The New Terrapin Gazette
12 March, 2012
…we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment — a state of “belief” in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. …the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors. This is the essence of Leftist thought. It is a devolution from reason to “belief,” in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness.
The Current Phase Of The Millennia-Long Conflict
Western Civilization has not just a right but an obligation to defend itself, and especially so against the attacks of what this newsletter has called “the worst people on the face of the earth”. That implies that in most cases, defense will mean holding or re-taking geographical areas, thereby denying Islamofascists room in which to recruit and train.
When Afghanistan’s Taliban refused to give up the people who committed 9/11, the USA invaded Afghanistan, a sovereign nation. If it can justify doing that without declaring war, surely it can proceed similarly against Iran, or Syria, or Lebanon. US forces are currently bringing war to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and possibly other nations. Overall, “progressives” who hated what G. W. Bush did should be no less upset with Obama, for legal and ethical issues surrounding current US policy have been effectively swept aside. Obama said he would close Guantanamo, and then…but it’s not polite to remind folks of that.
The situation is surreal. Without issuing any comprehensive statements establishing the moral issues and imperatives involved, Obama has continued military adventures that raise questions about the sovereign status of a number of nations. Whatever justification there may be for US policy, Obama has not articulated it. His silence mocks the example of Churchill; in fact, in Obama, the West has not a leader, but a nearly mute bureaucrat who ignores the clash of civilizations and does not grasp the implications of what is obviously a centuries-old religious conflict.
US policy is not just ad hoc and tentative; it offers no assurance that it is based on principle. So far, it has met with limited opposition, as when Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Note that all thought of capturing the arch villain was set aside from the first, and it is speculated that this decision was based on the realization that issues of human rights had to be avoided. Then there is the contention of Holder’s egregiously flawed Department of Justice that US citizens can be summarily (extra-judiciously) executed if they have allied themselves with Islamofascist groups. The statement is ethically off target and legally amateurish.
And again, Afghanistan. The conflict there is dragging on for several reasons, beginning with the incompetence of the highest levels of the US military. Then there are the tribalism, corruption and religious fanaticism of the Afghans and the opposition of many powerful Pakistanis. The USA is likely to pull out. Having provided no credible statements of principle or assertions of justifiable outrage, the de facto leader of Western Civilization is preparing to back down to superstitious primitives. As the USA stumbles along the path ahead, it will discover that it is very dangerous not to press the fight against the Taliban (which has confirmed yet again its total support of Al Qaeda).
As this newsletter has said repeatedly, this struggle has no end. It will go on as long as fanatics are willing to obey the commands of their imaginary creator deity, whose marching orders are found in the Koran. Only the transformation of Islam will bring an end to the conflict, and that will take centuries. History’s lesson is clear: Islam fights when it senses weakness in the West, and withdraws when it cannot sustain the struggle.
The probing that began in the twentieth century (or perhaps earlier, depending on how you read history) will probably last for another five to ten generations, perhaps longer. During this time of troubles, the West must react violently. Peace will be impossible.
That is the way it is. All the sloganeering and posturing and wishing and praying in the world will not alter the way things are and the way they will be.
So: leave Afghanistan? Yes, and no.
The absurdity of that answer must be dealt with, and the only way to do that is to understand harsh reality. The USA, if it must leave Afghanistan, must not leave Afghanistan alone.
Ponder that, Pilgrims. Begin your contemplation of the existence of a literally insane death cult by realizing that these extraordinary times call for imaginative responses. As the USA pulls out of Afghanistan, it must not abandon the military effort there. Fortunately, it does not have to.
Consider how the defense of Western Civilization can be continued, and begin that consideration with a careful read of this document. It suggests some aspects of the solutions of the problems that will remain when the USA is “out” of Afghanistan.
Finally, recognize that the USA is carrying on the defense of the West blindly and mutely. That cannot suffice. The inarticulate mumblings of the Obama administration betray an absence of principled resolve. In war, and especially in a massive clash with an enemy as fanatical, remorseless, suicidal and utterly evil as Islamofascism, a people requires inspiring leadership. The defense of the most ethically and politically advanced civilization in history cannot be successfully prosecuted without the understanding and courageous determination of its citizens.
