the War on Terrorism, the Battle of Iraq has turned into the critical front of the war.
One of the fundamental truths of the present war is this: the United States is too large and requires too much cross-border travel to ever make the country immune to terrorist infiltration. The terrorist will always get through. We may stop some here and there. We might stop 90% of them. But one will always get through and, in this day, one terrorist can kill thousands, or even millions.
What this means is simple: we cannot wait for the terrorists to come to us. Instead, we must invade their countries and kill them where they live or we must draw them into battle somewhere far away from the United States itself. The more of them we kill, the fewer of them there will be- and the fewer people who will sign on to their cause. There are not very many people in this world that will join an organization where membership means nearly-certain death. There are even fewer people who will join when it means a death that is both certain and pointless.
It is very clear that Iraq has become ground zero in a new international Islamic Jihad. “Holy Warriors�, including a large contingent of al-Qaeda members, are streaming into Iraq with the goal of killing Americans and transforming themselves from the slaves of Allah into the martyrs of Allah. In the coming weeks and months we will hear much said on this. Pundits will draw comparisons to both the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the American war in Vietnam. As is so often the case, their predictions will prove to be without basis in fact.
Yes, superficially, the movement of Moslem Jihadists into Iraq does resemble the flow into Afghanistan. However, the primary combatants in Afghanistan were the Afghans themselves (or their co-ethnics in neighbouring nations, notably Pakistan). The international Islamic fighters tended to either not fight at all (one account describes who rich Saudis would fire their rifles into the air a few times in order to claim to have joined in the Jihad) and, when they did fight, they fought spectacularly poorly. The war against the Soviets was won by a combination of American dollars and an Afghan willingness to die in very great numbers. Neither are present in Iraq. Such sponsors as the terrorist do have there could very easily be subjected to military reprisals for their actions. The great bulk of the Iraqi people have shown no inclination to fight Coalition forces within the country. The only people fighting the Coalition are Ba’athist remnant forces and foreign Islamists. The night that Uday and Qusay were killed, the Baghdad skies were filled with gunfire. Not that of battle, mind you, but rather that of celebration: the Iraqi people are not going to rise.
Nor is this war like Vietnam. There is no foreign superpower prepared to supply the enemy with an unlimited supply of arms. Nor does that enemy have any sanctuary which has been rendered immune to attack by a lack of political will. For that matter, the tempo of action is nothing like that in Vietnam. This war would, at the present rate, have to go on for one hundred and fifty years before losses reached levels such as those seen in Vietnam.
In invading Iraq we have adopted a strategy which dates back to the beginning of time. The enemy will not fight us, so we will seize something which will force them to emerge. The terrorists cannot let the United States control Iraq, cannot let Iraq develop into a stable and pro-Western state. Such a situation would undermine their raison d'etre- why go kill Americans if American methods can make the Islamic world peaceful and rich?
Therefore the enemy must come and fight the United States in Iraq. To fail to do so would destroy it- but to do so could destroy it as well. In Iraq the foreign al-Qaeda fighters will be a great disadvantage- they do not know the ground well, nor will they find a very warm reception from most of the Iraqi people. But they still will come: they are already coming in great numbers- and dying in great numbers. In Iraq we have found a place that is as hot as Hell from which it is easy to dispatch the enemies of mankind to Hell.
The Pentagon is not releasing a daily estimate of enemy killed and wounded (a ‘bodycount’) because the fear (quite rightly, I suppose) that it will evoke memories of the Vietnam War. But I think that we need to see those numbers. From most reports I’ve read, I would surmise that the dead amongst the so-called ‘Iraqi resistance’ (the Pentagon should just start referring to all armed groups fighting US forces in Iraq as being the ‘terrorist forces’ as this would be rapidly picked up and used in some segments of the media). This is important, I think, because it will provide some context to US losses in Iraq. This way US losses would be balanced against the losses amongst terrorist forces. Hearing that two US soldiers will killed makes it sound like America is losing. Hearing that fifty-eight terrorists were killed along with those soldiers makes it sound like America is winning.
