It almost trespasses upon the threshold of the superfluous to advance the proposition that politicians and the festering political atmosphere they engender around themselves are self-contradictory habitual liars and frauds. These are hardly observations demanding of an exceptionally attuned perceptive cortex, hypocrisy and logical fallacy tend to fall into the domain of mandatory components in “Washington insiders” job descriptions; the sickeningly high levels of fraudulent and self-serving behavior exhibited by bureaucrats has desensitized the public to the extent that nothing surprises people anymore, gross and unadulterated fabrications are all we’ve come to expect from our capitol.

However, in recent years there has been a trend that has been rapidly accentuating and encroaching itself upon the public sphere that it can no longer go unnoticed. It is true that shameless pandering and untruthfulness are attributes found in most every D.C suit-monkey. But the acute, unbridled, visceral discharges of abject, self-confutational deceit slobbered out by the self-righteously hysterical, frothing, almost psychopathic militiamen of the left has just completely staggered the comparative scale completely. The sniveling, absurd, tremulous oratory driveled out by goons on the highest tiers of liberal hierarchy has proven so appalling, so contemptible, so crassly offensive and plainly outright stupid that it has afforded the left a wholly unique standard of mediocrity of its very own, seperated from the normative tomfoolery of the average Washingtonian.

Essentially contemporary liberalism is in and of itself a contradiction. It has adorned itself with a myriad of unearned and undeserved tenets and accomplishments, yet has utterly failed to satisfy any of them, and in fact operates in such a fashion that diametrically opposes all the objectives its presumably attempting to achieve. Let’s first observe the most traditionally famous and loudly expressed motivation and value of the left, humanitarianism. Liberals pontificate ad nauseum about how they care so dearly about the beleagured foreigner oppressed in far away lands, that it seeks to rescue the impoverished natives of exotic countries from their squalor, and furthermore that the dastardly, misogynistic evil imperialist neocons are public enemy number one and only seek to enslave all these poor people and make them work for some villainous shadow-corporatist establishment, or some such thing. This hideous, grotesque, ghastly fantasy of the MoveOn.org entourage really is rather morally reprehensible in its obscenely contrived and fabricated nature. As one can plainly see, the nonsensical picture conjured up by the left swiftly dissolves once reality is juxtapositioned against the piffle. The following is a parenthetically compacted history lesson delivered in relatively non-chronological order:

It was the left’s engineered shameless evacuation of Vietnam that enabled Ho Chi Minh’s unmitigated rampage and genocide of the South Vietnamese, a staggering humanitarian fallout which left the country in bloodbath and economic shambles it couldn’t recover from for decades.

It was under a Republican administration that Europe was rescued from the thralls of Communist slavery and subjugation.

It was under a Democratic administration that Rwanda was casually allowed to transpire, without even the mildest hint of intervention or serving justice to the murderous thugs responsible.

It was under a Republican administration that Afghanistan was emancipated from the ironclad stranglehold of the virulent and fascistic aegis of Islamic fundamentalism and that helped stave off the decades of cultural mysticism that has so corrosively mired the country.

It was under a Democratic administration that the secular and free-market American ally Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was betrayed and abandoned, the most damning geopolitical mistake of the 20th century, which resulted in the societal and cultural implosion of Iran that gave rise to theo-totallitarian Islamic Republic, the greatest enemy to the free world we now face.

It was under a Republican administration that Mesopotamia was liberated from centuries of barbaric warlord rule and has finally begun to make progress in the amelioration of derelict schizmatic tribalism, leaving a nascent democracy in its wake.

It was Democratic Senator John Kerry who perfunctorily expressed the phenomenally despicable, disgraceful and loathsome sentiment that it was a “shame” that fire-stations were being built in Iraq when more could be built in America.

It was the 90s’ PNAC neoconservative movement (a faction vehemently detested by the deranged conspiracy theorists of the left, yet scantly understood by the whole lot of them) that triggered the end of Milosevic’s genocidal reign of terror in Bosnia and Kosovo, to the disdainful scorn of the left.

It was the Democrats who pre-emptively declared the liberation effort in Iraq a lost cause and demanded immediate withdrawal, either in full ignorance of the sheer catastrophic fixation implied by this expressed desire for defeat, or, more insidiously, were fully aware of the teeming slaughter and geopolitical disintegration that would be incurred as a result of surrender, and in lieu of all this simply threw an acquiescent shrug for the sake of political expediency, indicting death for millions of people in the process without even the slightest of concern.

There you have it. That’s your Democratic party, the self-proclaimed bastion of global humanitarianism and brotherhood that abandoned the free and let the poor to die, that cringes when the have-nots are granted deliverance from the civilizational damnation and even has the shameless temerity to spew disdain when rudimentary infrastructure is established in third-world countries. The adage “actions speak louder than words” must have been conceived for characterizing liberals, while they blather on piffling balderdash about how they care so much about the squallid conditions of those forsaken to be entrenched in the depths of impoverished mire abroad, they won’t doa damn thing to back-up their lofty rhetoric, and condemn others for doing it for them. The fact the left’s actions unambiguously translate to the profiteering off of the perpetuated suffering of impoverished foreign peoples is utterly abhorrible and truly defies any standard of human conscience or morality.

When it comes to the poor within their own borders, the portrait of liberalism becomes even more gruesome. The left is at the forefront of the “poverty industry”, constantly and without trepidation lambasting America’s structural and stratification frameworks as innately dysfunctional and geared against the lower classes; the diabolical apparatus of conniving rich capitalists designed to maintain poverty while they grow even richer. “The myth of upward social mobility” has gone from a watery conceptual proposition to solid fact taught in the school systems, poor minorities are spat at every day by unscrupulous race hustlers the likes of Sharpton and Jackson that they can’t get anywhere in this society, that America is institutionally racist and that any pursuit of self-advancement is futile. This cruel and even sinister machine has been in play since Upton Sinclair, the propagation of poverty anti-motivational intellectual defeatism for the personal profit and advancement of those from which the drivel seeps.

It has been catagorically proven time and time again that America is not societally racist. That’s why the droves of immigrants of all colors and walks of life who continuously flock here, often equiped with less money than the lower-class and with a lack of understanding of english are succeeding and even surpassing native citizens. While minorities are bombarded by propaganda ordering them to desist and cancel any desire to further their ambitions because America’s societally-imbibed racism will prevent them from getting anywhere, thus transforming them into ever-impoverished languid pawns to their media masters, immigrants, who come here only with an untainted drive and energy to succeed, unpolluted by the lacerating lies espoused by the race hustlers, attain college educations and achieve modest to high societal status, in effect triumphantly proving the American dream and defiantly rebuking “the myth of upward mobility”, which is itself obviously a myth.

Then there’s the “racially transcendant” Barack Obama, who’s euphoric little hype bubble has recently been punctured rather significantly in light of the public’s introduction to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a vulgar, hate-mongering huckster and peddler of the most vicious of lies whom epitomizes and takes the race hustling creed to its logical apex. This racist, anti-Semetic jihad sympathizing conspiratorialist Afro-centrist black seperatist demagogue whom embodies the very concept of racial anti-pluralism and antagonization happens to be Obama’s pastor two decades. Obama purports himself to be the great American unifier, and has been attending a black segregationalist church for twenty years? Only the hive-mind, shepherded peons that make up his leftist base could subscribe to such a ludicrous facade, and even they are beginning to dwindle as Obama’s national approval ratings begin to plummet.

He just delivered a speech which was to exculpate him from being implicated as a Wright co-religionist. Within its standard meandering platitutudes, Obama expressed some rather alarming failings in character and belief systems, suggesting that he could “no more condemn Wright than he could the black community” or drawing tantamount relationships between Wright and his poor white grandmother whom had evidently uttered a racial slur at some point in her life. This really is astonishing, is Obama actually charging that horrid, rambling old race racketeers are emissaries for the whole black population, and thus cannot be condemned? Did he actually just evade criticizing a national pariah and instead elected to attack his own family that raised and cared for him when he was abandoned by his black father? What kind of insidious spindoctor are we contending with here?

There are really two conclusions one can draw about Barack Obama and his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity racket (a church that is often defended as being “charitable” for the black community, a nonsensical genetic fallacy that makes about as much sense as defending Hizbollah because it helps re-build homes after they’ve been destroyed over conflicts they institigated). Either Obama is just an opportunistic half-Kenyan ivy league white guy raised in Honolulu by a caring Kansan family whom seeked to cultivate a public image as an inner-city black man for political enhancement and joined a Chicagoan black nationalist church as a vehicle for this end, ultimately not really caring about any of the happenings within the church (which would theoretically explain his repeated denials of awareness of Wright’s treasonous social commentary) and merely employing the whole experience as a device for socio-political elevation. Or he actually is an anti-American bigot and racist himself, and joined a church which reflected his values, which would corroborate effects the likes of Michelle Obama’s flagrantly anti-patriotic remarks and Obama’s repeated disdain for the American flag while exalting and proudly displaying Marxist symbols the such as Che Guevara’s flag in one of his offices. In either scenario, Obama’s shameless exploitation of race and defamation of American values in this campaign have been absolutely deplorable, whether he really holds any of this convictions is almost an ancillary point, the only thing that matters is that he is completely unfit to lead as our commander in chief.

As for this idiotic, self-adorned mantle of racial tolerance and arbiters of a fair and open environment for the discussion of race jingostically regurgitated by the left, one need not look far to shatter this sordid illusion. The Democratic party has historically been the de facto “Racist Party”, the Ku Klux Klan was the conception of wingnut liberal Democrats, two-time Democratic Majority Leader Robert Byrd being a former Klan chapter leader himself (this, I might add, is a feat that the Republican party could have never gotten away with) this background seems to be consistent.

The Civil Rights Act could not have been passed had it not been for the disproportionate support of Republicans, whom pressed against the antagonization of Democratic dissenters, including Albert Gore Sr., father of self-anointed “Earth Defender” and failed presidential candidate Al Gore. Clarence Thomas, the first black in American history to be appointed to the venerable position of Supreme Court justice was met by the full force and ugliness of leftist savagery, better known as “high tech lynching”.

Most recently, the long-time civil rights advocate and crusader Geraldine Ferraro, the last person almost anyone would ever cite as a racist, was targeted by a vicious and ravenous cabal by leftists in response to her reasonable and almost certainly true observation that a great facet of Obama’s mystique and ability to jettison himself so quickly up the political ladder is in fact his unique racial identity. For this wholly rational and non-inflammatory remark Ferraro was received not with open and free inquiry and dialogue, but merciless and degrading ostracization, defamation and scathing invective, forcing her to disengage from the political process in shame. And yes, this is a liberal we’re talking about, an insider in fact, being pitchforked to death by her own kin. If that’s how they treat their own, how are we supposed to trust their treatment of everyone else?

And there’s your saintly “race conscious” and “minority caring” left: racist opportunistic charlatans and frauds maiming and evaporation all aspirations and hopes of those who need them most, all to elevate their own political and ecnomic standing. Truly this is something to be unequivocally reviled.

When it comes to sex, the left asserts itself as the shining beacon of plurality and refined attitudes towards it. The feminist mystique is intrinsically embedded into liberal culture, sexual consciousness and equal treatment of women are some of the self-advertised hallmarks of the left. Allegations of glass ceiling obstructions to female ascension up the social ladder have been run amok for decades, liberals have appointed themselves as the great champions of women’s rights against the male-supremacist barbarians of the right.

And yet its liberal public policies that facilitate the en masse proliferation of pornography. What could be more anti-feminist and demeaning towards women than the primary driver of female objectification? And yet the Democrats continue to attract the endorsement of Hugh Hefner and various other entities in the industry of female exploitation, endorsements which they always gleefully accept.

It was the Democrats whom elected a serial rapist like Bill Clinton to the highest office of power on the face of the planet, and the Democrats whom not only allowed him to get away with it, but continuously offered him undeserved and gracious exaltation and worship.

