Category Archives: Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

The "Real Rush" Joins The Blogoshpere

Celebrity, Communism, Film, Hollywood, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Pop-Culture

My good friend and WND colleague Erik Rush has joined the blogosphere. Erik is the author of the column titled, “The Other Rush.” But he’s the “Real Rush” to me. Erik’s is a great-looking blog. I’m looking forward to checking it out daily.

Beings super squeamish, however, I almost fainted at the image Erik has posted of a Hollywood celebrity undergoing the mandatory commie programming. From the spouse this photo will elicit the kind of laughter he lets out when we’re watching one of our a favorite programs, “1000 Ways to Die.” (Mr. Rush likes it too.)

Or “Thinning The Herd,” as we call it. (You just know that the writers and editors of “1000 Ways to Die” would have adopted that title, but there’s just so much these good folks can get away with.)

Alas, as fabulously brutal and graphic as Erik has been in “Why Entertainers Go Left: The Real Story,” I’m less inclined to the school of thought that holds liberalism to be a mental disorder, or a condition developed under duress. Sadly, because it has such strong emotional appeal—the masses seem to experience a rush at the ideas of collectivization and confiscation—left-liberalism is probably the default position of humanity. A hostility to reason and reality guarantees liberalism’s top-dog position in political philosophy. This, of course, relates strongly to intelligence, but, dammit Erik, that’s too much to brood over on the Sabbath.

I strongly recommend Erik’s important new book, with this unbeatable title: “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” When I catch my breath, I will treat you to a Mercer Interview (click the Interview Category in the Search Window for a sample) with Erik about “Negrophilia.”

UPDATE VIII: Lessons About Wicked TSA Appied To WikiLeaks (Patriotism Or Statism?)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Free Speech, Intelligence, Journalism, Just War, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Military, Propaganda, Republicans, The State, War

You’ve already been designated a terrorist at the nation’s federally controlled airports. As you go about your business, trying to make a living, and pursuing familial and professional contacts around the world—you ought to have an inkling, by now, of what being at the mercy of this accreting evil is all about. I hope you are able to extend these lessons and sensibilities to the persecution of an admittedly far more courageous opponent of the Federal Frankenstein than you and I: Julian Assange, proprietor of WikiLeaks.

First up, here are my reservations about hailing Assange as a folk hero: I suspect that Assange’s opposition to the oppressive impetus of the American state is reserved for causes dear to the Left. Witness the posting by Assange’s WikiLeaks, on 18 November of 2008, the name, address, age and occupation of many of the 13,500 members of the rightist British National Party. This is a wee bit of a give-away. Does he not respect this small group’s rights to live unmolested? Apparently not.

UPDATE II: WikiLeaks was, likewise, nowhere to be found when the Climagedon emails were exposed.

The fascist Fox News is leading its reports on the latest leaks with headlines calling to “designate WikiLeaks a ‘foreign terrorist organization.'”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seconded the sentiment: “Leaks ‘tear at fabric’ of government,'” she lamented. Good.

Let me focus the story for you. Far more serious than the gossipy prattle among diplomats about Iran, revealed in the 250,000 classified State Department documents, leaked on Monday, are the exhortations issued at Foggy Bottom to SPY ON THE WORLD:

The leaks cited American memos encouraging U.S. diplomats at the United Nations to collect detailed data about the U.N. secretary-general, his team and foreign diplomats — going beyond what is considered the normal run of information-gathering expected in diplomatic circles.
Le Monde said a memo asked U.S. diplomats to collect basic contact information about U.N. officials that included Internet passwords, credit card numbers and frequent flyer numbers. They were also asked to obtain fingerprints, ID photos, DNA and iris scans of people of interest to the United States, Le Monde said.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley played down the diplomatic spying allegations. “Our diplomats are just that, diplomats,” he said. “They collect information that shapes our policies and actions. This is what diplomats, from our country and other countries, have done for hundreds of years.”

The fabric of such a government must be torn and shorn; it’s the stuff of society that needs rebuilding.

UPDATE I: I repeat the observation made in “Warbot Wants to Kill WikiLeaker” (08.07.10):

“The politicos, and now even the generals, preach the practice of left-liberalism at its most extreme in every structure of the military and the government. And then, when it appears that their affirmative recruits are crappy—they can’t abide by a code of secrecy (or by a contract); or are unable to refrain from killing their colleagues—then their bosses suddenly turn bigoted and want to kill them.

