I feel that I should say something about the Cartoon Jihad, but it’s an uphill struggle. Partially, that’s because I’m having trouble dealing with the whole concept. What is it with all those dhimmis ostentatiously agonising over the need for cartooning to be done ‘responsibly’ ? Do we need a Caricature Czar ? Annual police inspections of licensed cartoonists ? Remember, when easels are outlawed only outlaws will have easels.
But let’s not even talk about that. It’s not about cartoons anyway. It’s about the fact that 5% of the public are demanding that everyone else abide by the rules of their cult, and the Left is treating them as though that’s perfectly reasonable.
As for the rest, all the good points are already taken. Steve notes Fleet Street’s channelling of brave, brave Sir Robin. Personally, I’m not surprised. For all the sub-Lois Lane posturing, the average journalist demonstrates the raw physical and moral courage of a mop head.
Indeed, the L3 have been proving all that yoga does come in useful by twisting into Curly-Whirly patterns trying to explain why the Jerry Springer: The Opera is daring social comment but drawing a picture of the paedo prophet isn’t. Or for that matter why cartoons of baby-eating Jews are OK, but caricaturing psycho mass murders isn’t (mind you, the Jew haters do have to deal ‘a flood of correspondence’ so there are fanatics on both sides.
Laban and DFH are there to catch every twist and turn. Reading through their stuff is a shock to the system. Liberals behaving like snivelling, two-faced dhimmi weasels – you could have knocked me down with a feather.
Of course, there’s more to it than just the basic worthlessness of the Liberal. There’s also the deeper worthlessness of the Liberal. Obviously, there’s a certain superficial weirdness in seeing someone like Richard ‘religion is the root of all evil’ Dawkins apparently A-OK with his daily newspaper being edited by the Islamopaths, but it’s not really that surprising. For all that Dawkins criticises ‘religion’, 90% of his rhetoric is aimed squarely at one particular religion in one part of the world. Equally, as I’ve said before, all that talk of the dangers of creeping theocracy isn’t motivated by any particular belief in liberty, quite the opposite. Behind a thin layer of post-enlightenment posturing, there’s a really nasty core of totalitarianism.
Liberalism’s defining characteristics are hatred of the West and a weakness for totalitarian ideology, yet somehow they’ve managed to find common ground with the Islamopaths. It’s tempting to call this a Nazi-Soviet pact for our time, but the analogies between these two ideologies are much deeper than that. Both Islam and Liberalism are what scientists call ‘really whiny, loser ideologies’.
Whether they’re ascribing everything to society or to the will of Allah, they’re all just passive, prissy whiners. Even they can see that capitalism beats their systems hollow, hence the sudden desire to conjure up alternative metrics of success. America might be rich but it’s bad for the environment, or it’s full of immorality (i.e. even proles can afford cars and women can walk unveiled). Yada, yada, yada.
True, the L3 and Islamopaths have a few disagreements. Take homosexuality. Islamopaths think it should be a capital offence, Liberals think it should be compulsory, but this is just a minor disagreement. The bottom line – as it were – is that both take approaches that are opposed to the principles and traditions of Western Civilisation.
Both Liberalism and Islamopathy are based in a basic hatred of life. At least the Islamopaths are more honest about it. They could hardly not be with an ideology called ‘submission’. So give yourself over to the Paedo Prophet because you’re nothing, just a drone, a speck of dust. Hence why the defining characteristic of Islam-infected societies is stagnation.
Liberals are more cunning in their hatred of life. Instead of a full frontal assault, they prefer to wage the Culture War. That’s why they like to present misery as somehow valuable life experience, while success is treated as a priori grounds for suspicion. Look at how television is so in love with supposedly ‘gritty’ dramas in which crack-addled hookers are presented as Robin Hoods, while whenever a businessmen is portrayed he’s force-feeding his worker’s nuclear waste while smoking huge cigars. Look at the cult of equality in education. For all the talk of helping the kids make best use of their talents, even a superficial analysis of the actual policies employed makes it quite obvious that the opposite objective is more likely. Or look at politics and the way Liberals use PC to choke the life out of debate. Und so weiter…..
Liberalism and Islamopathy are the ideologies of choice for ineffectual losers across the world. Both offer not only the opportunity for vengeance against everyone who isn’t a worthless waster, but moral justification for doing so. Call them unholy, claim Allah wouldn’t like it, say they’re harming the environment or generating social division, whatever. Islamopaths aren’t shooting people because there’s a strong case for Islam and Liberals don't support PC because their arguments stand up to scrutiny.
