Article

2005-06-07 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-06-07 16:35|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'd love to see George make a PR tour of Iraq...the possibility he could be torn to shreds at many points should lend an edge to the trip

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-07 17:43|| 2005-06-07 17:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Hmm and I thought the real criminal was in a Baghdad jail in underpants but what do I know...

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-07 18:00|| 2005-06-07 18:00|| Front Page Top

#3 The Galloway screed certainly ties in with Sea's post today (The Journalism of Warfare) - which rocked, BTW. The thing that fired me up to write this is the self-aggrandizing claim "I am speaking for tens of millions, and maybe more, around the world..."

I'm sorry, and please forgive my pedantic nature - I'm talking to myself to clarify things as much as to you folks - but reading something like this give me serious pause, given the source. It's one thing to hear some tribal PakiWaki, who actually knows nothing beyond his tiny world of incestuous insanity, spout this sort of nonsense. It's quite another for someone who obviously knows better, such as Galloway - I simply do not accept that he doesn't.

One, Qazi for instance, is indoctrination, pure and simple, lifelong, total, complete. That it is irrational is apparent only to those outside of the societal bubble in which it lives - due to the totalitarian doctrine of its dominant ideology: Islam. It can't be fixed in any way I can see. Total indoctrination is an unforgiving approach. One aspect is that this creature hasn't the spare capacity left to step outside itself - so any possibility of perspective is lost - and that is all that saves mankind from ruin, from my reading of history. Left to itself, it can obviously last almost indefinitely - as it has demonstrated - because the rate of killing and mayhem is puny and outstripped by the rate of reproduction. But it hasn't been left to itself - it has acquired external technology which doesn't just suggest, it guarantees, its eventual demise. AK-47's, hand grenades, etc. won't push it over the top, however, but the nukes certainly can. That they have nukes means they will use them. Mad, in this bubble, just means insane, not M.A.D. On whom will they use them, themselves or others, only matters to those others - who would surely retaliate in kind. The tech is definitely a world-ender. What remains for them is whether or not they take others down with them.

The other, Galloway and his ilk, is something else entirely. This creature demonstrates a combination of determined and willful insanity, creation of a pandering occupation - with star status it seems, and very selective irrationality / reality denial - added together these form a cocktail of demented political schizophrenia and unbelievable delusion. I'm convinced it knows its insane. I'm also convinced it is allowed to exist in this insane state because the uber-liberal society which spawned it has lost sight of why it (the society) exists.

The a priori requirements for individual survival are now a given - at least for the vast majority - which allows this critter to become insane, safely, suffering no repercussions, no penalties, no strictures. So safe is this societal bubble, there is a segment which has metasticized into a cancerous tumor which seeks the destruction of that very same society. The number of ironies that attach are vast.

The question of how this society survives begs the question of whether it should survive. The natural evolutionary model says, obviously, "No" - this branch of the tree will not and should not survive. Dead end. A societal box canyon worthy of its pending extinction. This self-destructive model is the modern equivalent of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, on the face of it. And no, I'm not inviting a shitload of wank-o-matic Roman Empire debate, lol! The here and now is more than sufficient, thanks, and possibly more than we can handle.

How many Western societal bubbles out there are infected, fatally, with this disease? Well, from Sea's article and simple observation, it's clear that most or all have some degree. It's equally clear that all of those, barring successful "treatment" (read: able to self-repair by destroying such tumors) are, and should be, doomed. Darwin & Co do not favor the irrational, the reality-deniers - eventually, even given the huge layer of social padding and the web of safety nets, they will run afoul of the odds and disintegrate. Some think this is just social entropy -- perhaps, but it is deadly to man's puny constructs and matters to those who live within it.

The tipping point, for the Western uber-liberal society model that spawns Moonbats such as Galloway, is here. That was clearly demonstrated by how close the last two US Presidential elections were -- not to mention the current socialism fatally embraced by the Europeans and others. I'm sure there are plenty of other signs that can be included here, too.

All this crap generates two questions which occupy much of my time these days:

1) Are we are sufficiently independent, as a society, to survive the fall of others (e.g. the Europeans) without being dragged down as well? I am not involving the economics, security, etc, in this question... Keeping it simple: are we Americans capable of maintaining our own vision of freedom to survive the fall of our siblings?