Its the “accepting” and “tolerant” left that has been leading the truly hateful and cannibalistic obscenity campaign against Hillary Clinton, with both the upper-echelon propaganda machines Huffington Post and DailyKos repeatedly belittling her and attacking her with such refined language the likes of “worthless bitch”, consequently prompting the Clintons from repealing all past affiliation from the hate sites. Serves them right for ever associating with verminous traitors the likes of Ariana Huffington and Markos Moulistas, deal with animals and you’re bound to get bitten.

It was Democrat Elliot Spitzer, a man with such unparalelled gall and mendacious hubris whom crafted his entire squallid career out of busting prostitution rings, and then had the audacity to solicit whores himself over a period of several years, using thousands of dollars at tax-payers expense. The only reason the lying urchin didn’t get away with it is because he had made so many enemies throughout his career of disseminating lies about everyone and everything, and the American people wouldn’t allow a disgusting liberal misogynist get away with this sort of ilk for a second time.

On the issue of Spitzer, I found it simply astounding how his case was continously characterized as “tragic” and “Shakespearean” in the media. What has happened to our society and our culture when we think its a “tragedy” when a pompous aristocratic prince of fortune borne of a multi-millionaire industrialist given everything in the world for nothing and threw it all away for an an exorbitantly over-priced call-girl, what in the hell is tragic about this? the only thing saddening about the whole Spitzer fiasco is his wretched Stepfordian wife standing next to him during press conferences; whether she was forced to do so or not that is certainly quite a tragic sight, but we don’t hear much about her, do we? Testifies to the myth that liberals could care more about equal dignity of women than they could about African and Middle-Eastern genocide or the poor, which is to say they don’t care about any of these things at all.

But truly, there can be no political or cultural gesture more self-evidently anti-feminist, nay, anti-woman inherently, than the left’s brazen and impudent appeasement and corroboration of the most brutally oppressive and demagogic arbiters of female subjugation and suppression the world over. Where are the feminists applauding the American led liberation of women from the shackles of Islamist fascism in Afghanistan and Iraq, where women are for the first time in modern history participating in government and free from the contrivances of a male-governed society? Where are the haughty shrews of the National Organization for Women and it’s various satellites and counterparts calling for the emancipation of women from their chattle-status in the theocratic, male supremacist ghettos of Riyadh and Damascus and the rest of the Middle-East? The grim reality of the matter is that they’re completely mute on these real societal crises for women, they’re too busy leading anti-war marches, free sex rallies and pro-abortion militantism seminars. While another woman is legally stoned to death in Iran for the crime of being raped as a virgin while the rapists roam free unprosecuted, while another woman is burned to death as a function of normative cultural practice in Pakistan, while another woman is forced to be bound by the hideously repressive confines of Islamic traditionalist garb against her will for fear of brutal punishment, while another innocent little girl is genitally mutiliated because of a medieval religious practice in the bowels of Muslim world, the so-called feminists of the left banter on about nothing; delivering obscene oratories to their wretched masses, propagating an ideology that is not only completely indifferent to the real suffering of women in the global village, but is also explicitly endorses policies that perpetuates this suffering. These are the ethics of the female tolerant left.

“The Politics of Fear”. This has been a favorite formulation of the left since the years following 9/11, a cynical and stupid mantra employed as an antagonization technique of the War on Terror and the very notion of animus and fear towards our enemies abroad as a whole. It’s supposed to be a cogent, intellectually-stimulating and cultured concept, more recently popularized by the ever perfidious Barack Obama. Use of this idiotic little phrase is the mark of of an intellect of the liberal vanguard, it was designed specifically to be something that’s supposed to sound probing and insightful, something that would radically change the conventional psychology and draw them over to the liberal side. And yet, just like every other pillar of liberalism, it proves to be a transparently logically-fallacious and backwards-minded non-sequitur.

For a faction that’s so concerned about “fear tactics”, the left uses it all the time. Global warming hysteria has accelerated to Orwellian and religiously apocalyptic proportions, to the point where eco-fascists are actually proposing that people cancel their reproduction in order to conserve the Earth’s resources and stultify further pollution, let alone lecturing on about the prudency of toilet-paper rationing. Harbingers of doom from Al Gore to the most laughable Hollywood stooge consistently deliver catastrophic ruminations on the impending end of the world lest we start building houses out of straw and drive a Prius, so much for resisting our cognitive inclinations towards fear, eh liberals?

Truly the proposition that we are forced to adjudicate upon is one of farcical absurdity. We’re not supposed to be concerned about a threat that has actually manifested itself the likes of radical Islam, an indisputable ominous force which has already killed thousands of people worldwide for years and promises to continue, no, we should be apathetic towards that. What we should be concerned about a hypothetical atmospheric anamoly that may or may not tangentially oscillate temperature by a few degrees sometime in the next hundred years, by which point we will have already de-carbonized, self-corrected and resolved a non-issue that may or may not exist. Yeah, we should be emphatically worried about that.

We as a species have cultivated a framework of civilization that has historically operated upon various “isms”. Libertarianism, conservativism, socialism, fascism, communism, etc. And certainly there are principles that universally interpolate between some of these factions, but ultimately each of these particular ideologies pose a unique intellectual omnibus that we as sentient beings may choose to subscribe to or dispute. In any case there’s a lively debate to be had, as each exists as a seperate and well-established entity that represents specific and well-defined ideals that you can either agree or disagre with.

Liberalism, however, is a different beast altogether. It doesn’t stand for anything. Its a translucent, wishy-washy, relativistic dogmatic mess of an illusion of an ideology that can’t make up its mind on what it seeks to be or prove. Within its confines one finds nothing but a logically-defying mess of contradiction and hypocrisy that ultimately seems to serves no other purpose than to exist as a fascistic, self-serving plutocratic political machine operating by and for opportunistic racists, sexists, ethnocentrist hate-profiteers and liars of all stripes and creeds.

Now, partly to spite these people, but mostly as a serious advisory warning, I will close by saying that every American who cares abou this country and what it stands for ought to be incredibly afraid of the prospects of these thugs and gangsters overtaking the Oval Office at a time in history of such immense magnitude.

Fight the fear.

Defeat the Democrats.

I’ve become increasingly disturbed and distressed and downright concerned about the intellectual and cognitive health of my fellow countrymen over the last several months; the tremendously meteoric rise of Barack Hussein Obama as a sensationalized, celebritized figure in all aspects of the public sphere, the media and the overall atmosphere of the political season, its just stunning. He’s achieved undeserved sycophantic adulation and glorification levels unheard of since the prominence of equally dubious and unscrupulous characters the likes of Bono and Madonna. It would not be the expression of a hyperbole to assert that Obama is actually being perceived as a messianic figure by a significant contingent of the populace; the fact that people are literally rendered unconscious at the very sight of the man at his absurd little press rallies testifies to this fact. The fervor generated around him is scarcely seen with the most fabulous of celebrities, and utterly unheard of with a politician. All this equals out to a single conclusion in my mind:

The American citizenry, in its ravenous infatuation with Obama, has completely and shamelessly cancelled out every genetically imbibed critical thinking and objective-analytical cerebral mechanism it had ever posessed. This is nothing short of absolutely chilling.

How else could it be possible that so many people have submitted as lock-step lackeys to such a inherently untrustworthy and shadowy individual? There isn’t a shred of substance or solid foundation to be heard in a decibel of his lofty, meandering, meaningless little platitudes filled with rhetoric worthy of an Orwellian fascist the likes of “great change” and “new America”, all the while deliberately and incredibly suspiciously neglecting to expand on what any of these “changes” would entail. A man so lacking in identity, so pandering and shape-shifting to various constituencies, possessing a devious craftiness that allows him to pretend that he’s a Southern-dialect practicing white while blathering in Columbia, then seamlessly changing to a ghetto-raised black while pontificating in the streets of Chicago, all the while posing a membrane-thin facade throughout. A man with no experience or background in anything whom has yet to complete a single term in the U.S. Senate, whom has not one achievement to boast about and yet has the sheer gall to portray that as honor in itself rather than a liability by using the absurdly ludicrous and childish formulation of “Washington outsider” to compensate for his unparalleled amateurism. This is the very definition of an anthropomorphic invisible man, a fellow with no background, no experience, and no asserted convictions to speak of, yet brilliantly conceals these otherwise damning short-comings with grandiose rhetoric and persona-manipulation. How else could Americans fall for such a transparent fool unless that had physically relenquished their mental equipment?

But its not justBarack’s shallow translucency that should concern everyone, its who he is. This is an individual belonging to an openly racist and seperatist Afro-centrist church, a ghastly establishment wherein his good and nurturing white mother and grandparents, his only true family that had taken care of him after he was abandoned by his Kenyan father, would not feel welcome. Why hasn’t he ever honestly addressed this? More importantly, in all their masturbatory fawning over him, why hasn’t the braindead half-wits of the media ever questioned him on his 20 year affiliation with a regressivist hate-mongering race-baiting cult?

Recently Obama has been regurgitating a rather bizarre and disquieting catch-phrase to the euphoric moans of his frothing, cerebrally-calcified masses: “I don’t want ot just end the war, I want to end the mentality that got us into war.” Well, what the hell does that mean? Not only do you seek defeat and failure in Iraq, pre-mature evacuation that will only lead to genocide and barbarism throughout the region, but you want to dissolve the very notion of aggression towards our enemies? Can there be a more masochistic, fatalistic and outright sick proposition put forth by this increasingly sinister and idiotic man?

He wants raise “diplomatic relations” with abhorant, murderous ideological frauds and liars like Ahmadinejad and the newly re-configured Castro crime family in place of reciprocrating the offensive and aggression that they have asserted upon us, this is what he calls “responsible” foreign policy. So, he wants to chat it up with dictatorial bastards whom are rightfully and vehemently despised by their own people, fascists that have imprisoned homebred dissenters within their borders, demagogues whom would be spat upon by any true patriot of their country? He wants to negotiate with these universally-reviled terrorists, and simultaneously seeks to invade our admittedly-shifty, yet long-standing ally of Pakistan? This is supposed to be a tenable geopolitical vehicle for America against the staggering antagonists it faces? Either Barack possesses a non-intelligence of unprecedented levels, or more chillingly, he has no intention of achieving victory in the preeminent civilizational struggle of our time, the war against Islamic radicalism. Perhaps its because he’s too much of a young pompous ego-inflated leftist fool to acknowledge the volatility of the situation, or even more alarmingly perhaps he actually sympathizes more with the enemy powers than with his own country. These are all seriously damning charges, and none of them bode well for our future under an Obama presidency.

This naturally transitions us to the pertinent question that is never asked about Obama, is he actually proud to be an American? Remember, this is the same person who refused to wear an American flag lapel pin because he wanted to make a “political statement”, some asinine drivel about the flag being “over-used” as propaganda. What feebly disguising rhetorical pirouetting for the obvious truth of the matter, a blind man could easily discern that Obama is clearly disgusted by the flag, and thus refuses to showcase it on his shirt. Now, there must be some sort of constitutional clause barring this man from the presidency on this count alone, as an aspiring supreme governor over the United States, it simply unacceptable if a candidate refuses to proudly flaunt the country’s cherished symbol wherever he goes, and devises some self-evidently contrived and disingenuous pseudo-philosophical hocum pocum to make up for it.

More recently his wife made the exceptionally crass and stupid and arrogant and flagrantly anti-patriotic remark that for the first time in her life, she’s actually proud to be an American. Not only is this ridiculous espousal tantamount to the extraordarily despicable utterance of “I’m only proud of my country when my husband is a front-runner for the presidency”, but it also definitively solidifies a long suspected anti-American sentimentality amongst the Obama family. It it evident beyond a doubt now that Obama actually is one of those leftist parasite pseudo-intellectuals, the reprehensible losers that are endowed with speaking talent and good financial fortune, attain high education and success and fame and yet are still in contempt and disconnect with their own country, blaming it for all the problems in the world yet continuing to reap it of all its opportuniites, shamelessly and paradoxically lambasting it all the while.

Tell me, Michelle Obama, why the hell weren’t you proud of America all this time? Weren’t you proud of the fact that America did not invent slavery, but led the way to its abolisment? Weren’t you proud of the toppling of the Berlin Wall and America’s rescuing of Europe? Weren’t you proud of the heroes who sacrificed their own lives on 9/11 just to save the lives of others? Weren’t you proud of America’s emancipation of two unbelievably repressed nations from fascist warlords in the span of two years?

