Q: What do you get when you cross Ayman al-Zawahiri and, say, Harry Belafonte?
A: Pick em!*
The progressives will shriek and moan that vile neocons dare draw such equivalences, but when the only difference between the rhetoric of a terror leader and that of grievance-mongering progressives is the absence of the charge to “tally me banana,” it’s time to reach deep into that bag of rationalizations to convince Americans that this coordinated message between leftists and Islamists is nothing more than an unhappy coincidence.
(h/t CJ Burch)
So I’m at my doctor’s office, and the only thing I’m remotely interested in reading is the Rolling Stone 40th Anniversary issue. And there’s all this stuff about “chilling of dissent” and etc. And then there’s a chart showing all the anti-Bush songs and albums that have come out lately.
I’ll leave the task of identifying the precise degree of irony involved as an exercise for the reader. (Except just to say that they should just get on with the crushing of dissent so I don’t have to fucking listen to it any more.)
Isn’t it special that the progressive left would find its interests so closely aligned with those of totalitarian religious fanatics? The irony would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so not.
I’d be pleased if the left wake up upon to finding its interests so closely aligned with those of totalitarian religious fanatics… but they’d refuse to see it… and blame Bush.
I’d be pleased if they could find their asses without Kos showing ‘em, but that’ll never happen either.
tw: hell85 (wrong thread… stupid machine)
Why do liberals work so hard to convince Americans that a secular Iraq could never have had a relationship with al qaeda, you know, because they’re such the radical funadamental religious Islamists?
To concede the possibility would open them up to a lot of questions about the relationship between American secular leftists and those same al qaeda radical fundamental religious Islamists. You know the “relationship”, the figurative sleeping with the enemy, the it’s just about the sex, it’s not a committment, we’re just hooking up, having fun, we’re not exclusive, we don’t sleep over after we do it, we don’t call the next day, we don’t celebrate anniversaries, never once bought them flowers, we don’t kiss on the lips.
It is a classic but clumsy black propaganda ploy which would get you very low marks at madrassat al jassous.
The effect will be only to strengthen the sense of grievance of ineffectual blacks and instill a cold rage in those hundreds of thousands of blacks who fight in the various arms of the Allied military against the slave-mongering racists of Islamism.
They might find it instructive to learn how many Fijians serve with the SAS- and what those Fijians did at Marbat.
So called progressives who ally themselves, even just rhetorically with islamo-fascists in what I suspect they would consider a temporary alliance of convenience for the greater good ofcourse, and who smugly assume that they will later be able to influence these people as a sophisticated adult can sway a child, would do well to look at the history of the Iranian revolution.
Communists, other assorted leftists and islamic fundamentalists joined forces to overthrow their common nemesis, the shaw.
No doubt, the Iranian ‘progressives’ were sure that they could handle these religious yokels and surely the people would see the benefits of socialism and carry on with the socialist revolution after the shah was deposed. Then they could run these religious hayseeds out of town on a rail.
Those same nuanced progressive socialist intellectuals wound up being killed in the streets or in prisons formerly run by SAVAK and now run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, while the Imams consolidated their control of the country.
Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran is a great recounting of this event, by a leftist who was there.
This temporary alliance of convenience seems to indicate (to me anyway) that many leftists fail to learn from history, ignore the long view for short term gain and fail to realize that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Isn’t it great to know that the Rev. Jesse Jackson, rather than wasting his time impregnating another young authoress intent on burnishing his sad, tarnished image, has instead decided to devote his estimable talents to becoming a speechwriter for Ayman al-Zawahari?
I breathlessly await hearing the rabble-rousing couplets and street rhymes he composes for his other new client, Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran.
I can just hear it now: “The great Persian nation, which seeks Allah’s salvation, out of deep frustration and without hesitation, will pursue annihilation of our Zionist vexation. We pray for devastation of the Jewish aberration, that true abomination, will face extermination through our determination.”
I just hope the Rev. Jackson doesn’t get rugburns while he’s scoring some Persian poontang on his prayer rug.
Thas’ ok, I don’ mind shootin’ commies too.
Careful there, mojo, lest someone come along and call you a Bircher.
IT’s remarkable how the left’s beliefs have morphed in the last ten years without losing one iota of their fundamental hostility to society, isn’t it? It’s one reason I can’t make myself pay attention to the global warming discussion – I suspect that the arguments the left advances are not in good faith. Global warming is simply the latest reason to continue their project of objecting to the habits, mores, and attitudes of the country, and when/if it’s disproven, something else will come along. The thing we should probably be grateful for is that the leftist critique of American society lost its mass appeal when it ceased to be economic and became aesthetic; that completed its transformation from a potentially revolutionary force to one that’s essentially stylistic and frivolous.
