Posted on 11/30/2001 3:42:57 AM PST by Israel
To end the so-called terrorism, it appears that Mohammedism must be recognized, thoroughly understood, confronted, and thoroughly discredited for what it is. If it can not be walled in and left to rot in its own excrement, it must be expunged from the face of the earth in self defense.
Within that context, the present military action in Afghanistan against the Taliban and against bin Laden, or an equivalent, while necessary, should be viewed as producing no long term expectations and is irrelevant over the long term if the declared limited objectives be truthful rather than temporary deception designed to allow successive defeat of other Islamic strongholds in turn. The Mohammedan threat should be considered diffuse, expansive, unpredictable, and as long term as the continued existence of the religion.
This is a field of thought George Bush is freed from negotiating in pursuing his narrow present analysis and course of action, assuming it is not deception as part of a long term plan.
Islam and liberalism/leftism have much in common. They are both multiplexed quasi-psychoses. Liberalism/leftism is a little more complex than Mohammadism in that it is to greater extent a pathological secondary expression of a deeper pathology.
But, in both instances when either system acquires sufficient power, profession of faith and rigid adherence becomes not a freely chosen option, but an enforced requirement subject to review. Inculcation of belief is to be absolute with censorship of any refuting alternative or evidence. Both are paranoid in the sense of inappropriately blaming the outside world for consequences instead of blaming their own deficiencies. Both groups seem to have an impelling heavy investment in destructive sexuality and poverty of male-female relationships that seem to emotionally fuel their movement. Both aggressively attempt to impose their systems on the world. In both systems doctrine blinds adherents to logic or rationality. In the case of liberalism/leftism, political correctness increasingly condemns rationality as an arbitrary punitive artifact imposed by European culture. Thus, in liberalism there is a important domestic, and international, war paralleling the war with Mohammedism.
Like Islam, liberalism/leftism is on a jihad. The jihad is conducted by persuasion when possible, by censorship and lies as a matter of habit, by subversion as a matter of strategy, and by terrorism and killing when sufficient position is acquired to employ it.
The Islamic terrorist acts and military campaign have been a diversion from political reality. After all, who can think about personal rights, legal issues, constitutional issues at a time like this? For those who are incapable of analyzing such issues, this diversion is a source of relief and celebration as it releases them from necessity of depth and competence. For those who would rather see such areas unexamined, as in not confronted, cause for celebration is at least equal. Crisis is too easily exploited to become an excuse to impose obedience and servitude out of declared necessity which persist to become a draconian plague after the crisis has ended.
In the case of Bush senior the contentlessness of his presidency became obscured by the Gulf War. But his detached contentlessness resulted in the festering continuation of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It also enabled Ruby Ridge and the beginning of Waco occurring on his watch. While his election defeat was primarily due to abysmal economic recession that obscured other issues, there was serious trouble brewing in other areas.
Like his father before him, George Bush may be under the mistaken belief that bombing some ragheads fulfills the minimum adult requirement for a successful presidency. While it may produce a surge in popularity, it's not enough to hold a free country together for very long with integrity or rationality. Rather than supporting war, and it doesn't create any distinct long term direction. It's not the real work that needs to be done.
What I see are serious short term economic problems without indication of understanding or explanation of their nature. What I see are political groups positioning to exploit those problems so as to impose a system of authoritarian social servitude. There is a crisis in legal conceptualization. There is an erosion of constitutional principle and intent. There is a loss of public representation in government concomitant with a fundamental control and direction of government remaining in an powerful untouchable leftist countercultural element. (I notice, for example, the California government has refused to enforce or otherwise act upon an anti-affirmative action referendum passed by the voters. Democracy, the voice of the people, and mandates are theatrically described in high esteem unless they contradict liberalism, in which case they are overturned.) There is an educational system that has become little else but a tool for uncontested subversion. There is long term deterioration of the American economic infrastructure. (This deterioration is theoretically welcomed by Marxists and para-Marxists to bring the American economic condition down into parity with that of other world nations.) There is progressive enforcement of servitude to expanding irresponsibility. I see international elements arguing in the United Nations and elsewhere that the United States uses a disproportionate share of the earth's resources and has a disproportionate share of the world's wealth while I'm hearing no rebuttal for such statements. There is widespread demand for economic equality regardless of effort or behavior, with intention to use taxation to guarantee it.
If you don't understand this, you don't know anything. How these areas are addressed will determine the American historical future, the world historical future, and the future condition of mankind. Make no mistake about it, if these, and parallel, areas are not addressed as an immediate primary order of business, no matter what people think is happening, no matter what appears to be happening, no matter what people wish were happening, no matter what temporary highs are achieved by military conflicts, the American nation will collapse from a combination of internal conditions and forces.
I don't see present discussion of this anywhere. George Bush is not an aggressive sound advocate and teacher needed to address any of these important areas. This deficiency is neither a novelty nor an artifact of sudden preoccupation with international problems. There was no discussion of it during the presidential campaign. These are considerations of which previous study are requirements for a serious presidential candidate.