If nothing else, aren’t you proud that your entire family epitomizes the portrait of the American success story, and as a consequence evaporating all the lies of “institutionalized racism” and structural barriers to success for your people? Aren’t you proud that the only country where you and your family could have experienced the fantastic volume of success that you all have had is in America?

Evidently no, it was only untill her likelihood of becoming the next First Lady came into serious fruition that she was “proud”. Its safe to assume that this vile ingratitude and sneeringly pretentious distaste for America and what it represents is uniform throughout the family, and thus no self-respecting American can perform the staggeringly undignified action of voting them into the Oval Office. The war is on now, Barack is the heir apparent and the potentiality of him acquiring his party’s nomination is all but incontravertible. The media, money, and momentum is on his side and against our last chance in rescuing this country, John McCain. Just in the past few days we have seen the heinous extents of the left’s hatred and contempt for America and the concept of truth itself, with the patently fabricated and squalid and revolting smear-job hit-piece against McCain by the self-exalting liberal tabloid that is the New York Times. The odds are against us, but hopefully Americans will wake from their demented Obama trance and get a grasp of the epic ramifications of this coming election.

The choice is glaringly simple, you can either vote for a battle-hardened American hero who boasts decades of sophisticated foreign policy experience and economic wisdom, who love for this country is so unbelievably strong that he sacrficed half a decade of his life in a Vietnamese hell hole in lieu of betraying it. Or you can vote for a latently anti-American astoundingly audacious and self-impressed thug with no background in anything who’s only political political platform is that he has none, and will have the temerity to spin that natural impediment into being a selling point. The fact that one makes this choice under the over-arching context of the looming threat of international fundamentalist militants whom seek our absolute annihilation and an economy mired by the wounds of fiscal liberalism (also known as Bush’s “compassionate conservativism”), and the only logical conclusion could only be rendered ambiguous by one is in fact mentally stultified, as addressed by the title of this thesis.

It has been correctly observed by scholar Jonah Goldberg that if fascism is to come to this land, it will likely come in the guise of a charismatic progressive reformer concealing his totallitarian collectivist intentions with flamboyant, crowd-pleasing language and propaganda.

Sound familiar?

Good.

Let’s make sure 2008 isn’t like 1984, vote McCain and put an end to this fearsome Obamination.

It really has been a remarkable, revealing, and rather revolting spectacle over the past few weeks listening to the interminable zoo noises produced by the self-proclaimed bastions of the “core conservative” movement in their ill-conceived quest to make everyone perfectly aware of their absurd little vendetta against Senator John McCain. Listening to a whole cast of Republican racketeers night after night blasting their own undeniable heir-apparent without remorse as if he was a harbinger of the Anti Christ, citing the same tired, inconsequential and often flat-out fabricated litany of charges to justify their insidious banter, it really makes me wonder how long this patently dysfunctinoal party is going to survive, or even if it should. Should a faction that generates and permits such squabbling and trifling intermittent strife and shameless politicking be maintained as a viable democratic apparatus?

The churning maelstrom of “McCain Derangement Syndrome” dementia basically takes the form of self-appointed, “traditional” paleoconservative leaders whom antagonize McCain over his alleged liberal record. This accusation has been charged by a variety of pundits, from largely unscrupulous radio-jock morons the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, to the more respectable and principally-grounded right-wingers such as Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham. Hannity’s been recently playing a laughably contrived “experience” card on himself, citing his “20 year record on the radio as a true conservative” and his “decades of Reaganist principles” as the reason for his animus towards McCain. Hewitt’s fussy because his boy Romney, whom he wrote an entire prematurely-conceived book on, dropped out of the race. Limbaugh has been driveling on his OxyContin-fueled radio babble-hour that he’ll abstain from voting altogether if McCain wins the nomination, as if this proclaimation tremendously factors into the grand scheme of American politics, the rambling has-been wishes he wielded that much influence.

But bar none the most astronomical manifestation of McDS was a remark by the extraordinarily repugnant, phenomenally stupid and cosmically vile Ann Coulter, -a disgrace to the human species, let alone conservativism- in which she decried that her loathing for McCain was so deeply entrenched that she would not only vote for, but actually campaign for Hillary Clinton. Now, some might contend this is some long-hibernated and concealed feminist impulse on Coulter’s part, to support a fellow woman in her pursuits to attain the presidency. But believing this would involve the fallacious assumption that Coulter is in fact a female; even the most reasonable estimate could only guess at some sort of ghastly transsexual genomic configuration. Conversely, it would also assume that Clinton was also in fact a woman, an equally dubious proposition. But let’s not digress.

The crux of the matter here is that McCain has attracted a considerable amount of slag from detractors whom unfortunately wield mainstream influence within the Republican ranks. The assertion that McCain “isn’t a real conservative” is one that has been cancerously proliferated amongst a good contingent of the party, so much so now that it has become a sort of conventional wisdom. People echo the callous untruth that John McCain is actually a liberal with casual ease, and are speechless when one presses them for evidential expansion to fortify their claims, flabbergasted that anyone would dare pose such a question. This is just foolishness of the most ludicrous dye.

Senator John McCain has been a solid conservative for the entirety of his career, often far more conservative than the slobbering goons competing against him. He boasts a waterproof pro-life record on the abortion question, far to the contrary of the often cited “real conservative” Mitt Romney. He indisputably has the strongest record of fiscal discipline of any candidate on any party, again far to the right of “flagship members” of the “real right” the likes of George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee. He has a multi-decade long record of cutting taxes, and while it may be a conveniently circumvented truth that the anti-McCain posse likes to gloss over, the fact of the matter is the only reason McCain didn’t vote for the Bush tax cuts is because they weren’t coupled by cuts in spending, which was elevating to exorbitantly high levels. He knew that was a recipe for economic calamity, and he was damn right, no pun intended. His immigration record is solid, McCain-Kennedy is arguably just as conservative, if not more so, than the immigration policies of the often invoked but scarcely understood Ronald Reagan, and directly paralelling that of George W. Bush. Its first drafts were admittedly not entirely wise, but McCain has thoroughly expressed that he seeks to rigorously secure the borders, a measure untaken and even unpursued by both Reagan and Bush. Most importantly, his record as an ardent and unwavering military supporter and devotee is without question infinitely stronger than anyone else running for president. When Democrats and Republicans alike were alienating themselves from the Iraq war at the height of its unpopularity and openly voicing skepticism of the surge, McCain banked his entire career on it, putting his knowledge and faith into the prospects of his success, and once again his intuition proved perfectly accurate.

So, the case simply cannot be made to deny the principled conservativism of John McCain, and I’m pretty sure that most of his nay-sayers on the right are perfectly aware of that. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, they’re not completely mentally-retarded in this regard, just profoundly duplicitous and conniving. Its not McCain’s politics that concerns them, its who he is. He represents a long-needed drastic deviation from the lockstep-lackeyism and croneyism that has so badly plagued the party the past few decades. He’s not a conformist henchman who abides without questioning to specific and ridiculous parameters, he’s an autonomous thinker, and this stuns and scares the paleoconservative right. How dare he call out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (whom he later courted in a clearly deliciously disingenuous and unconvincing “truce”) for what they are, religious fascists and charlatans? What hot-headed bravado he posesses, to suggest that en masse deportation of illegal immigrants isn’t economically or socially feasible? How audacious is he suggest that Michigan’s squandered automotive industry might not make a full reprisal, or that the textile mills won’t be returning to South Carolina? WIth what burst of mendacious temerity does he call for the presence of American forces in Iraq for upwards to a hundred years!

Its things like the above enumerations that are appalling the minions of the derelict and dying “value-voting, traditional, moral majority, latently undemocratic” right, and gaining the votes of the forward-minded and scholastically-sophisticated contingents of the party, otherwise known as the neoconservatives. Venerable scholars the likes of Dr. Henry Kissinger and William Kristol are backing McCain, amongst a whole cast of highly-respectable thinkers, politicans and policy-analysts. They recognize that McCain maintains the core foundational cornerstones of the right, that intellectual-independence and an anti-pandering mentality are major advantages, and most importantly that he is inarguably the most experienced, educated and cerebrally-equipped in military affairs and geopolitical engagement to move America forward in its pivotal transcendent struggle against radical Islam. This last capitulated qualification alone without refutation renders him the only candidate fit to lead in 2008.

If the principles and characters of the man aren’t enough to satisfy the right, let the sheer fact of his strategic competitive tenability convince them. The fact of the matter is, when all the dust has cleared from the mindless blatherings of his Republican opponents, he is the only one with any electability. While Huckabee and Romney are generally held in universal contempt and disdain by the general American public at large, McCain defeats Hillary with a healthy margin in national polls, vastly outcompeting her for independents and even drawing a good number of Reagan Democrats and liberals who don’t trust the unprincipled old shrew. If Clinton ends up as the Democratic nominee, McCain has a considerable edge against her. Admittedly however, if the somewhat ominous and even sinister character of Barack Obama (isn’t it a bit foreboding how he attracts such tumultuous applause over his vocationally-energetic invocations of an ambigious “change”, yet he consistently refuses to disclose any aspect of the nature of this “change”, to no inquiry from his sycophantic audience? Isn’t that the recipe for an Orwellian despot?) attains the nomination, then its probably a futile effort, but that can’t be helped. The college post-materialist leftist saps Obama rallies like a cattle-herd can’t really be stopped by any candidate, we need to hope that the Clinton machine succeeds in efforts for just a little while longer.

The Grand Old Party at its core is a fundamentally strong one, and one whose core convictions are essentially more attuned to what the great American ideal is than the opposition. Unfortunately its been mired and hijacked by a miserable gang of thuggish, opportunistic, theocratic, loudspeaker-wielding bullies and moronic character assassins whom would gladly prostitute their bodies to increase their ratings by a fraction of a precentage, let alone compromising the national interest in lieu of asinine religious disputes and personal insecurities. I am catagorically certain that John McCain will be delivering badly-needed real change to Washington, not only bringing some serious fiscal conservativism to our economic infrastructure, and not only maintaining America’s geopolitical dominance and military offensive in the war against Islamic radicalism, but also some serious reform to the arcane dynamic of America’s political culture, rejuvenating the arid landscape of the right whom has demanded a catalystic and principled new leader. It is clear the mainstream of the faction has paid very little attention to the incoherent slobberings of the deranged right-wing radio ruckus, as he has won virtually segment of the American population in this primary season with considerable margins in most every state. This attests to the long-perceived fact that the numbskulled airwave blowhards don’t wield a fraction of the influence they think they do, thus discrediting and dejecting them from this new incarnation of the party.

These are some exceptionally impressive accomplishments, and seriously testify to serious change. And yet McCain has never employed the term in the innately propagandist fashion his Democratc adversaries get away with incessantly, further solidifying the legitimacy of his positions.

I’m certainly ready for real change. Here’s to the McCain Revolution.

When one surveys the sundering landscape of the American socio-political sphere, I’m certain even the most daft and cognitively-lax plebian can detect the subtle, sinister underlying aura incubating in the very foreground of the whole chaotic interface. It has now become a normative expression of the political culture to extrude daily the grotesque and obscene exhibitions of flagrant abdication of every conceivably standard of morality and integrity imaginable by the slobbering goons purported to be our anointed representatives. On every side, translucent demagogues deliver driveling, fabrication-laden artifically-manufactured pandering propaganda to the masses. This is Orwellian ilk, just flat-out obfuscatory lies streamlined with nonsensical little catch-phrases and buzz-words intentionally forged to conceal, distort, or absolve the speaker of the very notion or importance of truth. This is patently obvious rhetorical garbage any child with a primary education can a fragment of primordial sentience could cut through instanteously. In fact, a child would probably be insulted by the very proposition that they could have been stupid enough to subscribe to the outright untruths spewed by politicians in their laughable little campaign speeches.