I’ll give you a convenient example. I was discussing passenger rail funding, a hobby horse of mine, with some lefties I know. I remarked on the state of what’s now Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, and the money it needs to put it back into shape. The response I got was, “yes, but of course there was always lots of money for highways (said with a deliberate, slighting emphasis that suggested only the hoi polloi would want to drive). My interlocutors didn’t know, or weren’t aware, that the automobile and the highway were once considered the great liberators of the average man, since he was freed from dependence on the railroad companies for transportation; nor did they realize that the Pennsylvania Railroad (Amtrak’s predecessor) was a notoriously predatory employer. All of the actual history had passed them by; they only knew that their modern view was that the automobile, the product of Detroit capitalism, was Bad, and that public transit was Good.
Both of these people, I should note, had master’s degrees.
Both of these people, I should note, had master’s degrees.
It’s called a causal connection. It’s come to the point where saying that someone has a college education is the same as saying that he’s a total moron.
I should know. I’ve got an MA too. In the Humanities.
– So we see the legacy of 4+ decades of soft- Euro-Marxism infiltration of America’s educational institutions as the movement sets forth in it’s brave new world; willful iconoclastic inbreeding with the Islamofacists, and the birth of the post-modern message: “…Freedom to the inner man….buy a bong…”.
– Non-serious slackers, whose only motivation is blowing large clouds of retorical smoke to cover their asses and activities. Since most people that have to work for a living lack the time, energy, and desire, to pay any attention to the great unwashed, we seem to have to suffer the constant noise, and moribond irony-flooded activism, simply because for the “moonbat collective” being ignored is apparently the only unforgivable sin.
I suspect that their vistas will end in the same sight they’ve ended in ever since Burke identified the phenomenon.
In my darker moments, I suspect academics of secretly working to deselect people of intelligence who possess the ability to reason. Post-modernism is sort of the secret handshake: if you can accept the inherent contradictions (or if you’re unscrupulous enough to pretend that you do), the door is open; if you point them out, you haven’t a chance. I once spoke with an academic of my acquaintance about seeing “The Lord of the Rings,” and got a patronizing response about how nice it was that I enjoyed a movie that affected to believe there was really such a thing as evil.
Six hours before, she had lectured me about how Dick Cheney was evil. I mean, using that word. How, really, do you argue with someone who doesn’t even appear to understand the fundamental principle of non-contradiction?
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY?
How, really, do you argue with someone who doesn’t even appear to understand the fundamental principle of non-contradiction?
– Actually, as you pointed out, its pointless. Something akin to “arguing” with one of the featured acts in the typical freak sideshows, so popular in early 20th century America. Its best to just tacitly accept that some must find their way through the minefield of contemporary escapism, with all its adherence to “forget substance….it’s the perceptions and the feelings baby”.
– These things seem to cycle, like bell bottom/hulahoop/lavalamp fads. Beat into the ground, then largely forgotten until the next un-enlightened generation of young turks.
Well, of course, my interlocutor was a Boomer, which no doubt explains part of it. At the risk of sounding sexist, while I can’t understand how the men of that generation ever decided to marry, I can certainly understand why they got divorced.
That’s too flippant, I know, and it lets the male Boomers slide off the hook of responsibility like Bill Clinton off a nineteen year old intern, but really, isn’t that characteristic, too?
I’m lucky, I think, to be my age. Thank heaven I missed the Sixties.
Nano, we’re not all like that—and neither are all of our women.
Ah but this coordinated is a natural progression of “multicultural” (multicommunist) thought.
They used to apologize for the communists.
This led them to apologizing for various Third World tin horn communist clients.
This led to apologizing for anything barbarous coming from those parts of the world.
After the Soviet Empire fell apart, that apologizing for Turd World barbarism was what remained. Combine it with reflexive anti-Americanism, and voila.
What motivates the Left, the Howard Dean / Michael Moore ruling faction of the Democrat party? What motivates them is:
1. Leftover Bolshevism. They have “the vision of the anointed” as Thomas Sowell put it, they claim to have something better than this “inherently (blank)ist and (blank)ophobic country”, and the rest of us are proles to be nanny-state ruled.
2. “Multiculturalism” (Cultural Marxism). Turd World Gooooood, evil white male Judeo-Christian Civlization baaaaaad. It replaces proletariat gooooood, bourgeois baaaaaad. And that means Israel and the Jews, hey-hey, ho-ho, have got to go….
It’s the consequence of ideology. Commiecrats morphed into Dhimmicrats.