It is being said that George Bush has grown into the job of president. This evaluation is being made on his facing the challenge of Middle Eastern terrorism and some speeches. But Bush's actions and speeches were simple straightforward responses predetermined by the situation, requiring no great insight. Within the boundaries of sanity, they could not have been other than what they were. In fact, Islamic terrorists are primarily responsible for determining much of the observed content of the Bush presidency, not in the sense of collaboration, but in the sense of defining and forcing the direction of all actions and presidential statements. Beneath that there exists a conceptual vacuum that the political and countercultural left continues to fill and dominate ideologically or intellectually uncontested. It is this vacuum that is destroying the American nation.
Have there been any defining statements or principles? Have there been any binding assurances of anything? Beneath it all we are still not far from where we were when the federal agents ambushed the Weavers. Is there any more long term reason to trust the government now than there was at Waco? No. And that's no real change at all.
Let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose, as a law enforcement official, you needed to question a man. Suppose you could easily do it by approaching him on the street he was known to frequent. On the other hand, suppose you could do it by conducting a four-month long attack and siege with heavy military equipment and a small army in which people were likely to get killed. Which would be the most professional and the most reasonable choice? If the answer isn't clear, the reader is in desperate need of long term psychiatry.
Having, hopefully, answered that hypothetical, How can the lunatic massive operation seen at Waco be justified or be acceptable?
Why has Waco not been labeled a terrorist act? The reason is, nobody, or few people, have publicly done so and attempted to make it stick. A campaign against terrorism should have begun after Waco. I'm prepared to argue that, however inept or neurotically attributed, that's what Timothy McVeigh's actions were.
A horde of government kooks with tanks and armed helicopters way off the reservation and licensed to kill, unnecessarily surrounding people who hadn't really done anything, worries me a hell of a lot more than some foreign goofs flying airplanes into buildings. At least there is proper labeling of the foreign goofs as criminals and subsequent determination to do something to put an end to it. But the domestic problem has remained uncontested, making it an acceptable precedent subject to resurgence, continuation, or expansion without recourse other than popular armed revolt, which is then mislabeled terrorism instead of counterterrorism.
In the serious no-spin, no-bullshit world, Waco was an act of intolerable domestic terrorism not so different than the Arab hijackers running planes into the World Trade Center. Waco was comitted off by a bunch of self-programmed killer psychotics who were no better than those hijackers and who are still on the loose and dangerous today. That's the raw truth.
Government agencies such as the FBI are supposed to DEFEND American citizens from such actions, NOT COMMIT OR AID such actions. Thirty-five years ago when the FBI was the FBI instead of the corrupt mess it has become, the FBI might have challenged such actions or looked at people planning such actions as dangerous subversives. Now American citizens are left with nobody to trust, nobody to go to for help, and are forced to use their own resources to protect themselves. If you have the power, you can then mislabel them terrorists and kill them for doing so.
Why have these truths not been prominently heard and accepted? The truth has been confounded with, and forbidden by, horrifying pictures of dead children being carried from the day care center at the Oklahoma bombing. Important distinctions have been lost or obscured. The deaths of those children was not planned, foreseen, intended, or desired, and don't change the acts of earlier wanton criminality that had to be addressed. The truth unexpressed long enough begins to sound too strange and radical to be acceptable. Serious thought about the issue is alien and unsupported.
Last night I saw the latest Steven Seagal movie, Exit Wounds. Steven Seagal movies are a mistake I won't repeat. The movie begins with the Vice President of the United States making an impassioned speech for gun control. After the speech the vice president's motorcade is ambushed by people posing as uniformed police officers, by helicopters armed with machine guns, by armored vans, and God knows what else. Seagal wipes them all out in five minutes. Who are these people? They are a "Michigan militant group." That's "militant," not militia. But it comes off as militia and means the same thing. Get the message? There are omnipresent political digs.
From the standpoint of public image and impact, it might as well have been presented as TV news. That's the typical presentation on the American political-cultural scene. Advocating constitutional rights is twisted into being a lunatic plot. We're getting beat to death by fiction which becomes a massive pool of subjective reality and unconscious image. It's nearly impossible to fight.
We live under one of the most distorted systems of propaganda and censorship in world history. A serious problem in attempting to correct it is that the system is nearly entirely voluntarily maintained by critically positioned mentality within the culture and its institutions rather than being imposed by government. Complaint about it, therefore, is legitimately labeled as imposition upon the right to free speech. It's ironic that when madness is dominant, that dominance has a constitutional right not to present any information contradicting it. The people presenting madness also have a constitutional right to resist attempts to force them to present desperately needed reasonable refutation.
So we are facing a continuing climate of vilification and mischaracterization of anyone not to the extreme political left that is acted upon in fiction and fantasies. There is nearly nothing standing in the way of it being acted upon in real life as it has been in the past.
When this latest foreign war is over, what do we have? We're in the same position we were in the early 90s?and perhaps a little worse.
What exists is a subversive disease that proceeds to plateaus, consolidates those plateaus and habituates the population, then further expands to new plateaus. There has been neither critical acknowledgement that the disease exists nor of the need for a reversal of it. The disease is establishing a right to kill. Who's next?
It's going to require that people become compliant zombies to adapt to what is happening. Is that what we are to become?
The American nation can't survive much more of this. FIN EPILOGUE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.