Whatever Obama is — neo-Marxist, Utopian socialist, egomaniac, political opportunist or simply a symbol of the end of racial bigotry — he is clearly unable to articulate the virtues of his nation. That is almost certainly because he does not believe in them.
Remember: Obama took office promising to change things, not to see to their survival; his goal is not inspire his nation to prevail against its implacable enemies, but to tell everyone to hope for better days.
As an ideologue who dreams of Utopia, Obama is unsuited to the task of inspiring the public’s courage and resolve in wartime. Churchill told his people grimly that he could offer them nothing but “blood, toil, tears and sweat”, and they understood. Obama, by painful contrast, offers his obedient followers…benefits.
A constitution that guarantees not just the unnecessary “negative right” of Liberty, but material privileges. “Fairness”, defined as “I spread your money around”. Confiscatory taxation for the rich. An economy that frees everyone from the compensatory obsessions of religious faith and the shooting sports. A “green” environment in which mere transportation is a luxury.
And the national defense? So far, the president has been the fortunate beneficiary of the outrage of the citizens, who continue to send volunteers to the slaughter. Look closely, however, and you will see that Obama considers the religious war being waged against the USA an irritating distraction that will eventually just go away. Presumably the diplomats will talk it to death, or the Muslims will get tired, or Uncle Sam can apologize. One must ask: does Obama realize that for Islamists, Liberty is utterly intolerable and the precious “progressive” doctrine of multiculturalism is anathema?
The war will continue because Islamists know the West can be worn down — after all, Korea and Vietnam — and the holy warriors take the long view. None of them expect to see the eventual triumph of Islam. How, one must ask, can the West sustain the will to press on, given the distracted, uninspired and cynical leadership provided by politicians of Obama’s ilk?
Today, Obama bows to an alien despot, apologizes profoundly and futilely for the burning of a few copies of the Koran (that probably would have been burned by Muslims in any event), and fumbles his way through endless miscues in foreign policy. The USA’s relationship with Israel is so tangled and distressed that no one can describe it — and that, ominously, includes the Iranians.
And tomorrow? It is likely that broken pledges and evasions of ethics will increase, while unelected bureaucrats will decide ever more important matters of policy. The individual’s choices will be reduced. The administration will play its race cards with increasing shamelessness. Prudence and reason will be mocked. The middle class will be devastated, and the future will be crushed with impossible debt.
Even as the distractions, inanities and discontents mount, some will ask again: what of the unceasing war against the West?
The ability to lead an evolved democratic republic through mortal peril must come from the deep convictions of the leader. That person will inspire others only if he is inspired by an understanding of why his nation must bequeath its heritage to future generations.
Tragically, there is a hollow man in the White House. For him, the horizon is just down the street. The community organizer who is agitating to increase your benefits literally does not understand the century, the nation and the world in which he finds himself.
In Some Quarters, The Fear Is Palpable — And The GOP Gets The Blame
He owns a retail firearms store, and his business is booming — because the prospects for the coming presidential election are becoming clear.
“Look who the Republicans are trying to put against Obama,” he said. “It’s the Keystone Kops and people are getting scared. People are terrified he’s going to get re-elected and then he won’t care about getting votes next time. He’ll just pass whatever legislation he wants.” (Source)
Is the fear justified? More may be known, or speculated about, if the evidence Andrew Breitbart claimed to have is released. If the “tapes” — presumably video — credibly portray Obama as a profoundly committed Marxist activist, the question then will be whether the independents and moderates in the electorate will turn against the president. If the tapes prove to be lukewarm suggestions that Obama was a social butterfly, his re-election is assured.
A Failure To Understand The Nature Of The Battlefield
Some of the darkest secrets remain occult not because they are hidden by conspirators, but because they are ignored by the people who should know and understand them. Thus it is with the full story of how a “wingnut” on talk radio ignited a firestorm of fury and discredited himself, his political allies, and the very roots of his philosophy.
If you would understand the bizarre and tragic facts, read on. If you already know what happened and why the GOP will almost certainly lose again to Team Obama, move on to the next section of this number.
