Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Destroying the Old World


In the highly competitive world of wingnut pathopoeia, yesterday's iron-spined extremism can easily become today's Streisandian capitulation. There was a time when defending existing immigration laws with fancy-dress vigilantism might've been viewed as sufficiently patriotic. But it's strictly for accomodationist pussies now that Carl Braun of the California Minutemen has come out against legal immigration:

“By 2015 we will be a third world nation because of legal and illegal immigration,” Braun said. “We must stop both legal and illegal immigration or our nation as we know it will end.”
Braun made these remarks during "a dinner hosted by the Southeastern Tulare County Republican Women." I suspect that our nation as this group knows it is perennially doomed - thanks to its infestation with environazis, Wahhabist feminists, and leprosy-ridden Mexican pedophiles - and I doubt they'd want it any other way. It's a hatemongers' version of the Pleasure Economy.

Still, there's a good chance that this agreeable fantasy will end, like Peyton Farquhar's, with "a stunning blow upon the back of the neck." Not because predictions like Braun's will finally came to pass, but because they won't.

David Walker, the US comptroller general, also worries that we're turning into a third-world country:
Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.
The role of moral values and political civility in establishing a Raubwirtschaft seems to elude Walker...even though our best and brightest agree that invading Iraq was a moral duty, and are shocked when we use mildly obscene language to describe an unbearably obscene reality.

To each his own apocalypse, I suppose. Personally, I'm hoping our troubled nation will be destroyed by the alchemical conjunction of Islamofascism and pacifism (probably because the eerie parallels between these doctrines trigger fond memories of comic book ads for the Lincoln-Kennedy Penny):
Islam requires Jihad, which is the struggle to spread Islam all over the world. Pacifism requires struggle for Peace all over the world.
There's more evidence than that, of course. What were the Selma marches, if not a secular Hajj? Who was Gandhi, if not an upstart furriner swaddled ludicrously in grubby linen, just like Osama? And did you ever notice how the Amish and the Taliban are both compelled by a barbarous religion to grow beards?

I suppose it's defeatist to argue that people who are too opportunistic, paranoid, or stupid to distinguish between car bombers and pacifists, or legal and illegal border-crossing, aren't going to have much luck understanding our geopolitical problems, let alone solving them. But I can't help it. As long as I'm held fast in the succubus embrace of Islamofascipacifism, I may as well enjoy myself, as Diego Hurtado de Mendoza recommends:
Let us endeavor to anoint ourselves
With aromatic oil, and to crown our brows with garlands,
For we finally near our end.
(Illustration: "We not only excel at destroying the old world, we excel at building a new one." People's Republic of China, 1967.)

7 comments:

Joseph Dietrich said...

Somehow, I suspect David Walker only has a passing familiarity with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Probably the same passing familiarity that Mr. Braun has for American social and cultural history. Oh well, at least he didn't blame the Gauls and Alemani for sneaking across the borders and stealing all the jobs.

Toby Petzold said...

Phila:

the succubus embrace of Islamofascipacifism

How have you managed to trick yourself into dismissing dhimmitude? Have you convinced yourself that you know better than the rest of us and are above the need to advocate war against those who wish us, as Westerners, dead?

This present conflict is what replaced the struggle against Communism. It is necessary and you are not above it.

Phila said...

Have you convinced yourself that you know better than the rest of us and are above the need to advocate war against those who wish us, as Westerners, dead?

As usual, Tobes, you mistake my dismissal of idiotic theories about terrorism for dismissal of terrorism per se.

Contrary to what you enjoy believing, the fact that Islamic radicals want to kill Westerners doesn't make your theories on the matter plausible, let alone sane. No matter how badly "Islamofascists" want to kill us, people like you and the Baron remain delusional schmucks who are incapable of doing anything other than making a bad situation worse.

Once more, with feeling: I'm not dismissing terrorism, or the need to fight it. I'm dismissing the dreamworld blitherings of fools like you.

Please make a note of it.

Joseph Dietrich said...

If Islamic fundamentalists actually had the ability to impose "dhimmitude" on people, they would not have to resort to terrorism. By definition, terrorism is a tactic of the weak, of a movement that cannot go directly toe-to-toe with a population that is opposed to the movement.

So, to sum up: Terrorism from any group is a problem, but the idea that a terrorist group can actually conquer the world is, basically, retarded.

Phila said...

If Islamic fundamentalists actually had the ability to impose "dhimmitude" on people, they would not have to resort to terrorism. By definition, terrorism is a tactic of the weak, of a movement that cannot go directly toe-to-toe with a population that is opposed to the movement.

Good point. But of course, there's no glory in fighting a weak enemy (or prattling about fighting one, in Toby's case). Which is why questioning al-Qaeda's capabilities is unpatriotic, in some circles.

Of course, I'll be singing a different tune when they launch that EMP attack....

Toby Petzold said...

Besides the demands of fashion amongst your set, is there an actual reason why the term Islamofascism is illegitimate?

See, when you dismiss the term, one supposes that you also dismiss the thing itself.

Phila said...

Besides the demands of fashion amongst your set, is there an actual reason why the term Islamofascism is illegitimate?

Well, I view fascism as implacably statist and/or racist, which doesn't seem to fit Wahhabist Islam very well.

Also, the blanket term implies that there's a single ideological cause for violence committed in a variety of locales by a variety of groups, which is pointlessly reductive; it's only real purpose is to blur the distinction between religious and secular violence, and between legitimate and illegitimate grievances.

It's convenient for propaganda purposes, granted, but it makes it harder to address real-world problems, whether you're talking about addressing them through warfare or diplomacy or education or what have you. Which seems to me to be a high price to pay in order to provide cowardly layabouts like yourself with a unifying myth.

See, when you dismiss the term, one supposes that you also dismiss the thing itself.

One supposes this only if one is a dumbshit. I can dismiss the term "black criminality" without implying that blacks don't commit crimes, and I can dismiss the term "death tax" without implying that I'm in favor of kicking farm widows out of their homes and into the snow.

Again, you and your ilk believe that it's possible to "own" this issue, and that doing so makes you serious people. In reality, you're a gaggle of ineducable, mythomaniacal blunderers who pose an obstacle to dealing sensibly with this problem, and virtually every other problem we face.