And yet the sycophantic lemmings that comprise the constituencies of completely unfit to lead opportunistic frauds the likes of Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee Barack Obama and John Edwards evidently have relenquished their naturally-imbibed resistance to subversion, shamelessly swallowed their dignity and continued on their dangerous propaganda binge. This testifies to the culmination of the sobering trend of a societal fatalistic shrug; of an abandonment of any regard for the truth or a constant sustainment and acquisition of knowledge, a total compromisation of the probing and skeptical mind, a rejection of the cornerstone American principle of an informed and vigilant American citizenry. Nothing proves this grim conceptual supposition more than observing the insanely tumultuous applause received by the inherent charlatans lobbying for presidential ascention in 2008.

Why do people perceive Barack Obama as such an commendable an impressive man? What does have? What has he done? He virtually has no record, he served two terms in the Senate, and now its blazingly obvious those years were simply to satisfy a rudimentary prerequisite, so that he claim to have something under his belt. He constantly, ad nauseum, to the point of didactic bully pulpitry, blathers on about “change” and how he’s an agent of it. He casually tosses this word around as if its a self-evidently awe-inspiring and scholarly term. Well, maybe it is to those devoid of any forensic faculties, as is apparent by the rancorous following he’s established around himself. But to the rest of us, this sort of rhetoric is not only wholly banal and unimpressive, its downright suspicious. Change? What kind of change? Change for whom? This is an international man of mystery, we essentially know nothing of his platform, at all. We know nothing of his economic policy, nothing of his domestic policy, and the only thing we know of his foreign policy is that he seeks the sheepish retreat from Iraq shared by all democrats, but has also espoused bizarre, improvisational invasion plans for Pakistan, as if to demonstrate that he’s not the non-realist isolationist creampuff which has become the archetypical template for a democrat nowadays. On top of all this, his cultural upbringing is exceedingly dubious, with a whole myriad of credible charges of madrassa education and the fact that his “black culture” church’s master was an overt racist, this is not consoling to me at all, and it doesn’t help that he’s shamelessly evaded or denied all such scrutiny. The only thing I can honestly say I find truly admirable and unique about Senator Obama is his unprecedented figure as not only the first person of color to make a serious contention for the presidency, but also for the fact that he hasn’t pulled the race card. This, I must say, is quite a desirable expression of character, and unlike the other two democratic candidates, I’ll openly admit I wouldn’t be absolutely dismayed if if Obama was my next president, only very disappointed because I don’t believe he poseses the mental equipment or experience to lead us in such an extraordinarily volatile point in our history.

John Edwards I can’t really speak about with much fervor just because I don’t care. Does anybody? Dick Morris, granted a guy I really don’t like very much, said a good contingent of Edwards’ followers were white, classical populist southerners who don’t want a black or a woman president. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it may very wll be. Regardless, the thing that irritates me about Edwards is his silly little speeches about “two Americas” and the squalor and woes of the “common man” and other such cliche-ridden, depthless euphemisms. These transparent, contrived Huey Long impersonations must be the original lofty-minded, long-winded propandist American campaign capitulation, they’ve been used throughout the country’s history by fools attempting to appeal to the “all-American”, working class everyman population. As it was then and as it is now, its all innuendo and no substance, and therefore no one cares and no one votes. Its unsuprising that Edwards dropped out of the race today, even though he confidently and steadfastly asserted his commitment to campaign to the very end. Then again, if I was to posit that he cares abou broken promises, I’d be making the fallacious assumption that politicians have integrity. In any case, I’m pretty certain that all political pander aside, John Edwards is ultimately a good and hard-working person who’s had to endure a great deal of personal tragedy and turmoil in his life, so I wish him the best in that regard. I also think John Kerry, who was already one of the stupidest and most distasteful political underlings ever to shimmy into a position of actual power, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for endorsing Obama rather than his own 2004 presidential running mate, so much for all that liberal fellowship.

Mike Huckabee reciprocates much of the same so-called “southern charm” and liberal populism exhibited by Edwards, except muddled by even more idiotic communicative baggage. He melds the highly dangerous components of laughably moronic religious innuendo and regressivist beliefs with atrocious and alarming socialistic economic policies and tops it off with a derelict and detestable paleoconservative disdain and absolute ignorance of foreign policy to create an unscrupulous, obnoxious, and backwards-minded doofus of a canddiate that can’t be acepted by either serious liberals or conservatives, evidently aiming to attract solely the most embarassingly mentally-calcified and impossibly credulous contingents of the religious right. He attempted to formulate around himself an image of a “good ol’ southern gentlemen”, compensating for his abject mediocrity and lack of knowledge in just about every category by framing his responses to inquiries with asinine yuk-yuk barnyard humor and devious political pirouetting. But evidently no one was dumb enough to buy intot his goonery, as South Carolina, the most evengelical state in the country, the place that Hickabee predicated his entire campaign on, went to McCain by a more than slim margin. The thing that made this whole episode worth it, even the ridiculous spectacle of Chuck Norris (a guy who in all due respect isn’t an authority on anything) campaigning on his behalf, was the sheerly hilarious sight of Mike Huckabee’s face after he lost the SC primary. And the insane fantasy ends.

And then we come to Mitt the Moronic Mormon. I don’t know what it is about him, his wholly unlikable, cold, anti-charismatic patrician demeanor, his ridiculous religious beliefs and his conniving refusal to acknowledge them, his constant, arbitrary corporate pandering and re-emphasis of his long presence in the business world yet his devious omission of its often disastrous implications and the vast numbers of employees he’s laid off. Or maybe its just his mind-bogglingly repetitive regurgitation of his meaningless little adopted slogan “Washington is broken”. What an astute observation, now remind me again why I’m to trust the son of a dynastic cult family, the peformer of one of the most incredibly unconvincing, non-genuine and universally ridiculed 360-degree spins on the abortion issue surviving in American politics, the former governor of a failed economic state and the benefactor of a multitude of failed business enterprises with absolutely zero foreign policy experience to come fix it and fix the plethora of problems we face abroad? Much like Obama’s “change fallacy”, Romney appears to be under the impression that repeating the same tired tripe over and over and not backing it with an iota of substance or credibility is enough to win elections. Clearly its not, as Romeny continues to plummet in the polls and in the delegate tally. Which is just great, I wouldn’t task this fellow with managing a bus station, let alone managing immensely complex international geopolitical configurations of which he knows nothing. He’s persistent, and has enough unearned wealth to squander on this likely ill-fated campaign to remain non-mollified up to the very end, but just like most everything else he’s said and done, it probably won’t amount to anything.

Which brings me finally to the truly monstrous villain of this whole political season, Hillary Rodham Clinton. To say that I would be seriously distraught and ashamed of my fellow countrymen if “she” (final adjudication of gender pending) was to be elected would be a colossal understatement. The election of Hellary would not only be one of the greatest national disgraces in American history, but it would also strike a devastating, perhaps irreversibly crippling blow to America’s standing in the world. A ’60s “New Society, Government is a Virtue” liberal of the worst conceivable dye, this is truly one evil, perhaps psychopathically disconnected bitch. The only other human being I can think of so utterly devoid of any sense of dignity, shame, integrity, or even genuine empathy towards his fellow man is her equally loathsome husband. It is as if to the Clintons all the previously enumerated inate funtions of the human psyche are mere illusions, anything and everything around them is stripped of all conceptions of a right-wrong dichotomy; the only thing that matters is if it can be employed as an asset for their own self-aggrandizement. They will and have pulled both the sex and the race card, are more than accustomed to lying to everyone about everything, often under oath, alternating opinions flagrantly for the purpose of political expediency as in Iraq, sometimes holding up to 3 different positions on the same issue and interchanging them within 15 minutes, as in the illegal immigration issue, and are expert practioners in some of the most callous, back-handed and downright nasty campaign tactics imaginable, i.e. “accidentally” discussing Obama’s previous drug history and then “apologizing” for it. These aren’t people with just distorted or deranged principles, that’s common place in politics. No, the Clintons are a vile duo to whom principles mean nothing, and evidently they mean nothing to their de-sensitized constituency either. Politics is like a fun little diversion for the Clintons, a game where the end prize is the White House. Once that’s been achieved, well, that’s it then! The End! Four years of fun for them, national and economic security, bah, what irrelevant banality, that can’t get in the way of the frivolous philandering that’s to be conducted in the Oval Office. The nation and its troubles can go to hell, the Clintons are back in town, and America’s its bitch, as well as many poor interns.

W ell, what a squalid squadron of presidential hopefuls, have we nothing to choose from? In my book the only desirable rarities in this batch of mediocrity are Rudy Giuliani, whom dropped out of the race this morning, and John McCain, who is now the essentially undisputed front-runner and poised to win the nomination. Rudy’s cataclysmic downward spiral will be taught in political science courses for years, the fact that a candidiate whom 3 months prior was the unchallenged supreme Republican de facto pre-appointed nominee, and now has abdicated his presidential bid with a sorry 4th place ranking, this is just extraordinary and unprecedented. Its not as if anyone couldn’t see this coming by about a month ago, it became increasingly obvious that Giuliani had somehow relenquished his critical thinking faculties, actually believing that he could stand a chance skipping Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, andSouth Carolina and still retain the momentum to move forward. Its rather sad, I liked him a great deal, but I suspect we’ll be seeing him again considering his endorsement of like-minded friend Senator John McCain, whom responded with a gracious thanks and praise of Giuliani, strongly insinuating a McCain-Giuliani ticket, something I called weeks ago. If this actually will fulminate, it will mark an incredibly badly needed and long-awaited transition of the Republican party back to the more moderate, secularist, neoconservative-minded rather than theoconservative-minded that is required to sustain itself for a very long time now. John McCain is a good and educated man, a hero and a genuine patriot, and the only candidate who knows a great deal about geostrategic foreign policy and the only candidate excluding Giuliani with a record of balancing the budget.. People sputter on about his age, but I see a genuine energy and ambition in him that I don’t see in the bored dronings of someone like Barack Obama, who looks like a young guy testing the system to see how quickly one can become president. I believe McCain-Giuliani have enough bipartisan appeal and galvanization power to easily squash a shriveling hag the likes of Hillary, however, this does lead to a bit of an old-school philosophical conundrum:

On one hand, I want Hillary to win the Democrat nomination, as she would be an easier opponent to vanquish and mobilize against than Barack, who is far more appealing and far more formidable on the national stage. On the other hand, I don’t want her to win, simply because I don’t like seeing her happy. But I suppose the ultimate solution to this puzzle is the factthat even if Hillary does win the party’s nomination, a defeat in the general elections would be a far sweeter victory for the side of justice.

In the end, all the straight-faced lies and shameless rape of the very notion of truth, the disgusting, almost pornographic politikking and pandering and manipulation of human perception that is the make-up of American politics, in the end it all amounts to an over-arching aegis of absolute white noise. Here we are, just on the nascent beginnings of a new century and a new millennium, facing one of the most dangerousenemies of our time and great economic struggles, and a whole gang of moon-faced plutocratic grunts are blathering on against each other over the most trivial of matters, just to succeed into an office they damn well know they’re unfit for just to attain status recognition. Have we not greater matters to concern ourselves with? What the hell are you imbeciles thinking?

President George W. Bush just delivered his final state of the union speech. Gone were the rigorous declarations of animus towards our enemies in North Korea and the theocrats in Tehran, all was left was an admittedly admirable call to remain steadfast in Iraq, as if to cling upon this one great idea before it is finally dissipated into the final mire of American political indifference. The final verdict of this presidency in the history books will not be one of failure, the ability to democratize two fascist states and neutralize several others in 8 years, that’s commendable.

No, Bush’s greatest failing was his inability to proclaim his own message. The reason we’re seeing this maelstrom of chaotic political dementia is in part a filling of the void created by the president’s incapacity, or perhaps refusal, to decry his vision. Instead of categorically capitulating his true inner-convictions of what he perceived as the true implications of 9/11; not to fight a “war on terror”, which is a self-evidently ludicrous term tantamount to calling World War II a “war on kamikazism”, but to fight a “War on Islamic Fundamentalism”, which would entail not simple WMD easter-hunts, but a grand, long-lasting civilizational confrontation encompassing drastic geopolitical, cultural, and economic re-configuration. This is what he truly believes was necessary, and this is what his core neoconservative supporters and advisors believe was necessary and still do. I do as well. But he didn’t, beyond his quite well-done 9/11 aftermath speech, his rhetoric has been glossed with fluffy innuendo and circumvention of the real issues at hand, all in an effort not to tell the truth he knows is true, in part because he doesn’t possess the natural linguistic and intellectual faculties to express it with precision, also in part because its an immensely complicated and difficult case to make, and the population may of rejected him.

