US Radio "Mille Collines"

Conservatives and Republicans made the best of it, and refered to it by its funny name coined by Charles Krauthammer: BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. 

It wasn't the only form of political madness around, not by a long chalk. But it mostly amounted to variations on a single theme. 

Analysis after analysis and diagnosis after diagnosis tried to make sense of the phenomenon, which with hindsight, was nothing more than ordinary 'community organizing', or the art of agitation, provocation, intimidation and subversion. 

Yes, it could be diagnosed as projection and cognitive dissonance, but only on the part of the hapless followers. The campaign against Conservative talk radio hosts is a clear example of that.

But the instigators themselves are led by cold, political calculation. David Horowitz has recently put up a series of posts on the Alinsky strategy (links assembled in "The Postmodern War on Reality").

It should never have been tolerated. Enduring it, condoning it, is in fact trivializing it. Satire and ridicule can be deadly as political tools, but it takes quite a dramatic craftsman to apply it in the precise dosis and in effective proportions.

Some forms of demagogy have such serious consequences that there's only one way to deal with them: to call them by their proper names and expose them to the best disinfectant available: sunlight. That should have been done with the senseless, irresponsible ratcheting up of hatred that was poured out over the world and the two Bush administrations.

It was the American equivalent of Rwandan RTV "Libre des Milles Collines". RTLM completed its dirty work in one single year's time, whereas BDS lasted a full eight years (and counting). Will it remain without consequence, ya think?

Hatred is a terrible thing. If it is within the bounds of reason and is the result of something done to you, the best way to deal with it is to pray hard for the strength to forgive. Hatred and the wish for vengence have a nasty habit of turning against you.

If it is the result of a purposely irrational campaign of agitation - a simplified version of a Sorelian myth - it must be exposed for what it is to render it harmless. As it was, BDS induced hatred nestled in the hearts and souls of millions of people where it festers to this very day.

As Glenn Beck points out in the following footage, tolerating the ratcheting up of hatred has been doing the fight on the terms of the radical demagogues. Please help save civilization (really) and take time out for an hour or so, to sit down at ease and watch ...

... Glenn Beck explaining it, and laying out a plan how to fight it (link to entire Friday episode) - Hat Tip: Patriots Network - (N.B. All five Glenn Beck Specials live now... They will stay on the site until after the 9/12 March. The site will be down sometime this weekend. My hosting service is moving us to a different server.)

Let me explain again how the pomo agitation works. In large part it consists of their particular approach to linguistics, and how they apply it in order to make you comply with their ideology (yes, they're little pocket Hitlers).



For indepth understanding study this file on "Pomo Lingo" (note: it was originally titled "Neo Communism and Cultural Marxism" and is dated 27th December 2007 - well before Obama and his team of radicals ever came on the scene - this has been in the works for a very long time - you can watch the prehistory of political correctness here on a PJTV video).

Pomo name calling is all about intimidation - in fact there's nothing to be afraid of since it is precisely that ... tossing labels around. As Glenn said: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Read in "The O Team: Babies With Razors" how come there's literally no concept behind the hot air and empty rhetoric.

Related:

- The offical site of "The 9-12 Project"
- The unofficial 9-12 Project Fan site
- Press Release by Bond Action, a black group coming out in support of Glenn Beck's exposure of racism

- Filed in Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" - 

Obama, the President of Shoddy Philosophy?

After the Bush administrations' adoption of the extraordinary neocon idea that the spread of democracy would bring peace and prosperity to all - including the recalcitrantly authoritarian Middle East - opponents ended up vilifying not just everything about George W. Bush, but also both the policy and the principle of democracy itself. A typical case of throwing the baby with the bath water ...

But democracy, embodyment of the values of the Enlightenment, traditionally always has been a Liberal enterprise, not a Leftist one. Leftism (as well as Rightism) grew from a 17th and 18th century counter movement. Set aside those who rejected violent revolution on principle, like the Fabians, it was only after the many failed revolutions of the last century that Socialists took another look at their ideology and adopted the epithet Democratic (as in Social Democrats, and as opposed to 'authoritarian' Socialists).