All of which is by way of saying that the best response is to do the one thing that sends Liberals and Islamopaths most round the bend: tell the truth about them. Both groups score highly on the Outrageometer, but only because that’s all they have left. The facts are not on their side.
But let’s not even talk about that. It’s not about cartoons anyway. It’s about the fact that 5% of the public are demanding that everyone else abide by the rules of their cult, and the Left is treating them as though that’s perfectly reasonable.
As for the rest, all the good points are already taken. Steve notes Fleet Street’s channelling of brave, brave Sir Robin. Personally, I’m not surprised. For all the sub-Lois Lane posturing, the average journalist demonstrates the raw physical and moral courage of a mop head.
Indeed, the L3 have been proving all that yoga does come in useful by twisting into Curly-Whirly patterns trying to explain why the Jerry Springer: The Opera is daring social comment but drawing a picture of the paedo prophet isn’t. Or for that matter why cartoons of baby-eating Jews are OK, but caricaturing psycho mass murders isn’t (mind you, the Jew haters do have to deal ‘a flood of correspondence’ so there are fanatics on both sides.
Laban and DFH are there to catch every twist and turn. Reading through their stuff is a shock to the system. Liberals behaving like snivelling, two-faced dhimmi weasels – you could have knocked me down with a feather.
Of course, there’s more to it than just the basic worthlessness of the Liberal. There’s also the deeper worthlessness of the Liberal. Obviously, there’s a certain superficial weirdness in seeing someone like Richard ‘religion is the root of all evil’ Dawkins apparently A-OK with his daily newspaper being edited by the Islamopaths, but it’s not really that surprising. For all that Dawkins criticises ‘religion’, 90% of his rhetoric is aimed squarely at one particular religion in one part of the world. Equally, as I’ve said before, all that talk of the dangers of creeping theocracy isn’t motivated by any particular belief in liberty, quite the opposite. Behind a thin layer of post-enlightenment posturing, there’s a really nasty core of totalitarianism.
Liberalism’s defining characteristics are hatred of the West and a weakness for totalitarian ideology, yet somehow they’ve managed to find common ground with the Islamopaths. It’s tempting to call this a Nazi-Soviet pact for our time, but the analogies between these two ideologies are much deeper than that. Both Islam and Liberalism are what scientists call ‘really whiny, loser ideologies’.
Whether they’re ascribing everything to society or to the will of Allah, they’re all just passive, prissy whiners. Even they can see that capitalism beats their systems hollow, hence the sudden desire to conjure up alternative metrics of success. America might be rich but it’s bad for the environment, or it’s full of immorality (i.e. even proles can afford cars and women can walk unveiled). Yada, yada, yada.
True, the L3 and Islamopaths have a few disagreements. Take homosexuality. Islamopaths think it should be a capital offence, Liberals think it should be compulsory, but this is just a minor disagreement. The bottom line – as it were – is that both take approaches that are opposed to the principles and traditions of Western Civilisation.
Both Liberalism and Islamopathy are based in a basic hatred of life. At least the Islamopaths are more honest about it. They could hardly not be with an ideology called ‘submission’. So give yourself over to the Paedo Prophet because you’re nothing, just a drone, a speck of dust. Hence why the defining characteristic of Islam-infected societies is stagnation.
Liberals are more cunning in their hatred of life. Instead of a full frontal assault, they prefer to wage the Culture War. That’s why they like to present misery as somehow valuable life experience, while success is treated as a priori grounds for suspicion. Look at how television is so in love with supposedly ‘gritty’ dramas in which crack-addled hookers are presented as Robin Hoods, while whenever a businessmen is portrayed he’s force-feeding his worker’s nuclear waste while smoking huge cigars. Look at the cult of equality in education. For all the talk of helping the kids make best use of their talents, even a superficial analysis of the actual policies employed makes it quite obvious that the opposite objective is more likely. Or look at politics and the way Liberals use PC to choke the life out of debate. Und so weiter…..
Liberalism and Islamopathy are the ideologies of choice for ineffectual losers across the world. Both offer not only the opportunity for vengeance against everyone who isn’t a worthless waster, but moral justification for doing so. Call them unholy, claim Allah wouldn’t like it, say they’re harming the environment or generating social division, whatever. Islamopaths aren’t shooting people because there’s a strong case for Islam and Liberals don't support PC because their arguments stand up to scrutiny.
All of which is by way of saying that the best response is to do the one thing that sends Liberals and Islamopaths most round the bend: tell the truth about them. Both groups score highly on the Outrageometer, but only because that’s all they have left. The facts are not on their side.
No comments:
Post a Comment