First, this newsletter reported some of the many obscene references made to Sarah Palin. Sandra Bernhard was the poster girl for the campaign of filth launched by public figures who were joyously nauseated by Palin’s attempt to be taken seriously. In a rational world, the vile assaults would have backfired, and Palin would have been an asset to John McCain’s campaign.
You don’t recall what Bernhard said of Palin? Here it is again:
Women started the whole fucking thing. Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the shit and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat bitch! Don’t you fuckin’ reference Old Testament, bitch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bullshit! Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you bitch! Because we have left it open for interpretation! It is no longer taken literally! You whore in your fuckin’ cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bullshit moment.
Yes, it’s a bit incoherent, and without the video you can’t get the full impact of the babble. Still….
Second, realize that when a radio talk show host called an obscure political activist a slut, his offense was impolite but almost trivial by today’s libertine standards. That does not mean it was not a blunder, for it was; the previous number of NTG explained why that is true. (Here is the essential link again.)
Third, note that the “wingnuts” are trying desperately to call attention to two facts: (a) the offended female activist had very probably lied about the cost of contraceptive drugs, claiming they were almost ten times as expensive as they actually are, and (b) when the Left’s favorite comedian, Bill Maher, refers on television to Sarah Palin as a “cunt” and “twat”, his remarks are considered accurate, proper, acceptable and deserved. Some observers believe the hypocrisy of Team Obama is recognized by the voters and has backfired, but overall, the loss of moral perspective remains monumental — and that distortion favors the president.
In fact Obamites are delighted that a well-known “wingnut” has finally joined them in a profanity-tinged slanging match. The Left’s distaste for an influential talk radio personality long ago turned to suppurating rage, and now the collectivists are gleefully denouncing their bete noir as a filthy-mouthed misogynistic prude. The howling has not escaped the notice of the moderate segment of the electorate. How could it? The error is being repeatedly reported as a monstrous attack on females committed by an inhumane extremist. The faux righteous indignation is hypocrisy, of course, but that fact has been sufficiently obscured.
The Left has won. The hapless Right blundered onto a mined battlefield. (Again: read that essay linked above.)
This should all be no big deal. It’s just a bunch of superannuated guttersnipes pretending to be worldly-wise by talking dirty. The electorate should dismiss the lot of them with a sneer, and vote for rational leadership. Unfortunately for the nation, the Leftist trap is proving devastatingly effective because of the pervasive, suffocating bias of the media, and that requires explanation.
The political center has little idea of the full truth of the matter because the media have credibility. Moderates long ago became sufficiently convinced that newspapers and television and magazines convey information, and that humor is what the Bicoastal Elite says it is. (Repeating yet again: to be effective, censorship need not be total.) The towering authority of the media establishment allowed bemused political independents (“swing voters”) to ignore the full spectrum of the elite’s vituperative commentary. It was little noticed that Obama is a class warrior whose contempt for the knuckle-draggers in Flyover Country is poorly concealed, and that organs such as the New York and Los Angeles Times are censorious propaganda organs that pay lip service to objectivity. When decent folks accidentally tuned in to Bill Maher, they tended to become bored and move on; many literally did not know what his show was about, and found the smug insider chatter boring. Sandra Bernhard took down her YouTube video, even though in it she encouraged her audience to spread the word about Sarah Palin. Though not quite ephemeral, a lot of what passes for news these days is missed or forgotten by a lot of people. For another example, how many independent voters recall Caryn Johnson’s smutty “humor” mocking G. W. Bush? Not one in a hundred.
So today, the “wingnut” propaganda organs on the internet are trying to tell the world that what the Right has endured from the Left is far, far worse than what a (probably tired and certainly exasperated) entertainer said on the radio. The message is valid, demonstrably true, and is indeed highly relevant. It is also not getting through. In fact most voters probably don’t even know about Obama’s switch regarding PACs and the million dollar contribution.