Present Postmodernists are the ideological heirs of said counter movement. It is therefore no small wonder that the original, pre democratic roots are again moving center stage with the present occupier of the White House, who is the quintessential Postmodernist. Clever politicians as they are, they're sacrificing democracy on the ethical platform of "social justice". If nothing else, the scions of the Counter-Enlightenment always appear to be spreading their lethal ideals with the best of intentions.

Here you can read who have already been thrown under the post democratic Obama bus ... Six months into the pomo administration and the record is already quite impressive.

The new motto of foreign policy seems to be "transnational peace through friendship among potentates".

The only doubt benefiting Obama, is the question whether he truly harks back to basics, or if he is merely pushing the softer Postmodern option of ethical relativism ("who are we to meddle (in Iran), we - the West - don't have the monopoly on truth (democracy)" - or alternatively "absolute truth does not exist" - or alternatively "truth is merely a subjective construct".

The world may consider itself lucky if official policy is merely shoddy, accidental moral equivalence, or the inability to understand that the fulfilment of positive rights is the result of the state respecting negative rights. In other words, oppression (fear) and starvation are the result of a lack of freedom, always.

It's all explained in detail and with great clarity in ...

Commentary Magazine: "The Abandonment of Democracy", by Joshua Muravchik

The most surprising thing about the first half-year of Barack Obama’s presidency, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy. (...) The new president signaled his intent on the eve of his inauguration, when he told editors of the Washington Post that democracy was less important than “freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people aren’t secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, in opening testimony at her Senate confirmation hearings. As summed up by the Post’s Fred Hiatt, Clinton “invoked just about every conceivable goal but democracy promotion. Building alliances, fighting terror, stopping disease, promoting women’s rights, nurturing prosperity—but hardly a peep about elections, human rights, freedom, liberty or self-rule.” (...) The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has put out 30 public releases, so far, and not one of them has discussed democracy promotion. Democracy, it seems, is banished from the Obama administration’s public vocabulary. (...)  >>>

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" - 

Introduction to Dossier "Bus Line O" on the Road to Nowhere

It started with the evil Neocons' influence on the Bush I Administration and their policy after 9/11 to start 'exporting' democracy as a strategy in the fight against terrorism. After all, it's not democracies that produce violence, but despotic collectives to whom terror and coercion is part of the doctrine.

It must have taken an extraordinary amount of courage. This strategy is in fact what "the war in Iraq" was all about: liberating the country from Saddam's Baathist fascist regime - and the very, very long shot indeed - of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

In the long run it paid of as it always does ... at the price of blood, sweat and tears ... no thanks to the weasel white-flag raisers and the terror apologizers all over the Leftist world. But it's historical dividend that may well continue to pay of in many ways in the years to come.

The U-turn in Western public opinion against "egocentric cultural imperialism" has baffled many: how come liberals started jettisoning their hitterto absolute belief in democratic principles, women's rights, human rights, gay rights, equal rights, civil rights? Leftist intellectuals started issuing pamphlets to the effect that democracy is "actually very much overrated"; Feminists began to campaign for their Muslim sisters' "right to wear the hijab" and other baffling inconsistencies to boot.

Watch the latest shock and awe in PJTV's "InstaVision: Is Freedom Blossoming in the Middle East?", an interview of InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds with Joshua Muravchik, author of "The Next Founders, Voices of Democracy in the Middle East".

At first it looked like perhaps another accident of the dialectic, caused by the Left's habitual and often irrational embrace of the diametrically opposite position of the opponent, no matter if - as a result - you have to start supporting something totally outrageous (like the oppression of the oppressed)! As it turned out, in the final analysis it was something much more interesting than that.

The long and short of it was, the Left's moral compass had just made an inexplicable U-turn. Present blogger embarked on a fascinating quest involving ideological archeology and in the end found that on the philosophical level the Left's about turn was not as erratic as it looked at first glance.

A more accurate description of the postmodern Left - which includes many feminists, legions of environmentalists and 'identity' theorists, hosts of Third-World'ers, New Agers, Luddites and other fruit cakes - would really be "the Collectivist Left and Right". Like all true socialists, they are the heirs of the Counter-Enlightenment, and not - repeat not -  of the mainstream Enlightenment (Classical Liberalism), or of the Radical Enlightenment (free-thinkers, Deists, naturalists, materialists: hear Pat Condell in "Liberty be Damned" and you'll get a good idea of the difference).