2) Are we capable of self-repair / self-correction? Unsimplified, do we have the stones to actually fight and destroy the internal self-destructive insanity demanded for our survival? This is no idle melodramatic question, nor is the solution easy or pretty - but the equation is, indeed, simple. The powers that seek our downfall are deadly serious - and we must be equally serious or fall. Civil war is as likely as not, IMHO.

A "No" answer to either means that Galloway, et al, have reached sufficient mass right under our noses while we were fat, happy, and dumb - and will take us down with them. Should that time come, I will take many of them with me. I'd like to start with Galloway, but will settle for Linda Ronstadt or Michael Moore if they're in town.

BTW, the rant tags were intentionally left out.

Posted by .com 2005-06-07 19:28|| 2005-06-07 19:28|| Front Page Top

#4 I sure wish you'd quit with the mealy-mouthing and say WTF you really think. Damn

:-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-07 19:53|| 2005-06-07 19:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Galloway is not a moonbat
He's an antisemitic traitor paid by one of the bloodiest dictators of the last 50 years.
Elected by a district predominantly Muslim.
What ever happened to hanging, drawing and quartering?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-07 20:23|| 2005-06-07 20:23|| Front Page Top

#6 TGA, I obviously agree with your sentiment, but I maintain that he is of a type - and they are well and truly insane. And I do not mean he needs some sort of psych treatment - I pointed out it's conscious, voluntary, and, therefore, culpable.

He needs to feel the sharp pointy end of truth and justice... as do those of his type and ilk. All of them. Every last swinging dick.

But I have no strong opinions on the subject, of course.
;-)

Posted by .com 2005-06-07 20:31|| 2005-06-07 20:31|| Front Page Top

#7 I know what you mean. Insane certainly doesn't mean "not responsible for your acts", at least not in his case

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-07 20:37|| 2005-06-07 20:37|| Front Page Top

#8 TGA - I think I hear a "law enforcement" view in your comment. That Galloway is a traitor, etc., from that POV. I want to work on that for a second, if you're still around...

This is something I've been struggling with since 9/11 and have finally concluded that these insane people have culpability for their state of mind. Finding a suitable charge, such as violating hate laws or sedition, etc. struck me as a losing proposition. If they successfully keep this ideological war framed as a law enforcement issue, then we've lost. The socialists, for example, know it and are the loudest voices for "tolerance" when it suits them - then they are anything but tolerant in their own actions - such as demonizing any public figure who doesn't toe their line.

Even their vote for one of their own - an equally or ideally insane candidate for a position of power - represents an offense to the sane people of the world. I imagined what the situation would have been had Gore won in 2000. I let that stew for awhile and decided that they are dangerous enough that the ruleset we currently play by (i.e. law enforcement) is rigged in their favor. Sure it's due to duplicity, disinformation, MSM collaboration, etc., but that doesn't change the equation or the outcome.

They fight for an ideology - so I've decided they're right in that one respect - and I should fight for mine.

Do you really have a law enforcement view of the situation?

I wonder about how you deal with the insane people of German politics with whom you obviously must interact. Don't the Greens (for example - assuming they have a similar agenda to America's Greens - a Naderist form of socialism) get you riled up?

Do you have a long view you'd like to share?

Posted by .com 2005-06-07 21:17|| 2005-06-07 21:17|| Front Page Top

#9 .com, in Galloway's case I have a very short view:
Galloway has, not just as a British citizen, but as a Member of Parliament worked against his country on behalf of a foreign dictator and was (allegedly) paid for his services, If payments can be proven, this is clearly treason. I know the word "treason" is out of fashion these days but that's what it is in my opinion. Galloway even continued his agitation after the war had started, undermining (unsuccessfully I hope) the morale of the British troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And that's NOT covered by free speech. Even if payments can't be proven, it is treason, just as the acts of Hanoi Jane (who in my view should have served time for what she did (her case is absolutely clear cut).

Galloway's argument that he was entitled to do so because the war was "illegal" can't stand.

The war was not illegal at all. The war (and unfortunately that was not stated clearly enough by the US administration at that time) started with UN resolution 678 in 1991, that authorized "all necessary means" to liberate Kuwait. This is how this war started, fully legal even by the most critical UN standards.

