Looking for insults

I’m fairly disinterested in Prince Harry.  He strikes me as an unexceptional young man who grew up in an unpleasantly rarefied atmosphere, but who is finally finding meaning and purpose in his life through military service.  He keeps forcing attention on himself, though, by having foot (or costume) in mouth disease.  A few years ago, he was lambasted for appearing as a Nazi at a costume party, an act of unwisdom understandable only if one appreciates that British young people have no limits whatsoever, and that he wasn’t doing anything his peers weren’t doing as well.

Now he’s in hot water for being caught on videotape for jocularly referring to a fellow Pakistani officer as “our little Paki friend, Ahmed.”  He also called the Taliban — that would be the guys who are routinely murdering British troops — “rag heads,” a term both American and British troops commonly apply to a deadly enemy that does indeed wrap its head in fluffy, disorganized bits of cloth.

That Harry’s remarks were gauche and impolitic is certain.  Indeed, trying to put myself in the shoes of that Pakistani officer, I know that I would have thought it tasteless and wrong if he were to refer to a Jewish officer as “our friend Shylock.”  In other words, I’m not condoning Harry’s way of speaking although, again, I think it’s typical of his milieu, both as a member of the British upper classes and as an officer in the British military.

What really bugs me about this entire episode is the front page hysteria its created.  Harry risks being demoted, and Muslims around the world are (yes, you knew this was coming) outraged.  Journalists are outraged too, since it’s manifest to them that this collegiate humor must be evidence, not just that Harry’s a bit of a clod, but that he’s a deep seated racist pig, killing Taliban soldiers, not because they’re trying to kill Brits, but because he’s target-shooting Muslims, etc., etc.  There is a distinct lack of proportion with regard to the attacks against Harry.

The level of anger and hysteria about everything nowadays — absolutely everything — just puts me off, especially because it leaves no room to paint with the real brush of outrage.  If calling your enemy by a pejorative, or using a very low level slur in a sarcastic way to refer to someone who is obviously a comrade in arms, is exactly as horrific as using children as human shields, you’ve rendered your moral compass useless.  To use an analogy only those of us over 40 understand, if you play your records at 78 rpm, they all sound like indistinguishable gibberish.  We live in such a hysterical era.

As Wendy Kaminer wrote years ago (I think it was in her book called I’m dysfunctional, you’re dysfunctional), in a therapeutic age we feel obligated to give everybody’s ow-ies equal sympathy, whether the injury is a hang nail, hurt feelings, or an escape from the Cambodian Killing Fields.  I feel as if I’m perpetually surrounded by nervous Victorian maidens fainting on couches at real or imagined insults.  It’s exhausting.

What also bugs me about this whole episode is that, while it’s garnering front page headlines, the press is downplaying a dramatic escalation in attacks against Jews all over the world.  (So, I guess they’re not really hysterical about everything.)

Sure, the attacks and threats are getting reported in dry news stories (otherwise I wouldn’t know about them), but they’re not above the fold, and they’re not the subject of indignant op-eds, editorials, or human interest stories.  They’re just same old, same old.  “Move along, folks.  Nothing new to see here.”  In that, the press’s response is dramatically different from the anguished, breast-beating stories it routinely wrote after 9/11 (and still writes periodically today) in which it describes in agonizing detail the horror of being a Muslim in America and having people look at you funny.

It’s a topsy turvy world, to be sure, when an unimportant Prince (what is he, 102nd in line to the throne?) is the subject of anguished squeals about racism because of a few mildly impolitic words, while the press manages to breeze casually through news reports about horrific antisemitic comments (“You need a big oven, that’s what you need!”  “Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!”  “Jews must die.”) without turning a hair.  It is also a sign, I fear, of a dying culture, one that’s incapable of separating wheat from chaff when it comes to distinguishing between true moral issues and mere offensive irrelevancies.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://politics.upnorthmommy.com kimpriestap

    Excellent post, Bookworm. It’s frightening that in our world today anger toward Jews is not only accepted but encouraged. I don’t like to ask this question, but I feel I must: will there be another Jewish holocaust in our lifetimes?