“These are the same generals and politicians who campaign for free and open sex for hets and homos in the military. What do they expect? Disciplined buttoned-up soldiers?!”

“You can’t run a liberal organization—structurally and philosophically—and expect your members to behave themselves. Left-liberalism is about license and lenience.”

UPDATE III: TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN. Julian Assange’s, that is. The Australian who heads the secret-sharing Web site” said that “the documents will skewer ‘lying, corrupt and murderous leadership from Bahrain to Brazil.'”

UPDATE IV (Nov. 30): CLIMAGEDON. Although WikiLeaks’ proprietor did not break the climagedon story, he did “host the full 120MB archive.” I’m not quite sure what this cryptic, Wikipedia statement means. Is Assange committed to exposing power irrespective of ideology? I still don’t know. There is no doubt that he has done liberty a tremendous service so far by pulling back the curtain to reveal the affairs of state we fund.

UPDATE V: Via Fjordman, of the Brussels Journal: “… in 2001, … two out of Norway’s three largest newspapers, Aftenposten and Dagbladet, reported that most … rape charges involve an immigrant perp, which again mostly means Muslims. Both newspapers have since then conveniently ‘forgotten’ about this, and have never connected the issue to Muslim immigration although the number of rape charges has continued to rise to historic levels. They are thus at best guilty of extreme incompetence, since their former articles about this issue are still available online. Norway’s Minister of Justice from 2001 to 2005, Odd Einar Dørum, mentioned the problem in 2001 but has later gone quiet about the issue. The reported number of rapes in Oslo is now six – 6! – times as high per capita as in New York City, yet the media keeps warning against Islamophobia.”

Swedish women, at least, can at last feel safe. The Swedish government is finally getting serious about their rape problem.?!!

“Interpol, at the request of a Swedish court looking into alleged sex crimes from earlier this year, has put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on its most-wanted list.
The Stockholm Criminal Court two weeks ago issued an international arrest warrant for Assange on probable cause, saying he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in August incidents.”

Now what a coincidence this trumped up charge is, don’t you think?

UPDATE VI (Dec. 1): It is interesting how the collectivist impulse has kicked in among so many so-called defenders of freedom. A single man exposes the wicked workings of the US empire—an arm of which is the terrorist TSA—and that individual has become the enemy of the good.

The use of the term “anti-American,” vis-a-vis Assange, moreover, is so childish and utterly inaccurate. Assange is anti-American only if one equates America with her government. Proceeding from this error, the people who can-can for the criminalization of Assange’s speech draw the conclusion that by opposing state criminality, Assange is anti-American. So far, the one Assange action to qualify as unpatriotic and awful is his exposing of the home addresses of members of the rightist British National Party. That was a bully-boy tactic; it certainly qualifies as an ideological stand; a show of hatred to rordinary, peaceful citizens.

This is not a neoconservative site. Yes, we despise the Obama regime, but we despised the rule of Genghis Bush just as much—and almost from its inception.

People confuse statism with patriotism. This is how this classical liberal writer has defined patriotism (which is why Bad Eagle is wrong: American Indians can be patriotic):

“Patriotism in my view is a very modest thing. I feel patriotism when I encounter many people in my immediate community, or among my readers. The arborist who came to trim my trees the other day told me he was not a Republican or a Democrat. He said he hated the war in Iraq and loved his guns as well as keeping what he earned. This independence of mind is quintessentially American. I feel patriotic when I encounter such an American. Ditto the gentleman who installed my alarm system recently. He too expressed his disdain for politics, and moved on to discuss his gun collection. The sight of the Jeffersonian arborist swinging heroically at the top of my giant cedars, giving them a trim, and the cowboy-clad alarm installer makes me patriotic. People like Dr. Yeagley make me patriotic. There are quite a few Americans such as these around. Not enough, but enough to make me want to fight the good fight for them. …”

“So what is patriotism? Here’s what it’s not: It’s not an allegiance to the government of the day, or to its invariably wicked, un-American policies. It’s an affinity for your community; it’s an understanding of the great principles upon which this country was founded—which have been excised by successive governments, Republican and Democratic alike. And it’s a commitment to restoring the republic of private-property rights, individual freedoms, and radical decentralization.”