But it would have been worth it, and it would have been necessary, and it would have saved us from the torment we endure now; a politics contorted by the inane squabbles of unknowing politicians babbling to an unknowing populous.

When faced by daunting and numerous adverse forces and are rendered incapable of making a serious reaction, turn the other way and slobberon about something else.

Thus is the creed of the American politician.

Francis Fukuyama, in his 2006 essay “After Neoconservativism” proclaiming his departure from the greater neoconservative movement, accurately observed that America is now, once again at the crossroads of history; that the decisions it elects to make in the coming years will consecrate its place in time as either the grandiose champion of Enlightenment values, liberating the world from medievalist strife and tyranny, or fail as a crumbling monument to what was once the supreme illuminant of liberty, consequenting in absolute civilizational dissolution.

This last great observation marks the symbolic End of Fukuyama, and marks the beginning of a new age in which the renaissancial philosophy he helped forge must be employed to fortify the untaintable human rights of all people throughout this increasingly barbaric and totallitarian world. For indeed, Dr. Fukuyama is quite correct in asserting that America stands at the nexus of a paradigm shift, and the choices it makes now will either forever elevate it to a golden age of western primacy and peace, or the rise of theocratic fascism and utter societal obliteration.

He is quite mistaken in arguing that the relenquishment of the chalice of interventionalist-minded foreign policy is the solution. Neoconservativism has always been the only true enervating defender and catalyst of classical liberalism throughout the ages, and without imputation the only solution to the tremendous challenges the Western world faces today, a thesis I will catagorically substantiate in the following postulations.

It wouldn’t be an unfair assessment to suggest that the word “neoconservative”, or better yet “neocon” has been rendered a sort of socio-political taboo in recent years, sort of like a new, politically-centric “n word”. Its funny, if you go to Cafepress you can find a lot of political t-shirts of various affiliations boasting silly little slogans and buzz-words and whatnot. Conservatives shirts, liberal shirts, libertarian shirts, and anarchy shirts, oh my!

But if you click on “neoconservative shirts”, instead of getting a catalog of wares with slogans such as “liberty forever, liberty for all” or “liberalism grown up”, all you can find is “STOP THE EVIL NEOCON FASCIST NAZI CONSPIRACY!!!” and “FUCK NEOCONS!”. This is the only catagory wherein the goods are antagonizing the respective party.

You may shrug this off as some innane triviality, but it rather adequately demonstrates what has happened to what was once a highly-respected class of Straussian intellectuals and philosophers; who have now been reduced to a shady esoteric bogeyman mocked by Colbertian half-wit teenagers who wouldn’t know who Irving Kristol was if he jacked them in the face, let alone read a sentence of neo-Platonic objectivist theory.

The term “neoconservative” was originally coined by the infamous American socialist Michael Harrington to demarcate his former Trotskyist colleagues who had abandoned Marx and instead, inspired by the philosophical tracts of Leo Strauss, elected to pursue the spread of market-based, anti-communist libertine social infrastructures as an avenue of foreign policy. Thus, with the highly intellectual and esoteric formulations of Irving Kristol, his son William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle and others, the movement was borne; from the ashes of the failed experimental enterprise of socialism to a brave new philosophy for a dangerous new century.

In the cosmopolitan plebian stage, even the most remote utterance of neoconservative sentiment is contrived as sacrilege, as an allegiance with some elusive cult of oil barons and war-mongering Zionist Bonesmen out to enslave the entire planet under some fascist hegemony. Of course, to anyone who knows anything about neoconservatism (a faculty grossly in absentia within its critics) this notion is patently absurd. And to dispel it, something other than the prosaic, hopelessly banal platitudes offered up by people like Seaon Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, people who are unfortunately woefully unaware of the intricacies of neoconservatism and how to substantiate its merits.

Neoconservatism poses the notion that the Hegellian/neo-Marxian position of an inevitable “end of history” denoted by a free, civil libertarian society is the ultimate final culmination in anthropological progression, and that a dominant superpower can and should push the world towards that inevitability through foreign policy. It is in the best interests of the superpower to set the barometers of geopolitical evolution, particularly when forces of barbarism are threatening the existence of Western civilization.

Now, let us examine the opponent we are currently facing in this perrenial joust for geopolitical primacy, the theocratic fanatacist and fascist envoys of imperialistic Wahhabism and Salafism; in laymen’s terms “militant Islam”. The most vehement straini of liberalism, those whom follow the doctrines of quasi-intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, often suggest that terrorism is the offspring of the west’s malevolance and imperalistic appetite. This notion is so vilely masochistic and preposterous any child who looks at the facts for more than 5 seconds could easily cut through its transparency.On top of calling for the absolutist eradication of all Western civilization and the imposition of the Islamic totallitarian caliphate throughout the hemispheres, al-Qaida and their numerous subsidiaries and paralells have called for the extinction of the “pagan” state of India and the rise of an all-Islamic Kashmir, the return of East Timor to Indonesia, the relenquishment of significant amouns of land to form a new islamist state by the Phillipenes, and of course, the obliteration of the state of Israel. Tell me, Noam, is all this because we weren’t nice to them?

Speaking of Israel, I would like to take this opportunity to make a declaration about this oh so sacred province of the messiah. One of the main, if not the chief arguments employed against the liberation effort in Iraq, as well as the doctrine of neoconservative/interventionalist foreign policy in general has been the summoning of the menacing bogeyman of Israel. “War for Israel”, “Zionist neocons”, this tired, meandering ilk expropriating the motives of this struggle as some sort of maniacal front for the “gargantuan” Israeli lobby have been echoed by the likes of George Galloway and Susan Sontag for years.

These charges are basically predicated upon the fact that indeed, the highly sophisticated Straussian philosophers which constituted the mind-muscle of the Bush administration were indeed Jewish; Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc. And thats basically it. This mildly anti-Semetic observation is the backbone of the “evil Zionist conspiracy theorist” faction.

But for any serious thinker the refutation of such an exorbitant insinnuation is almost facile. If this campaign against theocratic fundamentalism really was just a Zion imperialist campaign in disguise, why on earth would the first target by Iraq? The Israeli hawks have never cared about it, its been Iran they’re concerned about and if anything an engagement with Iraq would have diminished the chances of a full-scale assault on Iran, and they would have well known that. Wheres your omnipotent Zionist influence now?

And, more importantly, if Wolfowitz and his colleagues really were just puppets for Tel Aviv, why would they have supported the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo to end the genocide of a Muslim minority from a Christian fanatacist like Milosovic? Israel was vehemently opposed the amelioration of these territories, and Wolfowitz helped orchestrate it, wheres your Zionist influence now?

We must also address the popular notion amongst liberals that the plight of the beleagured Palestinian population is the source of the Islamists’ angst, and that if we just mend this ailment they’ll all just go away. This is a very childish last resort on the part of the left to avoid the inevitable confrontation with militant Islam, jihadi expansionalists long predate the 1948 Israeli appropriation; indeed their crusade against Enlightenment era civics is older than even the Balfour Declaration. Bin Ladin has even stated that he doesn’t want a seperate Palestinian state, he just wants the land Israel occupies to be a part of a larger caliphate. 20 percent of Palestinians are former Christians, even more of them are secularists, what kind of fools do liberals take us for if they think this is the reason murders in the name of Allah are happening every day? Were all those offenses I enumerated earlier in this writing about Palestine? East Timor and India Palestinian subsidiaries now?

With all this inscrutable evidence backing the neoconservative position, it would be expected that there would be little no room for debate. But the Republicans have done a simply ghastly job of re-affirming the essential paramounts underlying the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion alone. On top of having a genocidal megalomanical barbarian in control of one of the most geopolitically integral nexus-points in the battleground for civilization, (if that wasn’t enough for the left) you had a state which gave state sponsored safe-haven to Abu Nidal, the most wanted Islamic terrorist of the 20th century, was in close interaction with arch-Islamist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, sheltered Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and Abu Abbas, the man who murdered Leon Klinghoffer as well as coordinated the Achilee Lauro hijacking. Saddam was also a frontman for the most fanatical Palestinian terror-cells, directly financing the families of suicide bombers to the tune of $25,000 each. It must also be recognized that the terrorist destroyer of the great and glorious golden dome mosque in Samarra, one of the most magnificent and pristine showcases of human architectural ability in the world, was a former member of Saddam’s secret police. So anyone who suggests that Iraq had no ties with terrosim is either choosing to be willfully ignorant or is lying.

On top of all that he was defying a decade’s worth of UN sanctions, simultaneously profitting off the corruption of said organization while his people starved to death through the ghastly Oil for Food Programme. The same UN pedantic monkeys who prevented this end of this whole affair, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladmir Putin, Jacques Chirac, they’re all now in the gutter of conniving tomfoolery. This perfectly demonstrates what the right has known for years, the UN is not a geopolitcally viable diplomatic instrument, if any real action in the world is to be taken it must be done with the assertive initiative of America. If others want to coalition with us, be our guests, but don’t expect us to beg for anyone, multilaterism is a bad joke.

Iraq was never the peaceful sovreign state of Elysiden fields ubiquitously conjured up the teary-eyed mutterings of the left. It had long since compromised its sovreignty under the parameters of international law, having effectively failed in all four of the conditions that constitute a sovreign state. It had invaded two of its neighbors, it had commited genocide against its occupants, it was involved with considerable machinations with weapons of mass destruction contrary to popular belief, and harbored international terrorists. After the 91′ war Saddam was indicted with a decade’s worth of sanctions and had two-thirds of his airspace rendered as no-fly zones, so he was under constant monitoring and surveillance by coalition planes, which he fired upon every day. The notion that we were at peace with Iraq is a conceptual misnomer at best and a bald-faced lie at worst, the period of intermission dividing the 91′ and 03′ wars was merely a lapse of prolonged armed truce that needed to be inevitably broken by someone. We correctly elected to take the initiative this time.

It must also be declaratively and resoundingly pronounced that had we not intervened, Iraq would still have degenerated into the internecine civile strife it is now experiencing. Saddam was running his country into the shambolic abyss, culturally traumatized and economically maimed. The situation pre-liberation was so dilapidated that money was forced to be printed on Xerox machines, utter societal dissolution was inevitable under the status quo of a continued Baathist regime. And when that happened, this time the interventino would be under the banner of a benign and democratic American-led coalition, it would have been Saudi Arabia consolidating power for the Sunni faction, Iran for the Shia and Turkey for the Kurds, which would have been a nearly in-eradicably impeding bulwark against peace in the Middle-East. Again, the war in Iraq was not an optional one.

Moreover the trite and thoughtless allegation employed ad nauseum by the left that “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11″ is innately asinine. Everyone who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks is dead, thus is the nature of a suicide bombing. This war isn’t simply killing bin Ladin and never was, nor should it have been. The Democrats seem to think the buck stops with a diseased old man who has little to no real importance within the overall Islamist ranks beyond the polarizing role of a mystical patriarchal figure. His death would be a just deliverance cosmically, but would mean nothing in the broader scheme of things; he might already even be dead.

And lets not forget the scurrilous “WMD lies” fall-back option conveniently implemented by liberals whenever their arguments begin to collapse. I find this rather amusing because ultimately this is by far the most feeble bulwark the left has constructed to sustain its inherently diseased position. The matter of weapons of mass destruction is arguably the most fertile point of exculpation the Bush administration could hope for:

When every intelligence agency on the planet has universally adjucated that a psychopathic fascist, with known ties to terrorist thugs and the A.Q. Khan bio-weaponry network, (whom on the March of the year of the invasion was corroborating with envoys of Hussein and Kim-Jong Il in Damascus to deliver weaponry to Iraq), with such a damning repetoir what kind of pre-historic moron (even by liberal standards) choose to ignore all that?What kind of shameless coward would be capable of surviving the post-mortem of being wrong about WMD without invading Iraq? Frankly no responsible human being, let alone chief executive, with awareness of the facts could have possibly ignored all the overwhelming evidence in favor of a military incursion.