  • http://politics.upnorthmommy.com kimpriestap

    Actually, it’s not just anger, but hatred. Pure, unbridled, unfiltered hatred toward Jews. And no one cares.

  • USMaleSF

    Amen, Book.

  • geoffreybritain

    Not true kimpriestap. Lots of us care, in fact millions of us do.

    It IS frustrating, especially when the level of Intellectual dishonesty from the left and its propaganda organ the MSM is contemplated.

    The disinformation and lack of balanced reportage regarding Israel is, of course intentional.

    But the extreme bias is not primarily out of hate but rather out of naive stupidity.

    To understand the attitudes toward Israel its important to keep in mind the different ‘factions’ who oppose Israel. Leaving aside Islam, which for the most part does hate Israel and the Jews and leaving aside the usual racial component of anti-Semitics in any population (racists have to hate somebody)…

    To my knowledge Hindu’s and Bhuddists are indifferently neutral toward Israel.

    The Catholic Church (1.5B strong) seeks penance from modern-day Jews, not for Christ’s crucifixion but for the Jews ongoing denial of Jesus’ divinity…only Israel’s embrace of Jesus’ dictum of ‘turning the other cheek’ even if necessary onto racial suicide, can absolve them of their mortal ‘sin’.

    That’s so because only ‘turning the other cheek’ will demonstrate that the Jews not only spiritually ‘get’ what Jesus was teaching but that they are actively following his ‘path’… Whether they acknowledge him as savior or not. That’s not hate but religious dogma, confirmed by the fact that Evangelical Christian’s support Israel… believing it to be ordained by God in the Bible, their ultimate ‘authority’, rather than the Pope and Church hierarchy.

    The opposition to Israel from the secular left operates out of a desire to pressure the Israeli’s into concessions that liberals and leftists believe would actually improve the situation. Naive? Yes. Hateful? No.

    Wherein does the left’s naivete spring from? Moral cowardice.

    In any conflict, fight or flight are the most basic categories of response.

    The left is a ‘horse’ not a lion. They seek to accommodate, to appease because that’s what ‘horses do’, they’re ‘pack’ animals and cooperation and immersion within the herd is all that they know because it’s their very nature…’caring’ for each other is their highest value.

    Living according to ‘principal’ which entails ‘doing the right thing’ (the primary reason for support of the Jews among gentiles) even and especially when it entails risk is foreign to ‘horses’ ‘constitution’. That’s lion behavior, and it’s lions who comprise life’s heroes and villains.

    Unless cornered like a rat, a ‘horses’ impulse is to avoid conflict no matter what the cost, because they sense they cannot win if they should confront a lion…and they know that Radical Islamic terrorists are not horses.

    Are people just a ‘horse’ or a ‘lion’? Of course not but they do have a primary tendency and the left’s is to accommodate, to ‘get along’…even and most especially when faced with implacable hatred. That primary tendency is determined by whether people fully grow into adulthood or remain partially mired within adolescence.

    It’s the nature of narcissistic adolescence to run away from problems, to declare their victimhood, rather than to face and confront their problems, whether it’s hatred from another or their own fiscal irresponsibility. It’s narcissistic and immature behavior and the west’s material abundance allows it to flourish.

    The categorization of anti-Israeli bias as simply hateful is inaccurate and thus ultimately, unhelpful.

  • Ymarsakar

    I don’t find anything wrong with P Harry’s comments, Brit or no Brit. If you want an example of Brit fecklessness, you should check out Spark’s comments over at Blackfive.

    Harry is actually rather restrained compared to the common Brit.