The war never ended, the only thing that happened was a ceasefire, which had its conditions laid out in UN resolution 686 (destruction of WMD etc). These conditions were never met by Saddam and violated again and again. We didn't have to "prove" anything, Saddam had to prove that he destroyed his WMDs. He never did. It's irrelevant whether he actually destroyed them or buried them in Syria, he misled us by claiming feebly that he did not have weapons without proving his case and jeopardizing the efforts of inspectors to make sure.

This is why the US had every right to resume the war. The UN had confirmed that those violations took place, in the famous 1441. That they didn't settle on the "all necessary means" this time is irrelevant, because 678 was still valid (and the UN had affirmed that it was in fact valid).

Clinton could bomb Baghdad in 1998 (clearly an act of war) when Saddam threw out the inspectors without even asking the UN, he was covered by 678. Bush could have gone to war (or better resume the war) without even asking the UN again.

That's my view and while not being a lawyer I do have quite a knowledge of international law.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-07 21:58|| 2005-06-07 21:58|| Front Page Top

#10 No arguments with any of what you said. Indeed, it was merely a ceasefire - and then a long series of UNSC resolutions were also ignored. The fact that the inspectors who would not have gotten back in, had it not been for the buildup of forces in the gulf, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, is one of those inconvenient facts that only the bloggers seem to recall.

I think the slide into a new bona-fide ideological war has begun - less focused than the struggle against the Soviets, but no less critical. I guess it's not a slide, but a continuation. Just as ousting the Taliban didn't end the war with the Islamists, the crumbling of the Soviet Union didn't end the fight against the "isms" they represented.

And we haven't even touched upon the WoT, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-06-07 22:13|| 2005-06-07 22:13|| Front Page Top

#11 Yes, and it involves winning the hearts and minds...

Of our own people

Posted by True German Ally 2005-06-07 22:16|| 2005-06-07 22:16|| Front Page Top

#12 Okay - I get it: you won't go there.

Having seen the utter failure of the "winning hearts and minds" approach, at least as promulgated and applied in Vietnam - and that I believe these folks are willfully insane, thus immune to such civility, I guess I disagree. That was why I wrote all that shit - and what made the process painful and the conclusion an unhappy one. Hell, I went through the same sort of process regards Islam - and hate where that ends, as well.

Okay - tell you what - I'll see you on the other side, when the nice law enforcement approach to both of them has crashed and burned, lol!

Til then, cheers and best regards. :-)

Posted by .com 2005-06-07 22:26|| 2005-06-07 22:26|| Front Page Top

#13 Galloway is a convert to Islam and married to Arafat's niece!

NUFF SAID!

Posted by 3dc 2005-06-07 23:38|| 2005-06-07 23:38|| Front Page Top

#14 The one term you use in your argument with which I disagree is "insane." Galloway is not insane. He is quite sane, but has deliberately and consciously chosen evil. As far as I can tell, he believes that his comfortable English world is so safe that it doesn't matter that he helps those working to destroy it. Much like those French aristos who sided with the Revolutionaries, and were shocked to find themselves lined up under Madame la Guillotine, their world destroyed and their heads about to follow. In the case of Galloway, et al, they haven't even the excuse of ignorance -- just look at the behaviour of the Palestinians in the Territories and outlying camps (Ein el Hellhole, anyone?), the Taliban, or life in Pakistan these days. Just as very few who supported the Nazi extermination program were insane or those who aid the attempted genocide of non-Arabs in Sudan today, but all chose evil, whether for reasons of ideology, cowardice or personal ambition -- it doesn't matter.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-06-07 23:59|| 2005-06-07 23:59|| Front Page Top

00:01 ed
23:59 trailing wife
23:57 Seafarious
23:52 True German Ally
23:46 Stephen
23:44 Pappy
23:44 Phil Fraering
23:42 ed
23:42 trailing wife
23:38 3dc
23:37 phil_b
23:33 Seafarious
23:27 Charles
23:18 True German Ally
23:10 True German Ally
23:05 badanov
22:59 Captain America
22:57 OldSpook
22:56 Laurence of the Rats
22:53 OldSpook
22:53 Captain America
22:50 Alaska Paul
22:48 OldSpook
22:48 Jame_Retief