Those who have been using their wits lately, may have noticed the gaping discrepancy between the soft-spoken utterings of postmodern, relativist politicians, and their actions with regard to the situation in the less free parts of the globe. In fact, it's hard to miss unless you're rather partial to their pacifistic diplomatic overtures, much reminiscent of "peace in our time".
Since the fallacy of relativism always causes them to balance the merits of the one party - say the blessings inherent in Islamofascist theocracy, with the insidious failings in another - say western liberal democracy, it is very, very hard for them to publicly favor one system over another. Both are equally valid in their own right, you see - morally as well as culturally.
Welcome to the "under the bus" phenomenon.
So, if you happen to be rotting away in an Iranian prison cell, or slowly starving to death in the North Korean black hole, don't wait for them to take any action on your behalf: their sympathies happen to be with the oppressors who stand symbol for such systems.
If you are a Muslim woman hankering for the freedom to call your destiny your own, don't wait for these pomo politicians to help set you free, because they will ceaselessly tire for your right to wear the symbols of oppression.
While the West voted for HopenChange and the victims get deposited under the bus, the much demonized outgoing American administration was refusing them succour and funnelled money to finance democratic revolutions!
Listen to the utter irony locked up in this piece of deluded collectivism.
Update:
The Washington Times is also on the case. Be prepared to see a lot of this mechanism in the coming years. We'll end up with more people under the Obama Bus, than on it ...
- "Iranian Clerical Opposition Forming"
- "Stand for Iranian freedom - Is Obama surrending America's leadership of the free world?"
(...) American dithering radiates weakness and indecisiveness. It tells the Iranian regime that the United States is so eager to make a deal that it will not even defend its principles. The crisis seems to be an inconvenience that risks delaying the implementation of the vaunted "engagement" plan. The administration would like to see this messy situation go away so the stately process of diplomacy can continue its march, unburdened by annoying freedom seekers with their banners, their chanting and their ideals. (...) >>>
Picked up on Twitter: photos of trashed dorms.
Overheard on Dutch public radio: an Iranian exile and reporter assuring the listener that many Iranians still believe in Ahmadinejad ... in other words: not so fast in supporting the revolution just yet. And believe it or not, a show host calling for ... some objectivity! Such is the measure of moral relativism.
- Filed on Articles in "Bus Line 0" -
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Open Letter from Delusional Iranian Artists in Exile
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I'm a bit confused by your commentary. Can you perhaps illustrate the "irony" you found in this video?
When I watch it, I don't see irony, I see hope. A hope that comes from the common people taking action to try to improve their political situation. Will it be effective? Maybe. Maybe not.
It seems like you are commenting on two different topics: the lack of official action on the US's part (which seems to be the only sane thing to do, politically), and some piece of pro-revolt rhetoric on youtube.
What I fail to see is how the two points connect -- can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make?
The irony lies therein that in the video the narrator vilifies the Bush administration who are said to have funded this revolt. He is lauding the Obama election, who aren't lifting a finger on behalf of the victims of the regime. In fact, they're legitimizing it by their willingness to talk to them.
Hang on. Are you claiming that the Bush administration funded this revolt? Because I don't find such a claim in the video you posted.
If so, do you have some evidence to back up that claim?
I'm not sure what you expect the Obama administration to do. Do you want the US to interfere in a civil revolt inside another country's territory? What kind of people would we be if we did that?
The last time we tried something like that, remember, we were condemned both from within our own country, and by the rest of the world as well. It is that sort of practice that reinforces stereotypes of the West that are prevalent in the Middle East, and promote the sort hatred of the US that gives birth to terrorism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSB65580520080629
"It tells the Iranian regime that the United States is so eager to make a deal that it will not even defend its principles."
Its external organs always have been willing to sleep with strange bedfellows though.
Post a Comment