The Counter-Enlightenment (also known as the anti Modernists, or the anti philosophes) was a reactionary movement, that acted on every level against the values of the Enlightenment: averse to reason (i.e. philosophy), against individualism, anti democracy and contra capitalism, more often than not with a phobia for technological advancement and a suspicion and distaste for civilization.

An excerpt from "Pomo's Inside-Out, Upside-Down World of Moral Inversion":

"(...)  commentators express their surprise of postmodernism ending up on a par with Nazi, Fascist or extreme Nationalist ideas, expressing their shock, shock at postmodernist involvement in Nazi scandals, or anti-philosophes suddenly spouting crypto fascist propaganda. Richard Wolin admits that the postmodern assault on reason familiarly rings of the standard European reactionary critique as traditionally expressed by the anti-modernists [Richard Wolin, "The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism", Princeton University Press, 2004, Introduction p. 12]. " Wolin builds a good case, to which results from recent research might also be added. Surprised? Not really. All such malignant forms of state collectivism are reducible to the usual suspects."

Over the last few years it has become quite apparent that the Left, having first usurped and then perverted Liberalism for it's own dark purposes, have now reverted to the original ideology of irrational collectivism at the very opposing end of the philosophical scale. A main tenet of that ideology is cultural relativism, or polylogism as described here. As so many of its toxic ideas, today we know it under an innocent sounding epithet with a corrupt definition: multiculturalism.

The new addition to Politeia Articles, dossier "Bus Line O" chronicles the ideological reversal. There's no need anymore to be surprised or outraged by Obama and his ilk hobnobbing with tyrants and petty potentates, in the process propelling the innocents and the oppressed under his poisonous postmodern bus.

Here's Alfonzo Rachel again and his great satire on the bus theme.

- Filed on Articles in dossier "Bus Line O" - 

Just What the World Needs: Another NGO, the G20

What's with this G20 summit last weekend in Washington? Who are the G20? The MSM as usual abdicated their duty - did what they do best: what they cannot spin or obfuscate, they bury.

Initial research learns that the G20 have emerged from the the Doha Trade Round, set up on the basis of a Brazilian initiative in the run-up to the Cancun Conference. Apart of the states making up the G8, G20 member states include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the EU and European Central Bank, and the NGOs IMF, the World Bank and their Development Committee.

With the notable exception of South Korea neither of these countries has a principled tradition of free market capitalism. All, until recently suffered, or are still bowing under the rule of theocrats, autocrats, dictators, a collective, or all of the above.

The Third World is slowly crawling on to the world stage, out of its largely self-imposed, poverty ridden, Marxism or theocracy driven lethargy. But swathes of Latin America are already in danger of regressing back into darkness, even before having fully emerged from it; Socialist as well as Islamic beginnings are simply antithetical to individual rights, the moral requirement for a fully functioning free-market democracy.

And then there's good, old chauvinist commie prop. The Heritage Foundation here reports on the PR stunt China pulled just ahead of the summit!

What can be expected of such a global, economic governing body? They cannot even be trusted to handle a trade round, let alone lead, run and reform the world's economic and financial system. How would they do that ... by committee, by revelation, or by decree?!

The situation is hardly better in the state of Europe, which is steadily desolving into a post-democratic, Hegelian Absolute. European states are challenging American leadership of the global economy, calling on President-Elect Obama to embrace Europe as America’s equal partner.

Soeren Kern on The Brussels Journal had this to say last week: "The idea behind this new man-to-man relationship with Washington was hatched by (surprise, surprise) France, which currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the reason for establishing an equal transatlantic partnership is that “the world has changed.”

Europe has suddenly realized that the United States “is not the only one concerned by the world’s problems. The European Union has become more resolute…. We don’t want to play a secondary role any more,” says Kouchner," who is an experienced NGO builder (founder Doctors Without Borders).