  • Charles Martel

    The Catholic Church (1.5B strong) seeks penance from modern-day Jews, not for Christ’s crucifixion but for the Jews ongoing denial of Jesus’ divinity…only Israel’s embrace of Jesus’ dictum of ‘turning the other cheek’ even if necessary onto racial suicide, can absolve them of their mortal ’sin’.

    That’s so because only ‘turning the other cheek’ will demonstrate that the Jews not only spiritually ‘get’ what Jesus was teaching but that they are actively following his ‘path’… Whether they acknowledge him as savior or not.

    geoffreybritain:

    As a practicing Catholic I’m a little puzzled at your statement above. I looked through the Catechism and other magisterial sources to see where Catholicism seeks Jews’ penance by demanding they turn the other cheek.

    What the Church really believes is that the convenental relationship between Israel and God still exists, although the goal and perfection of that convenant is in the Incarnation and the subsequent expansion of the concept of Israel, God’s chosen people, to include the gentiles.

    So, no, Catholicism is not calling on the Jews to do penance. It certainly holds out the hope that Jews will come to Christ, seeing in that the perfection of their own relationship with God, but that’s pretty much it.

    Perhaps you are thinking of the anti-Semitic element in the Church hierarchy, a group that JPII and now Benedict XVI struggle against. The group, heavily influenced by modernism, Marxism, internationalism and the homosexualist movement, is naturally anti-Semitic because its members identify with the “other,” in this case brown-skinned savages they can feel superior to. See, Catholicism has its own Pharisees, too.

  • jlibson

    I’m glad you posted about this Book. The discussion got side-tracked into a broad review of Catholic views of Jews.

    But the main point is…men can’t act like “guys” anymore!

    Someday a figure like Prince Harry will get “caught” making some off color comment to his buddy and instead of apologizing will say: “I won’t apologize. You were not in the conversation. This is how we talk with each other. We’re guys.”

    Eastwood’s movie “Gran Turino” covers this fairly well.

    When talking amongst your male friends it is not at all uncommon to use harsh language and racial/cultural epithets. It’s funny.

    Harry didn’t do anything wrong.

    Full stop.

  • geoffreybritain

    That is how many men talk and as long as the comments aren’t mean spirited I agree jLibson. But as I was the one who brought up Catholicism, while keeping it to two paragraphs of a long comment, I think it a bit unfair to say that I side-tracked the discussion.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    More sophisticated commenting software than I have allows threads within threads. Mine, however, looks linear, but often acts, while, kinetic. No worries. My concern — always — is civility. Within that boundary, I don’t mind if the conversation wanders a bit, much like the conversation at a stimulating party.

  • geoffreybritain

    Charles Martel,

    I realize my assertion is not the official position of the Catholic Church. It is however the practical result when the Church, including the Pope asserts Categorically that continued dialog and non-violence is the only acceptable answer to Hamas and Islamic terror.

    If you leave a serial killer armed, disarm yourself and try to talk him out of his hate, rage and dysfunction…you will die. That is precisely the course of action the Church hierarchy is encouraging Israel to take. And not an individual or two but an entire nation of 6 million.

    A position that the Church does NOT promote with its own members when faced with implacable hatred. Thus an agenda must be in play.

    Not one of hate but rather of repentance. Anyone who thinks that the Catholic hierarchy does not hold against present-day Jews their ongoing denial of Jesus’ divinity is willfully ignoring the obvious. Occams razor applies fully here: The simplest explanation that fits the facts (catholic behavior) is the most likely explanation.

  • Charles Martel

    Not one of hate but rather of repentance. Anyone who thinks that the Catholic hierarchy does not hold against present-day Jews their ongoing denial of Jesus’ divinity is willfully ignoring the obvious. Occams razor applies fully here: The simplest explanation that fits the facts (catholic behavior) is the most likely explanation.

    Whoosh! I just felt Occam’s Razor brushing past my willful ignorance. I wasn’t aware that the pope’s pro forma appeal for dialog and non-violence was directed only at Israel.