During the darker days of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln once said that the Union would win the war when he found a General who understood the arithmetic. The same is true here. There is not an infinite supply of terrorists in the world. The number of people who are willing to live in caves and eat gravel just in order to attack Americans is surprisingly limited. The number willing strap bombs to themselves and to fly planes into buildings is still less than that. Recall that, in a Palestinian population of millions where so-called ‘martyrs’ win massive rewards for their families and get streets named after them, the combined power of a half-dozen of the world’s most powerful terrorist organizations has yielded only a few dozen suicide bombers. The kind of people who strap a semtex vest to themselves before they get on a bus are the kind of people who we’re are killing in Iraq right now. These people are irreplaceable to the enemy. Their deaths will not cause other to replace them but, rather, will drain the pool of the most fanatical terrorists.
Yes, there is a war in Iraq, and yes- the enemy is crossing into that country in great numbers. Good, I say: I wish there were more. The terrorists will come to Iraq, but they will not leave it. It is, really, a matter of math. The more terrorists we kill, the fewer there will be. The gestation period for new terrorists is measured in decades. By forcing them to fight on their home turf, we can wipe out the scum long before they ever get close enough to kill Western citizens.
Independence Day 2
I read that Independence Day 2 had been contemplated, but abandoned. I wrote up a little summary of what I'd like to see in it.
Independence Day 2:
By Adam Teiichi Yoshida
We begin nearly ten years after the first Independence Day, in June of 2005. The world has spent a decade rebuilding. When all was said and done, nearly one hundred million Americans died in the Great Invasion. The toll elsewhere was higher still (roughly five hundred million died in the invasion- and a billion more died in the aftermath. But time has gone on, and the nation has rebuilt.
The new President is named Elijah B. Kagan, he’s the former Governor of Georgia and, prior to that, he was a United States Senator. During the invasion he barely escaped the Alien attack, having left Washington for Georgia (for the holiday) just a few hours before Washington, DC bought it. The world has rebuilt. There has even been something of a baby boom in the United States, with the American population having just surpassed three hundred million (the American population has also been swelled with refugees- especially from Europe, Australia and Canada- many of whom arrived in the country in the first years after the war, as their native lands had much greater trouble rebuilding). Canada, with the loss of most of its major cities, has been absorbed into the United States.
Human nations have taken the alien technology, absorbed it, and adapted it to human uses. This has greatly assisted in rebuilding. It has also allowed the United States to build a large interstellar fleet. During the recent campaign President Kagan promised that he would find and destroy the aliens- and he meant it.
Lieutenant General Stephen Hiller, one of the greatest heroes of the Invasion (ranking, narrowly, behind former President James Whitmore), is now the commander of the newly-formed Eighth Air Force, a group of two hundred radically-advanced space fighters- upgraded versions of the Alien design. His boys are primarily responsible for the defense of the Earth. Also under the Command of the Eighth Air Force (which is based on the Moon), is the Advanced Long-Range Reconnaissance Drone program- a series of probes equipped with faster-than-light technology which are searching for the aliens. One of them returns: it has found them.
The news is too big to cover up. The President goes before a Joint Session of Congress and declares that he will dispatch the Fleet to destroy these monsters before they can ever menace the Earth again. When he says this, the world explodes.
In much of the world it is a moment of joy: humanity is finally going to pay the aliens back. The governments of nearly fifty nations volunteer to join in the mission. Elsewhere, the world explodes in protest. One of the protestors is David Levinson, an owner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role in the defeat of the first invasion. There is, the opponents claim, no indication that the aliens will attack again- an attack upon them could provoke further reprisals. Besides, we know so little of their culture: don’t these aliens love their children too? What is being proposed is xenocide.
Other nations, along with domestic opponents, delay and delay the attack. While they’re waiting, another alien force arrives to assault the Earth. The force, of roughly the same size as the original one, is beaten back by the US Navy and Air Force- with a terrible cost. During the attack the Aliens manage to use new weapons to bomb and destroy Denver (which was originally spared) and Paris (which has been rebuilt since the war). Virtually all of humanity now agrees: the destruction of the Aliens is necessary.