On the economy the French - as most Europeans - can be fully trusted to commit a coup of state against the private sector. Soeren Kern: "Self-regulation to solve all problems, it’s finished,” Sarkozy says. “Laissez-faire, it’s finished. The all-powerful market that is always right, it’s finished…. It is necessary then for the state to intervene.”

John Gizzi on Human Events goes as far as saying the G20 meeting was in effect Sarkozy's summit, clarifying "that the goal of the French President, was future international economic summits that include many more nations beside the traditional G8 industrial titans. His secondary goal was to assimilate discretionary bondholders (countries that hold U.S. debt) into the summits (...)

John Gizzi gives us the gist of what emerged from the summit: "(...) Sarkozy did get this long-stated desire of a "college of supervisors" for oversight of the books of major financial institutions operating across international borders. Moreover, the world leaders agreed that their systems would submit to periodic review by the International Monetary Fund (whose Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former French finance minister who was tapped for the IMF position by—you guessed it!—Nicolas Sarkozy).

A tougher line by ratings agencies on exhorbitant compensation for executives–either voluntary or regulatory—was called for in the final communiqué of the G20. Again, this was an issue doggedly pursued by Sarkozy.

With much of the actual work of the summit done behind closed doors, the media has had to rely on reports from anonymous sources on who said what to whom. Relying on such sources, the Washington Post pointed to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as one who was particularly opposed to Sarkozy’s calls for greater global regulation over markets in sovereign nations.

We are looking at an entire round of talks stretching well into the next year. Apart from the above, nothing much emerged from present summit while outgoing President Bush acted as a forceful buffer against the anti capitalist onslaught. But as postmodern President-Elect Obama joins the company of Argentina, China and the other card-carrying members of the Grizzly 20 collective, we will soon all be reminded of which cloth that philosophy is a cut.

Related:

- "Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!"

- Images - Hat Tip: Barbay Live



- Filed in "Transnational Bankruptcy" and "The Economics and Monetary Dossier" -

Communitarianism, Another Great Equalizer

We have received word from "Stop Common Purpose" that they have identified Barack Obama, not as a Socialist or as a Communist, but as a Communitarian. This statement may require further explanation.

First of all, let's jog our memory what is Common Purpose. In case of a total blank on the reader's part we can best refer you to our dossier on the subject. This nefarious, Sorosian fifth column - CP, for short - has its tentacles all over Britain where it is quietly subverting all walks of life without so much as a by your leave. It is rapidly expanding globally.

CP, rooted in the early history of mass psychology and in the British Labour Party, stands for a new, post-democratic, borderless world order, also known as Transnational Progressivism. Stop CP's home page and their page on CP's philosophy explain the matter in detail. This organization is beyond the Marxist/Fascist, Left/Right dichotomy. They are far worse: CP is Pragmatically collectivist and the collective is ... the world.

Those who assure themselves that all is well and that the New World Order is just a conspiracy theory pursued by unhinged paranoids can disabuse themselves of the illusion here and now by reading Glenn Beck's transcript of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent statements on the international financial crisis, which gives world leaders in his opinion an unique opportunity to establish the global society.

Oh, and before leaving the wonderful world of CP to 'act beyond authority', hi, Sarah Lambert, have a nice day!

Communitarianism is yet another amoral, Pragmatism driven hybrid of collectism that Europeans love to love. It may also be seen as a version of Tony Blair's and Bill Clinton's Third Way politics, but they're moderates in comparison to some highly 'ethical' interpretations (enjoy this tract, if your physique allows). Americans may also know it as radical centrism as advocated by the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni.

I'm not altogether sure, but I believe his ideas might have been partly triggered by the Neocon push for a democratic Middle East as an antidote to Islamic radicalism. Since then, we see memes entering the blood stream of "democracy, sooo overrated!" It would appear Etzioni is the man responsible for making enlightened dictatorships acceptable to polite society.

He counsels parley with Muslim 'Illiberal Moderates' (moderate, as in coercion of political correctness, rather than the violence of the bomb), appeasement at the expense of social liberties. Ladies, get your niqab out of the moth balls, because that's the Communitarian price to be left in peace!