How many people will see the videos that Andrew Breitbart was preparing to release? Most of the viewers will be the faithful, not the folks who really need the information. In anticipation of the videos, organs like the Los Angeles Times have prepared the way, excoriating Breitbart for being angry, combative, and tireless. Well, one could say the same of George Washington. Further, as you learned from an item in the last number of this newsletter, an old lie about one of Breitbart’s videos was trotted out again just the other day. It hardly matters that it was exposed as a lie when it first came out. The media determine the truth or falsity of all claims, and the determination is based on their utility to the collectivist agenda.
Then too, how far did this newsletter get when it linked to information on Obama’s college days? How many people of whatever political persuasion realize how comprehensive the campaign against Sarah Palin was and remains, and how gut-wrenchingly vile its conduct has been?
These questions matter because it is the political center that will determine the outcome of the coming election, and the failure of the opposition to inform and convince those voters is demonstrable. Because of the controlling bias of the media, the hissy-fit over an impolite outburst of a radio personality has become a curse that damns the Republican party and all its Tea Party/conservative/libertarian allies. The loss of moral perspective is stunning — and devastatingly effective.
It’s clear now why Andrew Breitbart was so hated: he threatened to reach the underinformed center and discredit the rascals in power. Collectivists are very sensitive to possible threats to their control; they consider free access to firearms and information particularly dangerous. This is why President Obama said, “Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.” Like hoaxer Hubbard commanding Scientologists, The One requires everyone to avoid commentary that contradicts the received faith.
The collectivist establishment — the “Bicoastal Elite”, as this newsletter often refers to much of it — would prefer to prevent the political middle from discovering the full implications of what the current administration has done and plans to do. Breitbart had exactly the opposite goal: he was fundamentally concerned with the exposure of information.
Now you can understand why this newsletter has spilled so much ink over the years in its attempts to prove that the media are biased. The result of that bias is the distortion of ethical perspective.
That twisted ethic permits doctrinaire collectivists to joke about The Dance of the Low-Sloping Foreheads. It permits them to savage a woman for not aborting her baby, and mock her for “popping out a retard”. It allows them to damn a maladroit fellow who resorts to a relatively mild sexual pejorative, even as they laugh with an entertainer who wallows in filth.
If, therefore, there is any hope that Obama and Holder and Hillary and their ilk may be retired from public life in the coming months, it lies in the simple fact that the collectivist mismanagement of the financial and economic systems is unforgivable (yes, Republicans must share in the blame, for many are collectivists). All attempts to engage the rascals on other grounds are virtually certain to fail.
Thank the hypocritical, censorious nature of the major news media for that.
Addendum: As an example of media distortion, hostility and illogic, consider a column in which a journalist scolds Breitbart as a scoundrel who was motivated by base passions and misanthropy. The following quotes are in sequence, and include everything the writer had to say about Andrew Breitbart; if you want to check their context, call up the column here. This newsletter’s reactions follow each quote.
The author begins by simply calling Breitbart “a nasty pugilist.” Continuing: “Andrew Breitbart raked for muck and accelerated the nation’s unhappy race to replace civility with furor.”
If there is no muck…but let it go, and ignore as well the importance of indignant reformers who report on the sad state of affairs. Those affairs, Breitbart insisted, were the doing of the elites. Was he correct? — Well, to continue the quotes:
Breitbart aimed low and spoke at a high pitch. When Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died in 2007, Breitbart wished the senator to “rest in Chappaquiddick” and derided him as a “pile of excrement” and an “unapologetic manslaughterer.” More recently, when he was confronted by Occupy D.C. protesters in Washington, Breitbart screamed, weirdly, shrilly and repeatedly, “Behave yourself!” He called them “filthy, raping, murdering freaks” and demanded that they “stop raping people.”
Kennedy was a liar who used his position and money to evade justice. Disagree if you wish, but the man did deserve opprobrium for his ethical bankruptcy and disastrous misbehavior. As to the Occupy folks — the rapes and other crimes, as well as the filthy trash, are documented facts, so screaming at the rascals is scarcely culpable. Breitbart’s tactic was to hold a mirror up to Occupy. A rational observer would also compare Occupy’s felonious squalor to the peaceful, sanitary protests of the Tea Partiers. You can take your young children to a Tea Party rally.