    Of course the pope, being somewhat familiar with power politics, knows that Hamas will not respond to his appeal and Israel will continue having to kick ass.

    It’s useful to remember that Catholicism, like Islam or China, is not a monolith. Some powerful elements in the Catholic hierarchy have some problems with Jews, but, generally speaking, the rest of us Catholics pity them and are happy to ignore any exhortations from them about the need for the Jews to repent.

    Our view is why single out the Jews when it’s all of mankind that needs repentance?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Funny, I recall the Pope taking a very similar position about the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war and virtually every other war of the time. Occam’s razor, you say? As an Anglican /Episcopalian (Catholic Lite) in a largely Roman Catholic family, I confess that I really don’t recognize the Catholic Church of which you speak, GeoffreyBritain.

  • jlibson

    Sorry geoffreybritain you are right. It wasn’t side-tracked. I was clearly over-eager to make my point. :)

  • Ymarsakar

    A position that the Church does NOT promote with its own members when faced with implacable hatred. Thus an agenda must be in play.

    Given that it is Israelis and Jews, secular or religious, that are the most vociferous in support of Israeli “restraint”, your line doesn’t wash, GB.

  • Ellen

    Why is Prince Harry calling someone from Pakistan a Paki worse than calling a native of Canada a Canuck, or an Australian an Aussie, or someone from New Zealand a Kiwi?

    None. It’s just that the chattering classes have made it so and too many people are afraid of being called racists to tell the Perpetually Offended that they are thin skinned fools.

    The best reaction would have been for Prince Harry and his friend to have appeared together, laughed their heads off and then gone for a beer.

    BTW, Harry is often called ginger for his red hair. He doesn’t seem to mind. And Harry is 3rd in line for the throne after his father and his brother William.

  • Ymarsakar

    Given that Britain is no longer a Constitutional Monarchy, just a nation run by bureaucrats and those in Parliament, it doesn’t really matter how close the Prince is to the throne.

    Now if Britain goes up in flames and Parliament happens to be deadlocked and Harry’s in a position to be both capable and willing of seizing actual political power under an older “British common law” precedent, then things would change. But until then, until the “monarch” at least has the power of commander in chief or even just a veto power over Parliament bills, Prince Harry will always be a convenient scape goat for the British government when it comes to deflecting attention from domestic and social problems.

    Just like the Romans gave out free feasts on Saturnalia and paid for plenty of gladiatorial games, the British must find some amusement for their people, lest those “youths”, ya know, tear everything down (again).

  • Ymarsakar

    He keeps forcing attention on himself, though, by having foot (or costume) in mouth disease. A few years ago, he was lambasted for appearing as a Nazi at a costume party, an act of unwisdom understandable only if one appreciates that British young people have no limits whatsoever, and that he wasn’t doing anything his peers weren’t doing as well.

    His acts of rebellion have a purpose. And even if it didn’t, it now does. And it is not him forcing attention on himself, so much as the British, more so than Americans, put their nobility on pedestals and treat them like we treat our celebrities. Except they only have a few celebrities of this caliber while we have dozens, at least. Thus all the attention is spread around, more or less, in America, while in Britain all the papparazi get to harass a few select people constantly. And the British government, because it is not run by the Crown nor appreciably influenced by the Crown, does not give a damn about covering for the Crown or protecting the privacy of the Royal Family. What does Parliament get out of it? The Crown has no political power and thus no power to make deals.

  • Ymarsakar

    You forget, Book, that regardless of why Harry decided to wear a SS uniform, which does cut a rather nice figure (in the military sense), the approbation he got from home on that score or his parents may actually have contributed or simply reinforced to his decision to join the military and leave home. Certainly every teenager wants to get away from his parents one time or another, if they have a healthy set of “wanderlust” at least. But for Harry, given the attention focused on him at home, he must have felt an even greater motivation in this regard. The fact that he ultimately decided to put it to productive use, is either attributable to luck, chance, or fate.