- Caption: bronze, by Michael Wilkinson -

Barack Obama may be specifically attracted to the hybrid, because of its infestation with positive rights, the reliance on overgrown superstates, and its contempt of individualism. Whereas Stop CP may find the ideology hard to pin down, followers of Ayn Rand can make short shrift. Such hybrid ideologies are just a matter of evil in degrees, all variations on a single collectivist theme.

The core of this philosophy is, that individuals have a duty to subordinate to a society that, in this case, caters to racial and cultural factions (also known as multiculturalism). In case of dereliction of duty, society/ the state/ the collective may enforce the moral obligation. So the key question is, what form will this evil take, and to what degree will it be implemented? This of course, depends on the whim of the ones wielding the stick of power (asigned reading: News Busters: "Obama Spokesman Says 'Obama Ready to RULE on Day 1'").

Whatever name we want to give them, One Worlders, progressives, Socialists, Communitarians, neotots, they find creation - as it stands - a vile, imperfect place replete with social injustice, inequality and insustainability.

One of the most entrenched misunderstandings about Socialists is the equality principle. Most observers take their zeal for an egalitarian society as a signal of their holy belief in human equality. But the contrary is the case. No, to them all men aren't equal, but they ought to be. Hence the vigorous pursuit.

Confusing 'is' with 'ought' (Hume's Law) they'll never stop experimenting with people's lives, social engineering and cajoling human behavior until they've reshaped reality into an egalitarian Hobbotshire in which every hobbot voluntarily sacrifices to the organic, moral Whole.

The allegory of Plato's Cave is useful in more ways than one. You can see the mechanism explained in this home video. Plato and Kant are the originators of the Subjectivist fallacy that thought creates reality. They teach that the physiological world isn't real at all, but a product of our own projections. Their actual world is situated in some parallel universe. Knowledge of this true world is out of reach for us mere mortals, as Plato explains in his allegory of The Cave.

- Caption: Plato's Cave by Ken Stout, 2007, oil on panel -

But the story is not just useful in explaining Subjectivist philosophy. It is also indicative how they think they can pull the wool over people's eyes: not by debate on the basis of verifiable, objective information, but through shadows, smoke and mirrors: passions, constructed perceptions and vacuous projections of 'hope' and 'change'. Here's an exquisite animated version of The Cave.



- Files on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -

When Reason Fails (II): the Left's Narrative

Continued from Part I: Bush Derangement Syndrome

A number of polemics on the Bush legacy force postponement of the post on Obama Derangement Syndrome. Which is just as well, as it is somewhat of a precarious subject.

After the article linked in part I "The Party of Defeat's Top Five Lies about Iraq," Front Page Magazine author Ben Johnson has another compilation, "The Left's Fairy Tale," a shortlist of the main delusions the Dems and the Leftist world at large have convinced themselves of. Both articles are the subject of book which is co-authored by David Horowitz: "The Party of Defeat."

The 'narrative' of that fairy tale reads as follows:

“President Select” George W. Bush stole the 2000 election after his daddy’s Supreme Court justices stopped the Florida election boards from counting all the votes. When he got into office, he did not make terrorism a top priority but immediately began dividing the nation along political lines. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the entire country came together in unity to get those who perpetrated this atrocity, and we stayed united as we fought al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But soon Bush and his neocon allies took our eye off the ball and used the attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq based on lies. Administration officials pressured CIA analysts, twisted intelligence, and insisted Saddam Hussein was an “imminent threat” who had sponsored 9/11. Bush lied that Saddam had WMD stockpiles and invented a story about him trying to buy nuclear material in Niger. But there were never any WMDs; Iraq had no ties to terrorists at all, much less al-Qaeda; and our presence in Iraq is drawing these terrorists to Iraq. (The CIA did not misinform him, because it is an instrument of ruling class hegemony and probably puts manganese into the crack it sells in black neighborhoods, when it’s not blowing up levees in New Orleans. The administration’s perpetual campaign mode had them slur anyone who got in their way, questioning the patriotism of anyone who opposed the war and revealing Valerie Plame’s identity when Ambassador Joseph Wilson told the truth about them. Bush even declassified sensitive information in the NIE to punish his political enemies. Ultimately, a jury convicted Scooter Libby of fixing Iraq intel to get us into war. Our soldiers – who are too poor and uneducated to help getting stuck in Iraq – are caught in the middle of a civil war. Even though the American people overwhelming want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and voted for it in 2006, the cowardly Democrats keep passing funding bills and ignoring the will of the people. The Surge has failed, and our best option is to redeploy within six months, even if genocide follows.