The United Nations sanctions the operation. As a result, other insist upon placing an ‘international’ commander in charge of the operation. Moreover, the plans will no longer call for the destruction of the alien homeworld, but merely its ‘containment.’ David Levinson, who made a career out of studying the aliens after the invasion, is asked to come along on the invasion. He refuses. So General Hiller (he was promoted after the Battle of Luna) simply has the President draft him.
A career Naval officer, Admiral Tennyson Keyes, is the commander of the US side of the operation. During the invasion he was commander of a Ballistic Missile Submarine and successfully brought down an alien ship through an unauthorized nuclear release. (He will first be introduced as the Commander of the US 3rd Fleet early in the film). Implacably aggressive, his liberation from the seas has freed him to more closely emulate his hero: Commodore Stephen Decatur.
The overall commander of the invasion, Field Marshall Rene Jospin, is an incompetent officer who has retained his position through political skills alone. When Admiral Keyes proposes that the Allied Fleets assault the home system of the aliens from multiple points, he shoots down this idea as too time-consuming and as being contrary to standard doctrine for space operations. Moreover, it would require an earlier departure- whereas he wishes time to wait for foreign construction to catch up to that of the Americans, to ‘allow a more equal sharing of the burdens’ he says.
President Kagan (and others) oppose this, but are forced to consent because of domestic pressure. The departure is delayed for several months.
Finally the fleet is ordered to leave. However, a large percentage of the American fleet (nearly half) is to be left behind for Earth defense- depriving the fleet of much of its offensive firepower.
The journey to the alien homeworld involves three major warp transits. The first proceeds normally. At the second, the fleet is subjected to a serious attack. Admiral Keyes again calls for a different plan for the final battle, but Field Marshall Jospin refuses.
Finally, the fleet arrives in the alien home system. It’s a trap- they are outnumbered and in poor position to fight. The allied forces fight gallantly, but are heavily damaged. Against the advice of Keyes, Field Marshall Jospin orders a general retreat, but is cut off. Defying orders, Keyes has his ships (and the British ones as well) jump further into the system, with the intention of suicidally attacking the Alien homeworld.
Levinson, who had made a detailed survey of the alien homeworld, reveals that the plant is extremely volatile. A series of coordinated attacks with a dozen super-powerful antimatter weapons (so powerful that they would shake entire continents), will cause a chain reaction which will tear the planet apart. The problem is that they strikes would need to be very closely coordinated, and the aliens are able to jam long-range communications. This means that someone leading the strike will have to direct it. General Hiller (who has been flying combat missions due to the terrible losses taken by his pilots) volunteers to fly the mission- along with Levinson.
The alien fleet, having disposed of the Allies, now turn upon the survivors, led by Keyes. Under withering fire, the strike against the alien homeworld is launched- with all one hundred survivors of Hiller’s Force being assigned to deliver the dozen bombs.
As the aliens close, the strikes are launched. Gradually, one after another, the bombs hit their targets. But Hiller’s pilots are dying rapidly. By the time they get to the twelfth bomb, there are only ten left.
One by one- the surviving fighters are lost. Finally, Hiller is forced to take his own plane in (from he and Levinson have been directing the strike). Despite horrific opposition- they succeed, and the alien homeworld begins to come apart at the seams.
As they escape, the threat from the alien fleet only grows worse. Their ships now fight suicidally. Hundreds of them close upon the battered survivors of the American fleet, hammering away at them. Space is filled with wreckage and weapons fire. Hiller and Levinson narrowly dodge alien fire.
Keyes orders the fleet to attempt to flee the aliens and flee along a long-shot escape route. They make a gallant go of it- but it’s no use: the aliens keep coming. Finally, as the fleet is about to be destroyed and Hiller and Levinson are about to be all killed, the fighter chasing Hiller and Levinson is destroyed. The voice of former President Whitmore comes across the radio. US reinforcements have arrived.
The US Battleships, nearly twenty of which arrive at once, tear into the alien fleet, relieving Keyes battered ships. The new US ships are all equipped with an experimental propulsion system (the same used on the drone which found the Alien homeworld in the first place), and took just a few days to reach the alien homeworld. Virtually the entire US home fleet has been stripped away- a gamble which has now paid off.
Victorious, the heroes of the battle return home to fireworks and parades.
|