    Many of his peers may or may not have wanted to rebel, but I doubt they would have bucked British Leftist trends and wore something from the SS. And even if they were proud or arrogant enough to do something similar, they would never have put their lives at stake in a real war.

    Harry is actually a throwback, Book, to the day of warrior-kings. He wasn’t brought up with this ethic, but he eventually ended up there nonetheless.

    The nobility in Europe have been supplanted by a new ruling elite, the MPs and the bureaucrats. But back in the day, a noble that sought to exercise real power had to have some kind of martial background. The ability to command in war became extraordinarily important when it came to commanding the people back home. Given the fact that people still naturally gravitate to “warriors” as leaders (check out the popular reaction to King Leonidas in 300 as compared to their reaction to “chickenhawk” Bush), the credibility of any king or prince or noble rested as much on their prowess in battle as it rested upon their patent of nobility or the blueness of their blood.

    David Weber has done a lot of work on what I like to call the “enlightened nobility” when it comes to governing star nations, countries, or what not. Weber posits a nobility with real governing powers, real military powers, and real hereditary dominance over both social, economic, and political trends. It is the House of Lords vs the House of Commons, except the House of Lords have its ancestral power and influence while the House of Commons have far less power and far less social prominence than it does today in Britain.

    But for that kind of thing to work, Weber had to add in a lifetime of service from the nobility. At least the Royal Family that served their nations as our Presidents do. For a family to have such long term dominance over a position such as Commander in Chief of all the armed forces of a nation, that family must be as committed to the nation as the nation is committed to that family. And one way in which the royal family and its scions can demonstrate its loyalty to the nation is through serving in public posts and military posts, to serve in war and demonstrate that they have the capability to judge issues of life and death.

    Essentially, you need one of those military dynasties that have had family members serving in America’s wars since the Revolution or the Civil War.

    No nation, feudal or democratic, would accept the authority of a leader that demonstrates even the appearance of cowardice while the citizens died in foreign wars, without some extraordinarily solid institutions and foundations. Even if people were willing to say “let bygones be bygones” there will always be somebody with power and ambition, like Mark Felt or Valerie Plame, who will see weakness as an opportunity.

    Of course, as the nation progresses in decadence and prosperity, as external enemies fall one by one due to the sacrifices of previous generations, things start going down hill. The nation starts becoming corrupt and tolerating corruption, like in Europe, or they start producing megalomaniacal leaders (like Nero) or hopelessly weak ones (like Neville Chamberlain or Jimmy Carter).

    The benefits of a royal family that can hold a nation together through personal loyalty, not just patriotism, is very important as a stabilizing force when enemies surround a particular people. The benefits of our system, however, has more to do with making the maximum changes needed for war (like a centralized commander in chief and Executive Powers) while minimizing the government’s power in matters of social or economic matters. Ours is a meritocracy that depends upon the enlightenment and competence of our citizens. The fact that this includes families with the service ideal of serving in the military to protect us all, is a direct cause of why we are still around. No meritocracy can withstand external enemies without also developing a warrior cadre somewhere or somehow. Some nations have had good economic development and then decided to hire mercenaries to do their fighting, like Carthage, but we know how that turned out.

    In a specific sense, nations can either be held up and reformed by individuals or they can be held up and reformed by traditions. But neither are actually mutually exclusive of the other. Traditions simply mean somebody in the past had paved the way. American traditions depend, after all, upon American ancestors, which were real people. But nations that are held up by the personal loyalty owed to specific individuals or familes, right now not just in the past, are considered to be feudalistic. Since all or most power comes from the King, if he should fall, the nation will go into chaos.

    America decided to avoid all that, partially given its experiences with Great Britain and partially because of how domestic American politics developed in the Colonies. Domestic American politics had progressed to the point where the states considered themselves their own sovereign nations, with the power to draft their own defenders and to make their own laws. Full unification didn’t even come to America until after the Civil War, in which The United States became fully born and not just partially born.