And let me re-iterate this as dexterously as possible, Saddam did posess weapons of mass destruction. Not only had he used them with the most promiscuous brutality in the past, but even up to the liberation. Coalition forces discovered a meticulous infrascture designed specifically for the production, transporation, and most importantly concealment of nuclear and biological weaponry armaments. Liberals can rest easy now, it can be catagorically proclaimed now that the invasion of Iraq was not predicated upon a single false pretext.

I mean, lets be real here, when pissy little lefties clamor about “lies about weapons of mass destruction”, are they being ironic? Or are they, as they are lying, as they are so keen and shameless in doing so? Or, are they just hopelessly stupid? You can be the arbiter of that.

One of the core foundational groundworks employed by the left as a launch pad from which it can easily throttle its catharthic ravings against the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even preemptively dispute any futureengagements are its straw man arguments of “western hypocrisy”. These positions basically gravitate from the notion that we “created Bin Ladin and Saddam”, so who are we to bring them to justice?

We never financed Bin Ladin, ever. We assisted the Afghan mujihideen who’s resistance against Soviet aggression was completely justified, Bin Ladin may have fought on their side but his sponsorship was wholly of Saudi investment. No one could have predicted Pakistani and Bin Ladinist interlocutors eventually bringing on the rise of the Taliban, and history in hindsight is never a healthy practice. And on the issue of Saddam, I think this one was spawned by a single blurry image of him shaking Mr. Rumsfeld’s hand that spread virally like wildfire. All it would have taken was 5 minutes of research to discover the ground-breaking truth that the US never delivered weapons of any sort to Saddam, it simply declared that it took side with Iraq with its war against Iran, which was at the time a more threatening entity. You can criticise their lesser of two evils approach, but you’d by lying if you suggested we gave him his WMD.

These are urban legends of the most revolting and dangerous strain, and can be so easily relegated by simple historical record that it proves leftists are not serious scholars or thinkers, but instead docile fools who willingly prostitute their brains for the sheer thrill of subscribing to the most absurdist conspiratorial charges imaginable. Its as if they think by making these bold remarks “we created al-Qaida!” and “Saddam was our puppet!” usually with a clever little smirk on their face, as if saying “I know so much more than you”, never offering an iota of substantiation, its as if they think they have the intellectual higher ground. How unfortunate they’ll never be bright enough to understand the irony.

Why are liberals so content with assailing the war on terror? Are they concealing some sort of inner-sadist pathology, knowing that because of their failure to prevent this war people are better off? That Afghanistan is rid of the tyrannical tribalist totallitarian demagogery of the Taliban? That a psychopath war-monger like Gaddafi has finally been disarmed of his very real and tangible weapons of mass destruction, an event that would have been impossible without the invasion of Iraq, a fact casually glossed over by the left? That for the first time ever Iraq has the chance to cast off its decrepit shackles of servitude and can hold its own elections? That Iraq’s GDP per capita is now actually higher than it war prior to the invasion? Are they really resentful of all this? Or are they just too cowardly to admit their folly?

All the shameless piffle of liberal politics aside, it is of the utmost importance that we aid the Iraqi resistance in its struggle against the sadists and murderers of the jihad. We must stand by the valiant and noble secular Kurdish militia outfit the Peshmurga, who’s efforts have elevated the status of Kurdistan by quantum leaps and bounds. We need to be resiliant against AQM’s (Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia) presence in Iraq, and we’re winning, every serious observer has remarked that their forces are being diminished and they are being driven into the dark where they belong. Even the schizmatic interface of the Sunni-Shia conflict is being slowly mediated. All in all, departure any time soon from Iraq would be tantamount to suicide for our interests and homicide for the interests of those whom we aimed to liberate.

We’re fighting a long-haul war against an entire nihilistic philsophy of “homicidal-suicide” a horrid and purely evil convention of death conceived by the Islamists and a first for human experience. They seek not the end of history, but the reversion of history, subverting modernity itself, turning back the clock to a perpetual age of bedouin mysticism and barbarism and theocratic Sharia fascism.

The enemy we face is cunning, and takes numerous forms, from the turban-clad warlords of Kandahar to the Saudi plutocracy terror financiers in their palaces, to the Islamist lobbyists under the guise of politically-correct institutions of peace like CAIR and quite potentially people like Keith Ellison. This is no time to back down or retreat, these people desperately require Westernization. Some have the potential to fight for it themselves, like the secularists in Tehran. Others, like the Iraqia and Syrians, can’t do it by autonomously, and require third-party intervention. In any case, whether they like it or not, in the long-run it is absolutely imperative that the societal plague that is Islamist fascism be purged from the face of the earth once and for all.

We cannot delude ourselves into believing that this will be a quick and quaint enterprise; the transition from years of fundamentalist oppression, inhumanism and bodily and mind enslavement to free-willed democracy will be a long one. Blood and tears will be shed, and the ultimate goal of democratic civil societies engendered from the rubble of theological ghettos will not be immediately realized. In some cases where Islamism is rampant the brutal, but ultimately just and necessary policies of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk must be replicated in order to nullify the power of terrorists and thugs to imtimidate the populous from excercising freedom, something they loathe to the pits of their stomachs.

Ultimately the transitional paradigm shift from theocratic fascism to secular democracy in the Middle-East and abroad will operate on a principle I have christened “the changing of the guard”. Purge the provocateurs of intellectual-regression and hate-mongering religious bigotry from the mosques, school curriculum, politicians and likewise. Destroy the ideology at its roots, cleanse it completely from all societal apparatuses, make certain the sensitivities of children will not be impacted or influenced by fundamentalist indoctrinating forces.

In the consequenting void introduce and re-inforce the teachings of the secular Western tradition, conditioning the young to embrace the superiority of the Enlightenment values versus the rot of religious zealotry. Then wait patiently for a new generation to take control of their country and expel the parties of God from corroding their lands once and for all, we’re already seeing the beginnings of this concept in the streets of Tehran, where the concentration of pro-American sentiment vastly dwarfs that of San Francisco, and the Khomenistas are increasingly losing their totallitarian foothold. Again none of this can be achieved in a short interval of time, within the Iranian microcosm it took decades, but the results we are attempting to fulminate are not simplistic ones. Vigilance is an absolutely paramount virtue here, but we can be consoled by the fact that history is on our side.

One thing is clear, as in the words of political dissident Syed Ibrahim whilst in prison detention in Egypt, without the emancipation of Iraq and the onset of the first free, democratic election in the country’s history, without this, the engagement of the call for freedom and humanity in a region so hopelessly deprived of both, the prospects for finally ending the legions of the totallitarian neo-caliphate and triumphing in the war on terror would be rendered moot. The clash for civilization we find ourselves entangled in will be brutal indeed, but the cause is endearing and the consequences for acquiescence would be catastrophic. There is absolutely no room for the whims of the parochial and the cynic.

I’ve now capitulated on the catagorical imperatives underlying neoconservativism. But in order to fully apperciate and subscribe to them, it is vital that we observe the alternative: political liberalism.

Let us stipulate a scenario in which this so-called “liberal anti-war” faction had its goals and convictions reflected in foreign policy. Had these people been listened to, the Vietnam War would have fulminated in a shameful retreat by American forces, precipitating in a turbulently violent bloodbath; obviously this particular situation was actually realized. Moreover, the Soviet Union would have succeeded in its expansionalistic ambitions and the nihilists of the Red Army would have encroached themselves throughout Europe. Slobodan Milosevic (incidentally a man who was being supplied with armaments by his fellow tyrant Saddam Hussein) would have succeded in his ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, and Bosnia would have been consolidated into a greater Serbian Yugoslavia. The Taliban would have still retained their theocratic stranglehold and Afghanistan would still cater to Bin Ladin and his thugs as guests of the state. And finally, Saddam Hussein would not only still be perpetuating his fascistic massacre-machine within his own country, but would have also succeeded in annexing the autonomous member of the UN and Arab League Kuwait.

How is it that the left so routinely boasts that its the party of “human rights” while retaining such a disgraceful track-record for disdaining them? I said “so-called” anti-war faction for a reason, the above episodes were not exemplaries of pacifism, they demonstrated a sado-masochistic desire to ignore the victims and pity their demented murderers. This testifies to the failure of the left: traditionally it was supposed to operate under the conditions of upholding the rights of all people, but now it has just become a cheap bumper sticker avenue for conceited activists. It is in this way that neoconservativism fills the void, raising the banner of classical liberalism when the left itself does not.

The root cause of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism gravitates from the mind-cancer that is multicultural relativism, the pseudo-philosophy that dictates there is no objective standards by which comparative judgements can be drawn between differing socities. Essentially it argues that there is no real truth, no culture is superior to another because everythings just relative to one another, everything is equal. This is the masochistic bile spewed by all the liberal savants: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, and innumerable others. Ultimately it comes down to an incredibly elusive brand of nihilism, a rejection of any sense of metaphysical or realisitic objective standard, absolving one of the tedious burden of “knowledge” of other cultures and instead substituting it with the false antithesis that we are to be infatuated with all cultures, consequenting in truly respecting none of them.What does this mean? This means that liberals are incapable of recognizing the universal rights of man, that no such rights exist, that the rights of man are instead contigent upon the culture to which they are situated within, and all cultures are relative to one another and thus equal. So theres no point in even debating such things as delivering people from tyranny, who’s to say our culture is any better?

This is the utterly contemptible intellectually-regressive opiate of the ignorant and the cynical. There are cultures whom are superior to others, and we will not be content with the oppression of our fellow man just because its relatively just in accordance to their backwards cultures. We will not allow women to be subjugated as chattel, apostates and unbelievers to be murdered, homosexuals to be slaughtered and civil liberties to be evaporated just because its sanctioned as the divine ordinance of God by an arcane book filled with lies and superstitions. It may be justified in Islamic culture, but not in ours, and we have the higher ground. We in the west must hereby resolve that we liberate all the populations of the enslaved from their fascist overlords and will not be stopped in our ambition by the nihilistic stupidity of multicultural etiquette.

But we must proceed with purity. Some evangelical conservatives like Ann Coulter have made incendiary remarks that we should “invade their countries and convert them to Christianity”. This Falwellian bile is infinitely detrimental to our cause; this shouldn’t be a war between radical Christianity and radical Islam, this should be a war between secular autocratic modernity and theocratic fascist medievalism. Luckily, the neoconservative faction isn’t populated by ugly sophomoric broads like her.

Earlier I articulated as to why this isn’t a Zionist crusade, as liberals commonly charge. But now I would like express why this shouldn’t be a Zionist cause. There most definitely is a militaristic Palestinian faction in the form of HIzbollah and Hamas, and they must be ruthlessly contended with. They’ve subverted the anguish of their people into fascist violence and seek not the liberation of Palestine and the peaceful emergence of a two-state solution, but the theocratic imposition of Palestine throughout the territories through the complete annihilation of Israel. This is non-pardonable and will be dealt with accordingly.

but there most definitely are Israeli madmen as well. General Sharon illegally annexed territories in the West Bank and Gaza even during the Oslo accords, and Israel has continually abused its provincial rights, displacing millions of people in an already wretched position. Its easy to see why even a Palestinian secularist could be infuriated by such encroachments upon his own land. This is the same fundamentalist bile, just under the banner of a different holy book.

Too much time has passed, too much evasion of this problem. To be fair, President Bush has been the only American president to use the term “Palestinian state”, but far more needs to be done. The territories must be forcefully reverted back to their 1947-1948 jurisdictional conditions; if either party, Israeli or Palestinian, betrays these perimeters then they will suffer the consequences.