UPDATE VII:

“I miss the old WND,” writes Clay Smith, at the Letters section on WND:

I was sadden to read Mr. Farah’s article, “Nobody asked, nobody told.” I remember under President Clinton, WND would be a beacon of liberty, questioning government on everything. Back then WND even honored the “informer” by naming its magazine “Whistleblower.” I really miss that old WND.
Who cares if Pfc. Bradley Manning is a deviant, godless homosexual? The message is what I’m looking at, not the messenger. An individual tells me my house is on fire … I don’t stop and ask him whether he is a godless homosexual. I check his sincerity and validity of the information. In the case of WikiLeaks, the information has showed us numerous forms of government abuse.
There are no secrets in a free and open society – only with governments that keep their citizens in the dark, dictatorships, empires and those who engage in black ops. This is the root cause of terrorism in the first place. Ron Paul was right when he said, “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

I read Joseph’s column. I did not take away that he opposed whistle-blowing. What I deduce is that he thought the military appointed the wrong people, a point I made earlier in this post: “You can’t run a liberal organization—structurally and philosophically—and expect your members to behave themselves. Left-liberalism is about license and lenience.”

UPDATE VIII: Vox day writes this on On the heroics of WikiLeaks:

“If WikiLeaks meets the legal criteria of a “U.S.-designated terrorist organization” then so does Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Governments always want to operate in the dark and keep their subjects in ignorance, which is why Julian Assange should not be assailed by the American people, he should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, regardless of whatever his motivations in making all of this information available to the public might be.

WikiLeaks is nothing more or less than a technological blow for American freedom. Assange is no traitor; the accusation doesn’t even make sense considering that he has absolutely no connection with the United States. But it should come as no surprise to the readers of this blog that the verbal attack against the organization is being led by one of those freedom-loving Republicans.”

UPDATED: A South African Or A Somali? Who To ‘Naturalize’?

Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Racism, South-Africa, Terrorism

The arrest of 19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Somalia, for planning to set off a bomb in Portland, Oregon, smacks of FBI entrapment; the FBI is notorious for the wickedly smart traps it lays for slow youth (such as the Miami Seven).

Even if the FBI has narrowly avoided the legal definition of entrapment in MOM’s case, it is rather ludicrous to hear media megaphones mouthing the mantra about this arrest providing proof, once again, that “they are out to get us.” Yes, it proves your government is out to get you—with its immigration policies.

Who let this guy in?

No one is saying—and the matter will remain submerged. Not even Google will give up MOM’s “immigration success story,” but you and I know that his folks are not plucky H-1B or O-1 visa holders. They’re probably visa lottery winners or refugees.

I had just blogged about the revocation of Brandon Huntley’s refugee status by the Canadian Court, which was “guided” by the Canadian Immigration Department, which, in turn, took orders from South Africa’s ANC goons. The latter oleaginous officials were backed by legions of house-trained liberals. “133 academics from 13 South African and 6 overseas universities,” all united to rob a man of a bit of luck; of some mercy.

What cowards!

Huntley is a South African (of the WASP variety).

In the Comments Section, another white South African gloated. Huntley had it coming. He isn’t a very nice guy. This is indeed the liberal mindset. The white, liberal man (even when he calls himself a “conservative”) is a deracinated creature, completely without the ability to see the bigger picture that is the South African reality.

It was argued that the Canadian government would have been “deluged by South African asylum seekers jumping at the chance to get into a country they wouldn’t otherwise have a prayer of getting into.”

Our reader never asks himself why it is that Canada and the US routinely reject (even deport) South African WASP immigrants, who are known for their wicked work ethic, happen to share the same ancestors and faith, and do not harbor Jihadi ambitions.

You are more likely to come upon a Mohamed Osman Mohamud in an American suburb than bump into a van der Merwe, in other words, a South African homie. But the liberal mindset (prevalent among most conservatives) forbids such inquisitiveness. Doesn’t occur …

Yes, Brandon Huntley was denied that meager thing called mercy because he acted like a bit of a blowhard, says one white bloke.

Yes, if Brandon had only been sepia tinged and harbored ambitions to blow things up, he’d have been a citizen of Canada or the USA already.

UPDATE: HORRIBLE HABITS (MORE LIKE TRADITIONS). It’s hard to make out if VDARE or someone else is the origin of the following: “Somalis are singularly unfit for life in North America, even if they remain (more or less) non-violent.” The hyperlinks lead here: “Somali Mom Asphyxiates Two Kids in Closet.”