    What this tends to mean is that if a feudalistic or constitutional monarchy system loses its monarch or its Royal Family, that nation is going to fragment into various little civil wars. What this tends to mean for America is that it doesn’t matter what happens to the US President or the successors to the office. So Long as the Constitution remains in force, so long as the social compact between citizens and local/federal government remains more or less intact, and so long as the US military remains loyal to their oaths sworn to the Constitution and to their chain of command, the United States will not fragment into various little civil wars. What will likely happen is that idiots will come into power and try to corrupt the institutions of America for the “greater good”, but fragmentation will not occur first.

    So, America sacrifices direct personal loyalty from the American people to its commander in chief in return for a more redundant safety function than monarchies or constitutional monarchies have. The President does not personally lead forces in war because he does not need to. The system does not demand that he do so in order to uphold his authority. His authority does not come from his ability as a warrior, or military commander, or his blood. His authority comes from the US Constitution, and the US Constitution has no need for anyone to demonstrate his abilities through war. What matters is competence, period, not in what form it presents itself. And if the President is incompetent, then the US Constitution allows for the peaceful transition of power, as executed by the people themselves.

    In a Royal Family in a Constitutional Monarchy or a feudalistic system, there is no peaceful transition of power should pretenders to the throne develop. Since political power rests with the Royal Family, this means people can seize power by supplanting or destroying the Royal Family and using them as a sort of shield to justify the new management or just declaring themselves the New Royal Family, legitimate inheritors of all the power the old Royal Family held (and since their constitution, assuming they have one, gives power to the Royal Family, not to any specific individuals, this is legally possible). In America, taking Bush’s family hostage won’t do a damn thing to cover up any overthrow of America’s system. Instead, what we have are appeals to such things as patriotism, freedom, courage, military competence, or any number of other things the Left likes to use in order to lie to all of us.

    The weakness of a monarchy rests within the monarch and his or her family. Since there is no tradition or legitimacy to “peaceful transition” of power, unless the person in question abdicates, this means that if you have an incompetent or corrupt or megalomaniacal monarch, you are screwed. You can’t get rid of him without destroying the entire system, and that will breed a lot more chaos in the short term than it would eradicate.

    The weakness of a meritocracy or an entirely Constitutional system is its people and indirectly the people’s ability to change that Constitution.

    An ambitious person can come to power in a monarchy by overthrowing the monarch, as seen in the Shah’s Iran. But in America, you can’t come to power by overthrowing a ruling President. Even Mark Felt’s successful destruction of the Nixon administration didn’t give him any of the powers Nixon had. It made him safe and respected as a “whistleblower” rather than an ambitious traitor to the nation, yes, but it did not give him Nixon’s power. The succession proceeded along Constitutional lines, not lines of blood or the regular happenstances of coup de tats.

    So in order for the ambitious to take power in America, you have to change the US Constitution to either something that commands the US military to follow the new legitimate leaders or to change the US Constitution enough to elect your own “legitimate” leaders into power. And the best way to do that is not through winning elections, although that helps, but through reprogramming the basic national identity, culture, and education of the people of America. Soviet destabilization and disinformation in other words.

    The US military is one of the guarantees of peaceful transition of power, because it serves the same purpose here as it does in iraq. It makes sure that nobody who thinks about violent overthrow of the government will ever forget that they first must defeat the US military entirely if they are to win. In a monarchy, people could just take out the Royal Family and then say that they are the new kings and the military would have little choice but to obey the new change in office. But in the US, there is a specific set of requirements for a change in power and no amount of finagling will convince the US military that a person who killed the entire current Administration is just so happens now the “new President”. It won’t work like that. And because it won’t worked like that, the US military is not going to obey the new orders coming from the capital. So what you need to do is to change the Constitution, and that is exactly what the Soviets were planning to do. Change the Constitution enough in order to elect enough idiots into office, and then have those idiots do whatever the Soviets tell them to do.