This may very well require the eviction of certain parties, polls have always shown that the large moderate populations on both sides have always been seeking two-state solutions, but have had their ambitions squashed due to the extremists on both sides, Hizbollah and Hamas for Palestine and Likud for Israel. Again a perfectly mediatable conflict is rendered impossible because of religious interference. This is a war against the arcanum of theocratic imperialism, justice must be brought to Islamist and Zionist alike. 9/11 was not triggered by the Palestinian-Israeli question, but it at least invigorated us to finally answer it. If God doesn’t want to deliver his chosen people from squalor (whoever they are), then we will.

And again, “of course” all Muslims are not Islamists, but it would be fair to state that mostly all Muslim protestors are Islamists. As Irshad Manji has pointed out, the burden of a secular Islamic renaissance rests upon the Muslim population itself.

This is an incredibly multi-faceted conflict we are now facing, and its components are changing and evolving in near perpetuity. We need to be very smart about our moves, and make them with knowledge and strong willpower. Surely mistakes have been made, had Bush listened to the neoconservative base and invaded with a drastically larger force, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the same scope of volatility we now face.

For those still skeptical of the tenability of the seemingly tremendous objectives we are seeking here, I submit simple historical analysis. Recall that prior to the American invasion and re-animation of Germany and Japan in its own image, these odious behemoths were arguably theocratic slave-states. The fuhrer was afforded the respectability and obedience of an avatar of God, and the Japanese emperor was all but God himself; he was thought to have divine ordinance and ancestry, this pales even the Khomeni regime as mild.

Now decades later, after America forcefully and violently absolved the Axis Powers of their fascist barbarism and imbued its own values and infrastructure, both states boast some of the most impressive and formidable economies in the world. I believe this precedent can be replicated in the Middle-East, it will take a great deal of time and blood will be shed, but the cause is undeniabily just. Neoconservatism doesn’t have to prove anything, history speaks for itself. One thing remains constant, the fate of the world is in the balance. Will we be neoconservatives and take initiative ensuring that our future won’t be compromised? Or will we be liberal apologists and pacifists and apathetic superficialists, calling the only faction serious about stopping terrorism fascists, and then sympathising with real fascists?

The choice is yours, America, we are at a crossroads.

The clock is ticking.

{Another term paper, this time about how liberals cause racism. Oh, and high props to anyone who catches the Pink Floyd reference here. )

The cure is worse than the disease, the bulwark is more treacherous than the agitator-malcontent, in attempting to cleanse we defile. This is an epochal historical precedent that should not go unnoticed; the socio-moral precept that in attempting to rid some sort of social evil, we in fact allow it to gestate and immaculate itself, simply by acknowledging its presence. More often than not the alleged aggravator doesn’t really exist, has never actually manifested itself and only appears to pose a problem because of sensationialization, exaggeration and aggressive tension-rousing innuendo.  When people are in a state of ruin, they often invent enemies rather than confronting the actual problem.

            Case in point Islamic extremism today: the Islamist leaders require a convenient pretext to corroborate their insidious and self-tormenting diabolical war of theological-expansionism. So instead of focusing on how to mend their impossibly mismanaged command-based economies, they blame the squalid and hopelessly impoverished state of abysmal gloom the populace faces on the West, even though this is a wholly imaginary correlation. This, compounded with absolutely legitimate Qur’anic citations of inciting violence against the unbelieving plebian infidels, is the reason why Islamism exists and why it is the tremendous threat that it is. Within the Middle-East there is no Western aggressor corroding the economy; any and all Anglo-American petroleum conglomerations departed the region ages ago, the only military presence prior to 9/11 lies hundreds of miles away from Mecca (contrary to Bin Ladin’s shameless lies) and if anything Western intervention has only improved Middle-Eastern infrastructure; expelling genocidal sadist dictators and war tribe fascists like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Yet the “Great Satanic Power” America gets all the blame for Middle-Eastern troubles in the end, an undeserved condemnation only an objectively moronic hack like Noam Chomsky would agree with.

            I see this paradigm re-enacting itself in a different light within American society in the form of the “racism issue”. You would be hard-pressed to tune-in to a media kiosk without stumbling upon a barely intelligible black separatist pariah like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton foaming at the mouth about some self-concocted “severe” racial transgression or breach of civil rights.  The rhetoric emanating from some of these people makes it sound like the second civil war is impending, except this time its just blacks vs. everyone else!

            There is a problem of profoundly intense magnitude when prominent members of the black leadership fiercely deride washed-up entertainment acts like Don Imus or Michael Richards for making stupid racial quips in passing, and then serenading the lying Duke lacrosse team instigator or even worse, a despicable mongrel like Louis Farrakhan, an uncontestably Islamist terrorist-sympathizer and collaborator, a man who under all components of the law should be in prison for treason. And lets not forget the utterly zero blowback from the black leadership on issues of calamitous ethnic detriment like rap music. All in the name of racial diversity, eh?

            Is racism a legitimate social crisis? Is it something we ought to be concerning ourselves with, even remotely? In a day and age where a black man is now a front-runner for the United States presidency, where black men run countless political organizations, lobbying groups, television networks, publishing firms and likewise, (Peterson) where black people virtually run the entertainment industry altogether, I find it utterly and completely mind-boggling and intellectually, as well as empirically absurd that race is a serious point of discussion in the political discourse. Honestly, I don’t give a damn about trivial politically-correct rules of engagement, why in the hell are we supposed to care about race? Isn’t it counter-productive by definition to incessantly remind people of their skin color and keep telling them that’s the reason they can’t enhance their lifestyles? Isn’t that perpetuating racial injustice? Isn’t marauding people’s minds with images of racism in an effort to dispel racism, well, racism?

            My postulation here is this: race is categorically a non-issue in the contemporary socio-political environment, and that the powers that be in the black political microcosm are people of leftist allegiance who facilitate racism through their backward duplicitous propaganda, all in an effort to further disenfranchise their constituencies and consolidate their hegemonic stranglehold on the populous. I realize this is quite an extensive, multi-faceted and vindicating charge, but I will effusively explicate it in full within the forthcoming pages.

            Let’s begin at the fundamental backbone of this issue, the poverty question. Liberal black activists are constantly asserting that the reason for the impoverished state of the black man is artificial racial barriers constructed by the vast right-wing plutocracy to maintain a retentious aegis of socio-economic imbalance and supremacy. I respond that this is beyond ridiculous; if there really are invisible and insurmountable economic divisive-boundaries retarding the economic escalation of colored people, how is it that immigrants, whom come to this country with little to no grasp of the language and less money, (really for all intents and purposes far less equipped to succeed than blacks already living in the country) succeed exponentially more than black native citizens? (D’Souza) Is this some sort of uni-chromatic racism scheme? Only differentiates against blacks, but not Indians, Koreans, or a vast plethora of other ethnicities, most importantly of course being Persians?

            Liberals are quick to retort that the reason other immigrants are capable of succeeding and blacks are not is because of the years of brutal oppression and inhuman cruelty blacks have had to endure for well over a hundred years. Yes indeed, blacks have had to undergo a great deal of undeserved and barbaric punishment historically, this is an indisputable fact, and one that no one is rebuking or justifying. But this is surely a feeble excuse for a far more complicated problem. Let’s break this explanation down through historical anecdote: India was under the Draconian harshness of British colonialism for the better part of the 20^th century. During this time the Indian population was systematically subjugated, de-individualized, culturally repressed and exploited to an extent at the very least paralleling, if not dwarfing black slavery.

            But like black slavery, that time has since passed, and in its wake India is now an economic powerhouse, a teeming nexus of information-technology activity and opportunity. While poverty still undoubtedly exists in India, it is slowly waning as the upper echelon of lavish, Westernized and industrial Indian society, what I’ve christened the “New Delhi Revolution”, begins to grow and the elder culture begins to cave in to the wonderous amenities of the private sector. This historical episode alone should render moot the clearly fabricated liberal claim of racial barriers impeding the black man. If every other race is becoming prosperous, why can’t blacks? It’s not because they’re still recovering from wrongfully-inflicted hardships, just ask the Indians.

            Logically we must now raise the question, if aberrant skin-pigmentation isn’t the root cause of black poverty, what is? Why are they failing relative to their colored immigrant counter-parts? I think that can be answered adequately in a very simple statement: “Horacio Algers Pleads Innocent”. Immigrants are succeeding because they aren’t immediately barraged by an onslaught of capricious anti-motivational propaganda abruptly informing them of the touted unrealizable nature of the American dream. They come to this country with a mind devoid of everything but the purest conviction to prosper imaginable, and in so doing these formerly non-Americans prove the American dream is real. Beautiful cosmic irony at its very best.

            The true culprit of racial segregationalism here is the leftist enclave that work to maintain the normal etiquette of the black man’s non-capacity to ascend the social ladder. Consider yourself a young black urbanite for a moment, all you’ve heard your entire life is that the black man is being suppressed, that he is being made a de facto slave to those in power, that there is no real chance to escape the shackles of poverty. What are you going to do? Work harder? Persevere? Deviate from the norm? Strive for the highest good, no matter how staggering the journey?

            Or would you more likely succumb and discontinue any effort to vitalize your life, after all, whats the point of persisting if every social machination is turned against you? You’d more likely listen to the claims of the pedagogues who “enlightened” you and continue voting for them, certain that their assurance of liberation will prove fruitful soon enough.

            Of course such a political interface most certainly exists and has been taken advantage to the full by the Democratic Party. Democrats like Jackson and Sharpton have convinced their hapless, obedient audiences that the left is the party of blacks, that since black people are incapable of escaping poverty due to the injustices of the machine, they need to vote for “reform” and get funneled welfare checks in the meantime. Somehow or another between Republicans abolishing slavery and the Republican Bush administration appointing more blacks to high positions of power than any other administration in US history, Kanye West and Spike Lee were exalted to the point where they got tearful applause for saying things like “Republicans hate black people”. It really is remarkable what liberals have done with the race issue, placating an angry black constituency by harnessing their discontent into a political maelstrom, employing the resulting energy on any target of their choosing. Truly if anyone is responsible for the construction of a racially exploitative framework, it would be the left.

            But what are the broader causations and implications of color-sensitization that ferment racism? I wholeheartedly believe the origins of racism lie in the feeling of “racial shame” cultivated by the politically-correct innuendo fostered by the left. For example, what in god’s name is this ridiculous “African American” moniker tagged to black people? Have you not ever considered what you call, say, a black person from England? An African-Briton? A black Irish person? An African-Celtic? This may seem like a silly play of semantics, but my point resonates much deeper; by its very nature the term “African American” is trying to alienate any notion of blackness from the identity of black people. Something that should be accepted, embraced, and cherished is instead being masked by a membrane-thin ruse; no matter what you do you can’t escape your identity. If racial tensions are to be mediated, it needs to start by accepting that race exists. The color black should be taken for what it is, not embedded with a false façade, you may ridicule my criticism as superficial and irrelevant, but I honestly believe its seemingly small things like this which deter against racial harmony.

            Moreover, some things ought to be purged from the public memory. It is quite evident that slave-era imagery is still quite fresh in the minds of black people, even though that age has long been extinct. I believe part of the reason why racial tensions continue to fester is because we keep reminding people of a time and a place where they flourished. It’s about time the black population forgets about the past and moves on to the future; and in order for that to happen that imagery needs to dissolve. Stop waving Confederate flags (one was flown over the Arkansas state house while Clinton was governor, by the way), stop holding black remembrance weeks/months, and stop mellowing in the past glory of civil rights leaders. Martin Luther King was a magnificent man and did exuberant amounts of good for the black cause, but stop worshipping him! Start anew! Don’t allow their work to die in vain, civil rights have been realized, it’s about time to start using them!

            Furthermore, the searing wounds the black community has inflicted upon itself throughout the past few decades is utterly revolting, and quite shameful frankly on their part. Rap “music” (emphasized with a great deal of sarcasm) is truly one of the most putrid, culturally corrosive, imbecile and morally repugnant manifestations of American culture in years. What would otherwise be considered deplorable rapist psychosexual fantasies or the glorification of crime and gangster brutality are illuminated to the light of extravagance and nonchalant “coolness”. Whats most disturbing about rap, however, is the underlying guise of “racial expression” it is packaged in. Rappers contend that they are the “new age philosophers”, informing their compliant sycophant listeners of the “true racial struggle” they’re facing and how best to execute the violent insurrection necessary to bring about equality. Of course this is all absolute trash, these illiterate infantile morons couldn’t string a proper sentence together without excessive and disgusting profanity, let alone preach the true nature of the world. This is the sort of anti-social, truly racist banter that the liberals of the black community ought to be vehemently calling the end of, yet the hall is silent.