I never met Breitbart, who has been described by friends as a gracious and garrulous companion. They surely miss him greatly. But to sympathize with his family and friends is not the same as endorsing his disastrous contribution to our culture. He wounded for fun, flush with arrogance.
This outrageous rhetoric accuses Breitbart of perpetrating disasters. What disasters? They are not specified because they do not exist (Chappaquiddick was a disaster; Breitbart’s deeds were fair commentary and documentation). To accuse Breitbart of wounding for his own fun is hostile fantasy. It would be infinitely more reasonable to say that Breitbart opposed some individuals and groups because he was offended, and took pleasure in denouncing them in the same sense that one takes pleasure in mucking out a filthy stable. Simply standing up to nutcases and letting them know that they cannot misbehave without opposition can be an invigorating and rewarding act, and for Breitbart, it was doubtless exactly that. By the same token, did Caryn Johnson feel better for having delivered herself of her tiresome, unimaginative and vulgar monologue on W’s name? Of course she did! Giving the other side What For is refreshing and rewarding.
Breitbart was not willing just to oppose President Obama. Instead, he argued that Obama was a plotter, part of a cabal that was insidiously working to undermine the nation while innocent people slept.
Again, that is to deny Breitbart a level playing field. What we know about Obama suggests that the alleged implications of Breitbart’s assumptions may be true. The Times columnist seeks to proscribe an entire interpretation of political strategy, when in fact we know that such plans and machinations have been and are genuine. They have existed, and doubtless they still do — and some of them are on the political Right (as Occupy partisans correctly insist). Yet it is forbidden to posit them or discuss them if they are on the Left. That double standard is typical of the news media.
Breitbart projected unrelenting anger and attack, and he had every right to do so. But he led in a downward direction, one of his own choosing. He leaves a pile of blog posts, video clips and fusillades.
So anger and attack are improper if they lead “downward”? Before you answer, consider what Obama was doing when he assured his donors in San Francisco that he realized the citizens of Flyover Country “cling to religion and guns” because of underlying economic causes. Was that classically Marxist comment upward- or downward-directed? It depends, evidently, but certainly it seems the journalist is saying nothing more profound than that people should not be cross with whatever the Left does.
Then there are Breitbart’s blog posts, video clips and fusillades, which the columnist dismisses with a sniff. He is suggesting that they are all just rubbish. That evaluation is not factual. To Breitbart’s enemies, those documents are not at all trash, but chronicles and cogent essays — which, if they were known to the electorate as a whole, would endanger the Obama administration.
Finally, there is this plaintive exaggeration: “Breitbart shouted and ranted and left behind those he wounded or insulted.” Rather than abandon his defeated opponents, he was supposed to convey them…where? How bizarre. Yes, metaphorically speaking, some were “wounded” by Breitbart’s revelations and logic, but then that’s the chance one takes when one damns capitalism, Wall Street, or the inbred mouth-breathers and hayseeds in Kansas and Missouri who are not in a politically correct, elite social stratum.
Sure, Breitbart did make some people angry, and anger comes from hurt. So…what? It seems that the mere fact of insulting someone’s sensibilities is ipso facto beyond the pale, as far as this journalist is concerned. If that’s what he thinks, he is childish. After all, isn’t the real question whether the ferocity of a verbal/written/video attack is deserved? Aren’t there people who need to be scolded?
If you are allowed to scold Breitbart for his passion, then how equitable would it be of you to deny Breitbart the right to scold people he believes are bad for the nation?
Now of course it could be that journalistic ethics requires the reporter, columnist and editor to deal with the illogic, the failed programs, the iatrogenic distress, and the dishonesty, and do so objectively, without vitriol and showmanship. Given that impractical standard, little of Breitbart’s work could pass muster. The same would hold for this Times columnist’s opinion piece denouncing Breitbart, for it is anything but objective: it conveys emotional reactions to Breitbart’s style, and mentions none of the facts. The man who exposed and humiliated ACORN dealt in both facts and fierce opinions, however, and one cannot demonstrate fraud or plagiarism or dishonesty on his part. Passionate and driven, Breitbart knew the value of the revelation of shameful secrets. What’s unethical about that?