Ann Coulter has excelled herself this week in "Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001." "In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised." I know the feeling ... the admission of a pro-Bush stand invariable triggers catatonic shock and disbelief. Nobody musters the critique of self for an introspection resulting in the question: why am I consumed with hatred for a man I do not even know? The answer might have revealed some pretty putrified psychic artefacts rotting away in the remoter crevices of the subconsciousness.

Blogger-psychologist Dr Sanity has explained the mechanism of projection like this: if you think of yourself as a nice, peaceful person (which all Leftists do since they are the party of 'ethics'), while actually you are full of wrath and hatred (this would be a typical blog dedicated to hatred), the psychological devise of projection as by miracle turns your opponent into someone who is full of wrath and hatred, the origin of BDS.

Update:

John Hawkins over on Townhall also explodes a few alternative truth stories in "Tackling Five Modern Myths Created by Liberals":

- Part I
- Part II

Update:

Pajamas: "Critical Times for Critical Thinking" - "(...) Hiatt — that page’s editor — made the mistake of actually quoting passages of this report, which claimed that a host of “lies” of which President Bush has been accused since 2003 were “substantiated by intelligence.” Vituperation and ad hominem attacks were left as commentary at the paper’s website, with calls for Hiatt’s immediate firing, for — apparently — his treason in quoting a report, written by a Democratic majority, that dared to depart from a narrative that has become conventional wisdom. (...) >>>

- Filed on Articles in "The Political Pathology Page" -

When Reason Fails (I): Bush Derangement Syndrome

Seldom has a president had so much opposition and bad press from the outset as George W. Bush. He never stood a chance against the onslaught of parlor tricks and other theatricals that the postmodern shop of rhetorical attributes has to offer. It was full throttle from day one: for just an example read "The Party of Defeat Top Five Lies About Iraq," by Ben Johnson on Front Page ... read it all!

The world - not all of it, but a very vocal part - was determined from the get go to trash and ditch the man. Some have axes to grind, but the main reason? Of course they didn't need an excuse, but the truth is, he wasn't a member of the Democratic Party, but a Republican ... and in Their White House!

Europeans - even the thinking, 'Right' part, have bought the propaganda that the Democrats are conservative enough for their standards, and that Republicans are a rabidly reactionary bunch of religious morbids. They even think slavery was abolished by the Democrats (they're the good guys, aren't they?).

They needed no excuse but on top of that, W. owns a ranch in Texas (a bowboy in the White House), he's no natural orator (dim), he's plain speaking (crude), is a Christian (a religious maniac, possibly insane), and a man of action (a war-monger): any characteristic can be turned into a negative if taken to extremes. This rhetorical trick is the postmodernist's specialty: raising straw-men, making caricatures, switching contexts.

Ronald Reagan met the same fate in Europe. He didn't have a paradigm shattering terrorist attack on his hands, so the histrionics were limited to the stationing of cruise missiles. Of course the vocals would rather have the Soviets over - ostensibly rather not 'provoke' them - what else is new with the habitual traitors.

Examples in the Eurotrash press abound, but here's a typical article in last night's Der Spiegel from Germany: "THE COWBOY AND HIS SUNSET," subtitled "Europe Happy to See the Back of Bush" - well, not in my name, you don't!

The innuendo from Orwell's Press from Hell in the meanwhile continues. Take this morning's article by the fallen BBC: "BBC Uncovers Lost Iraq Billions": the accusations are hurled in hyperbole, but nowhere are they substantiated. To legitimize the story the BBC come up with one example. We may never hear of it again, no retractions, no apologies, but the mud sticks.

This is how you trash a subject. Quite a bit of what is going on in that department is compiled on Articles in the dossiers "The Demise of the Press from Hell," "Big Bro's Smoke and Mirrors," and in the series of posts "Blurring the Border between Reality and Perception."