And HERE: “Green Bay’s Dis-Americanization Proceeding Nicely.”

And HERE: Somalis “are unassimilated Muslims who follow violent sharia law, practice polygamy and slice off the private parts of their little girls (aka FGM, with a prevalence of 98% in Somalia).”

[SNIP]

So why are 85,000 Somali immigrants a good thing, but a “deluge” of WASP South Africans cannot be countenanced or coped with? Afraid the latter will work too hard for their money? Don’t we need more productive individuals in order to support all those Somalis?

UPDATED: Rationing Mercy For South Africans Refugees

Affirmative Action, Canada, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda, South-Africa

In my forthcoming book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa, I wrote the following:

To Canada—not to the US—is owed the distinction of granting refugee status to the first white South African victim of hate crimes. Thirty-one-year old Brandon Huntley of Cape Town had survived several run-of-the-mill assaults which saw him savagely stabbed and sworn at by his African assailants for being a “white dog” and a “settler.” The cruel and craven ANC protested Canada’s show of mercy. The idea that Africans would “persecute” Huntley was racist in itself, South Africa’s ruling Solons announced. Huntley has certainly been luckier than thousands of his countrymen, whose numbers continue to dwindle.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a Canadian Federal Court overturned the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision to grant refugee status to Huntley:

The Federal Court of Canada overturned the refugee status granted to a white South African who said that he faced persecution, discrimination and possibly death because of his race if he returned home. The decision, which was released on Wednesday, ordered a new hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board for the South African, Brandon Huntley. His initial success with the board was controversial in Canada, and the South African government filed a formal protest. The court acknowledged that violence and crime were widespread in South Africa, but it found that Mr. Huntley did not demonstrate that previous attacks against him were racially motivated.

Indeed, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) found for Huntley. Certainly no citizen of Canada objected to granting this poor man asylum. Yet the Minister Of Citizenship And Immigration chose to exercise his powers to set the RPD’s decision aside. He denies that this decision was made pursuant to political pressure from the ANC, although he does concede the following:

The government of South Africa did not like the RPD Decision and asked the government of Canada to have it appealed to the Federal Court.

One of the listed errors in judgment the Court has leveled at the RPD is the equation of “random acts of violence and criminality with persecution due to the Respondent’s race.” The Court asserts that “the black majority in South Africa is at least equally victimized by criminals.” This is incorrect. Again: Into the Cannibal’s Pot provides the statistical evidence to the contrary.

I refute most of the stock, fatuous “arguments” the Canadian Federal Court advances against this brute fact: the white minority is indeed targeted disproportionately to its numbers in the population.

The same goes for the rest of the Court’s case against granting refugee status to Brandon Huntley. For instance, the idea that BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) doesn’t marginalize whites in the workforce is nonsense on stilts. I excerpt and analyze the statute itself, and quote a wide range of experts, including Americans who love the ANC (and live at the Wall Street Journal).

It is clear to me that Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa might have helped Huntley and his lawyer to make their case. It still could:

THIS COURT HAS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that “The application for judicial review is allowed. The Decision is set aside and the matter is returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted RPD.”

The Minister denies that he has come under political pressure from the ANC, concerned with its image abroad. Fine. But why bring the power of the Canadian state against one man who has suffered so—even if you think he hasn’t suffered sufficiently?

My father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, used to say that G-d is full of mercy, which is why there is so little left in the world. Yes, like many Jews, Dad always questioned, and wrestled with, G-d.

I contend that people, being irrational beings, are in the habit of misplacing compassion.

UPDATE: From the Federal Court Decision discussed here, it transpires that the Court, having been petitioned by Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, ruled to set aside the Refugee Board’s finding for Huntley. A good section of the Honorable Mr. Justice Russell’s ruling, handed down on November 24, 2010, is devoted to the “alleged chilling and coercive attempts by the South African authorities to assert political and diplomatic pressure to subvert the rule of law in Canada.”

Justice Russell states at once that “the government of South Africa did not like the [Refugee Board’s] Decision and asked the government of Canada to have it appealed to the Federal Court,” and that, around the same time, “the Minister decided to proceed with judicial review.” Oddly enough, Justice Russell, presiding over the Federal Court, found no connection between the ANC’s strong-arming tactics and the Canadian government’s decision to succumb.