The protest this weekend convinced me that my priorities need adjusting. As I watched the most anti-American elements of society rub shoulders this weekend, given legitimacy and free press through their attachment to a growing anti-war sentiment in this country to a fully complicit American Left that is seeking to capitalize on a growing anti-war sentiment, I came to realize that these people are not in this fight for the war. They are in it for political victory. . .Sigmund, Carl & Alfred:
[O]ur most dangerous enemy will not seek to defeat us with military force, it will seek to defeat us by demoralizing us. And its base of operations isn't in the mountains of Afghanistan, it's right here in our own country.
And if their success is not to repeat itself, we must not allow them to succeed again. They must be defeated at all costs.
There was a time that only the left side of the political spectrum provided the moral voice of America. That is no longer the case. Throughout the globe, the right, in the shape of the religious community, are addressing the injustices the left no longer engages.Dr. Sanity:
In what has to be one of the most stunning ideological reversals in this country's history, the standard bearer for human rights is now the political right. The left ceded that role with barely a whimper. . .
The left faced a choice. Reclaim their long held place as the face of American aid, or step aside. They chose to step aside because helping the oppressed would enrage their new backers- in many cases, the very purveyors of oppression. There was an unholy agreement. The left would ignore the oppression and their backers would give them a place in front of the cameras. Tyrannical regimes had nothing to fear. The left, America's conscience, would leave them alone. . .
The left have become a part of the Arab world , complete with conspiracy theories and visceral hatred, and the justification of the most heinous of violence. They demand rights without addressing obligations and have little tolerance for those with different ideas. It is acceptable to call for the death of an opponent, and no one objects. There is no debate- only name calling and calls for the destruction of those they cannot agree with or those who get in their way.
These people are not "antiwar". They do not stage protests about the killing of innocent people from Al Qaeda jihad. They do not demonstrate against the 100 million or more people murdered by communism in the last century. They do not express their rage at the mass graves of Saddam.MaxedOutMama:
They are anti-American. They are only protesting because America chooses to defend itself against Islamofascist thugs who want to create a new Islamic caliphate by waging....war.
Let's face the truth. If there are "innocent" and "fine, sincere people" who are participating in these demonstrations, then they have to be the most clueless, vapid, and seriously intellectually challenged individuals in history. They joyfully support the ideologies that stand behind these demonstrations; and that makes them complicit to the most savage and vile behavior that has ever been perpetrated on the human species. It is their "peacefulness" that has led to the slaughter of millions of their fellow human beings. It is their cluelessness that has enabled and supported dictators and oppression throughout history.
[T]he left in Europe and America has become almost reflexively anti-Semitic. I find it very hard to distinguish between the extreme left and the extreme right these days. They both admire dictators, they both seem terrified by the idea of individual freedom, most especially freedom of conscience, and they both seem fueled by contempt and hate. Only the names differ.Agreed. After Vietnam, two roads diverged -- JFK's internationalist liberation idealism or the tyranny of helpless, over-intellectualized multiculturalism -- and leftists took the one towards yellow woods.
And that has made all the difference.
9 comments:
While I can find points in agreement with all the writers quoted here...still ... I think "They must be defeated at all costs." is a most dangerous and unwarranted opinion.
I would say that we must win their hearts back, for the sake of America. I don't believe it is impossible, because if it were... we have already lost.
There is a time to cut loose and to burn bridges. I do not believe we are yet at that time, but attitudes of enmity will push us there soon enough.
I beseech rational minds such as your own: yet more patience, man. Just for sometime more.
Ilona - the "defeat" is a matter of maintaining our freedom to speak and using it, rather than fighting in the streets.
The victory the Galloway's seek is a cultural defeat, not a military one.
M_O_M's right. We didn't want this fight, and we'll avoid it as long as possible. If they were content to theorize and decry, we might delay. But since they're not -- and imperiling freedom from Berkeley to Berlin -- we've no choice.
This fight is happening and more is inevitable and necessary. We must win this fight in "the arena of ideas." I know many of us believe the intellectual battle over liberalism and conservatism has been won hands down, but we can't win the war when people refuse to listen. Funny, the left proclaim to be the open-minded role models.
Every time I watch news of some leftist taking action it is more and more radical. Alarms go off in my head, and I think to myself, is the world going crazy? No, just them. The leadership of the left, ie. the media & DNC, is largely responsible for this acceptable radicalism in their zealous persuit for power. I mean, you just don't see radical right activists like you do the left. Left wing radicalism is becoming more acceptable.
Stan - the same thing is happening on the right. You may not see it because you are on the right side of the spectrum already, but trust me. This is not limited to the left by any means.
Pedro - if you travel around the world, you see that right-wing radicalism of the totalitarian/fascist type are also the children of the wealthy. There is no difference in that, so the point is moot.
I'm sorry Dingo, but for the past several years, I have seen what seems like a 10 to 1 ratio of left wing radical activism from the American media. I know by and large the American media shows these radicals, but not the radical part, just the dissention in Bush policy.
Stan, I am confused by what you mean that they are not showing "the radical part." Please elaborate.
Anyhoo, I still stick to my original assertion. Mush of what you see in disparity is preceived. I am not saying that that all journalists are without bias, but that also goes for both ends of the spectrum. NYT tends to be biased left and WSJ tends to be biased a little to the right.
but, try an experiment that I posted on that kind of shows the point I am getting at with perception.
What I mean, is that surely there are large numbers of radicals on both sides of the spectrum including bias in the media, but that is irrelevant.
There are increasingly publicity handouts given to the left wing radicals. And what irks me is that the press doesn't cover these radicals as radical, simply as Bush protestors. I would like the mainstream media tell the whole truth as to who is protesting --anti-American wackos.
Stan, I will agree with you to a point on that. Yes, there is a certain amount of publicity handouts to the anti-war movement. I think Sheehan is a nut case and whish the press would not spend as much time on her as they do. But at the same time, there is no real alternative to cover. There are no pro-war rallies to cover, only anti-war. So, you are kind of in a quandary there if you are the press. You can't give a balance if there is nothing to balance it with. But at the same time, you can't just ignore the anti-war protestors just because there is no pro-war rally. Sure, many Americans still support the war, but other than going door to door to ask average Joe his opinion, there are no "events" to cover.
Post a Comment