Times Online had an exclusive interview with the Number One Cowboy: "President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war." W. doesn't go any further than expressing regret for some of the rhetoric, and rightly so. I agree with commenter Steven from London: "History will be kind to George Bush because expectations of him were so low yet the actual positive results will last for generations. Al-Qaeda almost destroyed. Afghanistan mainly pacified. Installing the first Arab democracy in Iraq. All necessary. A truly decent and remarkable man."

The same psychological mechanism that causes all rational faculties to break down is responsible for the exact opposite, in the case of B. Barack Hussein Obama. Not only is there no healthy scrutiny into the man's past or present At All, the adoration (in which he shares!) is reaching truly disquieting levels.

- Continued in Part II: "The Left's Narrative" -

- Filed on Articles in "The Political Pathology Page" -

The True Name and Mission of Obamessiah

Bit by bit snippets of the real B. Barack Obama alias Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama are emerging from a well-covered past. Pieces of facts about the new 'American' cult figure are finding their way through the global pipe-line. Trickles at first, now the promise of a torrent!

It was about time some serious questions were asked of who seems to be, the Dems last remaining candidate. The blind admiration of an adoring public is regrettably a common feature elsewhere in the world - specifically in the less enlightened regions - but it is not becoming a country based on Lockean ideals, arguably the most important nation in the world (to the envy and chagrin of the aforementioned).

- Caption: Hat Tip "The People's Cube" -

The author of the essay "Obama's Character and the Kenya Association," Jerry Max Bunyard has made it his mission to inform the American public in an honest way about the Postmodern candidate. And - thanks to Christian ethics - he does so in a fairer way than the candidate probably deserves. Regarding the latter, the term 'taqqiyah' springs to mind.

In the eyes of quite a few the author's background disqualifies him and his findings in advance. No matter. Reasonable objectivity being lost on the postmodern Dems, whatever the critique or whoever the opponent, he is up front suspect and put away as a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. We live in sad times; there is no place for grown-ups on the play-ground of public debate.

It is no use debating or even trying to talk to those inflicted by the debilitating psychopathy of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), so let's not. President of the United States of America is the world's top job, full stop. Although progressive academia have already thrown his presidency on the scrapheap of history - it would have been a surprise if they hadn't - it remains to be seen how the Bush tenancy will be judged from the respective of long-term history.

- Caption: Obama and Odinga - Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs -

Given the circumstances it is safe to assume that the information will be wasted on those who need it most. There's no known cure for BDS. That said, since the esteemed MSM are well-steeped in postmodern subjectivism, it is up to the blegophere to keep the information going.

Thanks to all who work so hard to keep the lights on. Sit tight for the true name and mission of Obamessiah. The hors d'oeuvre is served to you by Snopes of Kenya, desert by WaPo's "Obama As You've Never Known Him" (Hat Tip: Armiger Cromwell Center). Here's the link to "Obama's Character and the Kenya Association."

Of course you can find all posts and articles compiled on the Articles dossier.

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo White House" -

Bushisms for the Hard of Hearing

Hat tip: "American Digest" - original link

The Vacuity of Leftist Ethics

Understanding Leftist ethics takes some doing. Take this sample harvested from this week's news-crop:

CNN: "Pelosi calls on Bush to boycott Olympic opening ceremonies"

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should consider boycotting the opening ceremony of the Olympics Games in Beijing this summer to protest China's human rights record. (...)" >>>

Dear Nancy, so sensitive when it comes to human rights (or any rights) and vile tyrants who violate them. So the President is called upon to take the moral high-ground in the matter of the China Olympics and rather gratuitously boycott the opening ceremony.

Nancy herself would never give dictators credibility, provide them with a soap-box, or make them look respectable negotiating partners ... or would she?

Key to understanding this inconsistent behavior is the principle of the Marxist dialectic. Policy is dictated by whatever course of action hurts capitalism or the 'power structure' the most.

Both cases (Syria and China) have nothing to do with morals, the violation of human rights, the Middle East peace process, or hobnobbing with the Shi'ite godfathers of terror. In both cases the goal is that the prestige of the Bush administration suffers.

So, what might seem erratic behavior to objective thinkers, is actually perfectly consistent by the subjectivist book, if not a little hypocritical.