    The matter of elections, the fact that the new leaders must be elected, presents an enormous stumbling block to people who want the power to terrorize the weak and exploit the helpless. But it is not fullproof. No, those people can still undermine the system by targeting the people that produce election results.

    Because the current and newest generation of Americans don’t even know the weaknesses in their own system, they don’t understand how other people can manipulate those gaps in the defenses. Thus, they become useful idiots to the destruction of their own nation. The nation that is guaranteed to protect them and give them political representation and rights. No other nation is guaranteed that. People tend to forget that as they tear down their own nation in the false belief that this won’t hurt things at all in the long term.

    “So many maniacs share the same delusions” because they think that when the Glorious Revolution comes, that they will be the ones in power. In reality, they will be the ones first put up against the wall and shot. And that will probably one of the few bright points for people like me, if such a future occurs.

  • Mike Devx

    I really thought geoffreybritian’s #4 comments were extremely well done, and I agree with nearly all of it.

    But,
    >> The Catholic Church (1.5B strong) seeks penance from modern-day Jews, not for Christ’s crucifixion but for the Jews ongoing denial of Jesus’ divinity…only Israel’s embrace of Jesus’ dictum of ‘turning the other cheek’ even if necessary onto racial suicide, can absolve them of their mortal ’sin’. >>

    Geoffrey, if you stand by this statement, then how do explain the Catholic Church’s, and apparently it’s 1.5B peoples, refusal to hold Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc, to the same standard? Do you believe that it is because Jews, being of our Old Testament, had the best chance to “upgrade” to the New Testament and did not do so?

    In other posts, various excellent commenters here have focused on the fact that liberals demand so much from Israel, solely because Israel is moral, and therefore moral demands can be made of them. They will make outrageous demands of America, and of Israel, but zero demands of anyone else, because no one else will listen to them.

    It’s hard to focus on hearing liberal moral arguments while you are sawing off a heretic’s head with your rusty Jihadi sword. Something about all that blood, the gag-muffled screams, and the hooded folk around you screaming blood-lust encouragement, keeps getting in the way.

  • Pingback: Longest. Linkaround. Evah. | The Anchoress()

  • Pingback: Right Truth()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Mike Devx

    Ymar,
    You ended your excellent #18 with:
    >> “So many maniacs share the same delusions” because they think that when the Glorious Revolution comes, that they will be the ones in power. In reality, they will be the ones first put up against the wall and shot. And that will probably one of the few bright points for people like me, if such a future occurs. >>

    Perhaps that explains why liberals mostly care not at all what is happening at various hot spots throughout the world. Their focus is entirely on gaining power to implement their utopia here at Home. All the inconsistencies in how they view America, Israel, etc, that we keep pointing out, are actually irrelevant.

    They believe in the U.N. because it fits their paradigm, but really, it is irrelevant as well, just a useful tool to keep the world ordered the way they want it ordered, while they accrue and keep power in their Utopia At Home.

    Accruing and keeping power in the Utopia At Home is the ONLY thing that matters to them.

  • Ymarsakar

    Because of America’s power and status, it is easier to delude Americans into thinking that nobody would be “stupid enough to invade America” than it is to convince the people of a smaller country such as say… Georgia of the same thing.

    This means that without the external threat weighing on people’s priorities, they are free to concentrate mostly or solely on domestic matters. And when the rewards of winning at domestic politics is a lot of cash and bribes to the Democrat winners, it gets even more important.

    Just look at what Obama is doing, and he ain’t even in office yet. He’s already trying to campaign for the bribes from the fedgov.

  • Pingback: Stop Overreacting at Stuff that Doesn’t Matter (And Care About the Stuff That Does)! | tolovehonorandvacuum.com()