Notice that at no point in his commentary does the journalist deal with any of the reasons for Breitbart’s animating anger. It is as if Breitbart had been inexplicably infuriated by flowers and puppy dogs. This Times column is just a bitter indictment of a flamboyant fellow whose sin was success. His victories, actual and yet to come, are why his death has provoked rejoicing and relief.
Each faction in the political fracas has its foes. If you enter the arena, expect to be bloodied. Whining about how enthusiastic your opponents are is not just bad sportsmanship. It is cowardice. When it degenerates to the denunciation of the dead, it is pathetic — and all the more reprehensible when the deceased opponent cannot be shown to have been unethical.
By the way, the author’s contrast with Wilson (you may want to look at the column in the Times) is unintentionally revealing. Wilson did not threaten collectivist status, prestige, or power; he was not attempting to limit the control enjoyed by the Bicoastal Elite. Breitbart, on the other hand…well, he was unpopular with the Left because he threatened to break through the barrier the media have erected, reach the undecided, independent and moderate voters, and weaken collectivist control of the nation’s political/financial apparatus. And how!
So far, the news media appear to plan to trivialize Breitbart’s effort to “vet” Obama. That’s a risky policy because if it is executed sloppily, it’s potentially embarrassing, as CNN just discovered (and ouch!). It might even come across as censorship: “This is all nothing but wingnut nonsense, so we won’t let you see it.”
In death, the bulldog may prove even more dangerous than he was in life.
This Is So Goofy, It’s Impossible To Explain Or Understand
Team Obama made a huge mistake years ago: the full, official birth certificate should have been released under totally indisputable circumstances before Obama was nominated. Now the White House is depending on the media to ignore an investigation into the validity of the latest document that’s available to the public. That’s awkward, to say the least. The technical details are beyond this newsletter’s competence to judge, but…the Arizona sheriff is making claims that will inspire doubts and arguments. Once again it’s up to Obama, and though he could put an end to the dispute, once again he’s not telling his people to provide definitive proof of the truth. Why ever? Is it his strategy to encourage conspiracist lunacy, so he can play the victim? That’s crazy, so one can only conclude that Team Obama has stupidly piled mistake on mistake.
After providing a brilliant analysis of the current financial madness, this interviewee on MSNBC outlines a stunning proposal to sort out the mess. Highly recommended.
There is a lot here that has politically explosive implications, but you can be certain that the major media will never bring it to the attention of the electorate. Why? Media self-censorship. Requirements that tell you what you should say are tantamount to rules telling you what you should not say, report ethically, or even mention — and that’s censorship. All bias is ultimately varieties of censorship.
The insight of the Tea Party Movement could be summed up in a sentence taken from a 2010 essay: “Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind.” This newsletter ususally refers to “The Bicoastal Elite” or “collectivists”. The essay calls it “the ruling class”. Highly recommended.
This could hurt: it’s a documentary on US-Israel relations under The One.
Does Islamic law forbid the burning of Korans? Not so much, but it certainly approves of the presidents of infidel nations apologizing for anything and everything any time at all.
Obama the hypocrite: the record proves that the administration’s vaunted transparency is a cynical lie. Unprecedented resistance to Freedom of Information Act requests is just part of the story.
The space program of the USSR may have been much bigger and more horrible than you thought. (You may want to adjust the zoom feature of your browser to make this post easier to read.)
The war on drugs is a very bad idea. People should be free to use recreational chemicals, and yes, that would mean lots of problems for everybody. All right; now let the rest of the argument go, and consider the question from a new perspective.
An interesting (but dated) article on beer.
Beer is fine, but it would be great to have a ray gun that shoots down mortar shells that were going to kill you before you could get the beer properly chilled.
Maybe Breitbart was on to something. In any event, it will be studiously ignored by the major media.
It is time to abandon the fantasy of Hope And Change and get back to basics. Begin with what’s wrong, therefore, and then restore Liberty.
I won’t slave for beggar’s pay
Likewise gold and jewels
But I would slave to learn the way
To sink your ship of fools
The masthead includes a quote from the works of David Mamet.
The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Arch Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.
Publisher:The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.