            Get an old ugly washed-up talk-show host no one listens to like Don Imus to say “nappy-headed ho”, though, and watch how fast the firestorm of “racist” controversy will incinerate the Earth. Don’t blink.

            This brings me to the theories espoused by two contemporary black thinkers and how they vary so drastically with one another, Ralph Ellison and Bill Cosby. Ellison is quite an interesting figure, and no doubt he makes some excellent, well-articulated points and commentary on the black man in American society. I am in full agreement with him that racial separatist innuendo such as those of “Ras the Destroyer” are incredibly damaging to the black welfare. I do believe Ras is exemplified in modern times by figures like Jackson, Sharpton, and even rappers, all of whom elect for drastic, sometimes violent social changes to better accommodate the black man.

            Ellison also exasperates that groups who’s motives appear to be to improve the welfare of the black population and seem to be purely benevolent on the surface are actually staging an elaborate masquerade; institutions like “The Brotherhood” are mirrored by groups like the NAACP, on one hand claiming to be only interested in the welfare of their constituency but ultimately revealing themselves as dastardly, corrupt and exploitative. Ellison warns black people to be wary of figures who pledge devotion to their well-being, that they should instead learn to thrive on their own and within their own communities. Stay at home, raise a proper family, help Mary Rambo rather than submit to Brother Jack.

            However, I do believe Ellison is quite mistaken in some regards, most notably his assertion that indeed there are intricate socio-political, as well as cultural machinery in place to indefinitely retain the black man in a state of mediocrity. Ellison suggests that black people ought to come to grips with this fact, accept it, and to learn to live within its parameters. Once one has truly self-actualized his image and accepted his role as a second-rater in society, only then can he have true existential understanding and thus be equipped to combat racism. While I agree that indeed prejudice exists, I don’t believe it is exclusive to black people, or that it actually matters. Bigotry, preconceived notions and intolerance will always exist, the question is will you allow it to overpower you? You’re not invisible just because some may refuse to see who you are, that just makes them blind. The solution to combating such ignorance is success, only then will you be able to emit enough light for them to finally notice your grandeur.

            I have a great deal of respect for Ellison as a writer and as a thinker, his observations are uncanny and for the most part his conclusions are made with pinpoint-precision. But I much prefer Cosby’s perspective here, indeed racial tensions exist, but only because the black community itself augments them. Cosby impels blacks, especially the parents, to raise their children in a respectable manner, so they won’t grow up idolizing rapists, murderers and druggies. In short, if you want to change the image of black people, it has to come from the inside, grow up.

            Race is something unique, beautiful, and wholly human every one of us is genetically embedded with. It’s not some mere cosmetic design or attire we can shed at any time of our choosing; unless you’re Michael Jackson you’re blessed with your skin color for the rest of your life. It’s not something you should attempt to hide or be ashamed of by any means. Conversely, it’s not something you ought to be utilizing to defect yourself from the rest of the human genome either. After all, in the end we are all human, regardless of skin color.

            We need to live in a world where we see a cease in the discussion of race altogether. We need the notion of racial differentiation to be implanted into the human subconscious, so that it requires no thought processes to understand racial discrepancies; only then can we see an end to discrimination. There won’t be a need to discriminate, we will already understand and disregard as normalcy people’s varying skin colors, just like different eye and hair colors. But that can only be brought about if people stop talking about a racial problem, how can race be a part of the status quo if it’s always construed as a matter of conflict? Wouldn’t you think more about people’s eye and hair colors if one day a heated debate emerged surrounding it? The very notion of “ending racism through racism” is completely preposterous, something liberals never seem to understand.

            If we want to see all racial tensions dissipate with the utmost expediency, we need to mature as a people and come to the realization that these tensions are but imaginary girders of our own design. If we stop repeating in Gregorian chant the “evils of racism”, if we stop writing crude, unspeakably immoral songs about “the evils of racism”, if we stop angrily romping through the streets and causing an uproarious clamor about “the evils of racism”, if we stop succumbing to politicians and pseudo-philosophical tracts telling us the futility of life and how we can never overcome obstacles because of the “evils of racism”…

            If, for just one moment, we had a momentary lapse of people talking about racism, we might find that there never really was any racism after all; the prison door was wide open all along.

 

{The following is one of my final term papers for my political philosophy course, infinitely more scholarly than the usual dabble I infect this place with. You’ll notice I exhibit a stringent neoconservative pathology, something I’m pleased to say really aggravated my lefty professor. Needless to say I got an A. Lengthy but juicy, check it.)

It is no vast secret of the intellectual community that the contemporary political discourse’s alleged postmodernist nature has been ravaged by the leftist academic enclave for years. Anguished out­­­­cries of primal rage have been emanating from the liberal corners of campuses all over the nation for decades accusing the right of consolidating the political environment and warping it into an over-simplified, unbalanced, anti-relativistic caricature; portraying the multi-faceted world around us as a bi-chromatic tableau filtered through their own heinous lens of plutocratic cynicism, all in an effort to further churn the war machine and forever maintain America’s economic and militaristic fascist global dominance.

            These remarks may appear comical and absurdist when put that way, but in almost universal solidarity that’s what progressive professors diatribe about daily. Parenthetically speaking one of the most classic and chiefly employed liberal criticisms of modern socio-political dialogue is its perceived philistine postmodernist flavour. Because conservatives elect to utilize language such as “good and evil” and even worse “spreading freedom” when discussing conflicts abroad, they are being callously subjective and empirically inaccurate.

The contention the left is posing here is that the use of objectivist language by conservatives is vile, plebian and an augmentation of the broader paradigm of cultural corrosion that is postmodernism. My contention is that that is complete and utter nonsense in its purest, most undiluted form. Postmodernist cultural implications most definitely play their hand in shaping American society today, but the argument that it is the right that has contaminated scholarly political discussion with postmodernist rhetorical decives is preposterous.

The western tradition is superior and should be exported globally if we ever want to extinguish the squalid nihilistic philosophy that is Islamism and other depredations  beyond, finally restoring world order. In order to bring about a glorious era of universal civic tranquility and modernity throughout even the most wretched and depraved dominion of the Middle-East, Africa, East Asia or otherwise, America must forcefully inject its hegemony across the world, only then can the age of the “Pax Americana” be realized. This isn’t some manic pipedream, this is the legitimate political platform of neoconservatism today; the left’s rebuttal of this by tossing a clichéd postmodernist criticism quip is weak and unfounded. In the forthcoming pages I will explicate the postmodernist tradition, its impact on the political discourse, how in fact its liberalism that has been operating under its umbrella ad nauseum, and categorically rebuke the liberal postulation of conservative postmodernist unrealism.

Let us begin our analysis by disseminating the origin of this whole affair, the precursor to postmodernism, affectionately known as modernism. Modernism, contrary to the surreality and abstract convolutions of postmodernism, is characterized by an emphasis on the core fundamentals of reality, empiricism, truth, progress, and likewise. It is no coincidental correlation that modernism was engendered during the 18^th-19^th century period of exponential industrial advancement, accentuated architectural innovation and enhancement, and an overall intellectual climate of the capacity to conquer, or even wholly re-construct nature and reality itself. Pretextual artistic premises became devoid of the romantic or naturalistic period imperatives of imitating or exalting nature; everything from literature to paintings to structural composition took a distinctly and deliberately unnatural demeanor to demonstrate mankind’s superiority and domination over natural processes. (Stanford, Venegoni).

The entire mood of modernism resonated with unbridled optimism, man’s intellectual and physical faculties permeated every component of the modernist tradition; its ability to wield power over the perpetually changing forces around it, its super-structural prominence, its avant garde scholastic virtuosity. Its artistic byproducts were not so much re-creating reality as they were re-animating it in the human image; emboldening the grandeur of the human condition through nature-confounding spectacles like skyscrapers.  Modernism was a boast of fiery defiance to the romantics and naturalists whom preceded it, it was a cry of “yes we can” over the pessimistic outlook that humankind was but protoplasmic sludge compared to the vast magnitude of nature, a belief punctuated by writers such as Stephen Crane. This was a good time to be a man, a man within a striving industrial Atlantis of his own design.

But the modernist era would prove to be short-lived, as the transition towards postmodernism began to take hold. The first postmodernist manifestations emerged with the onset of Immanuel Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” discipline of thought. (Stanford) A moniker adorned after the infamous astronomer Nicholaus Copernicus, whom discovered the heliocentric celestial interface of the Solar System, Kant in turn began to dismantle the conventionally held premise of universal truths in his own right. Just as Copernicus refuted the age old belief of geocentricism, that is, the belief that the universe gravitates from the Earth, Kant asserted that there in fact is no underlying absolute cosmic framework for truth or reality, that in fact the perceptions and inhibition of every individual are what constitutes the universal canon of truth; this belief system was later refined into his “categorical imperative” thesis.

Another colossal figure associated with the collapse of modernism is the 19^th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who’s works were tantamount to direct attacks on the core tenets of modernism. (Stanford) Amongst his theorizations was his projected eminent dissolution between “reality” and “apparent reality”; the blurring of the line between what actually “is” existentially and what only appears to be real, a conflict which would ultimately culminate in the incapability to distinguish between the two, rendering the result a bleak ether plain somewhere in between. His theory of “I” further builds upon the Kantian tradition of categorical imperative, positing that every individual’s actions as “I” are executed via completely contrasting value judgements, moral codes, circumstances and truths to one and other, simply because no innate truth underlies the universe.

Finally the sociological temperament of the later 19^th century naturally set the stage for the advent of postmodernist thought. This period was characterized by an age of on demand mass communication, transportation, and industrial assimilation en masse. The rapidly diverging and warping perceptions of people began to meld and perverse one another, feeding a growing sense of social tension and disillusionment. For the first time ever in the history of civilization we observe the rise of the contemporary “public”. This is not the bazaar public of ancient Rome or Azerbaijan, this is not a public that is actually mediated or fluctuated by the “people”, but rather a modern public commanded by the press and the socialite elite. An all-encompassing vox populi that speaks for everyone and simultaneously no one. Also mass subjugation of workers into industrial complexes initiated a process of de-individualization and distraught, further compounding the already tumultuous feeling of un-realization radiating from the public sphere.

All these elements, amongst a multitude of other similar intellectual episodes fused together represent the backdrop of the socio-moral crisis which serves as the launch pad for the rise of postmodernism. Characteristic of all these seemingly eclectic factors is their uniform dispelling of all previous notions of truth, human significance, ingenuity or empirical super-structures; replacing them with an intellectual dissonance of non-reality, sprawling relativity, futility in understanding, an ultimate state of absolute succumbing to the realization that no conclusion can ever be conclusively made other than that truth itself is inconclusive. The age of human magnificence and cosmic dominance was over, giving way to the rise of postmodernism.

The first ever injection of the term postmodernism into the intellectual lexicon was by philosopher Jean-François Lyotard in his tract “La Condition Postmoderne” in 1979. Lyotard’s examinations of the newfound prominence of computer data management intrigued him, particularly the lightspeed transfer of information across the world in less than a millisecond. In his view, technological advancements such as this further exemplified the adaptiveness, non-permanence and relativity of knowledge as a whole.

Since the central tenet of postmodernism is the absence of any centricity or logical reasoning behind truth or artistic value, its cultural manifestations have been characterized by the most abstract, exaggerated and literally cartoonish illustrations of life imaginable. Its rejection of human capacity to truly formulate art is demonstrated by postmodernist architecture exhibiting a return to the natural world; Disneyworld’s “techno-organic” atmosphere, for example. Moreover, man’s incapability to compose art means that he has to do the next best thing, color reality with a vibrant and super-stylized palette. Postmodernism is the age of magnetic television advertising, of the commoditization of sex with figures such as Madonna and later Britney Spears, the reconstruction of reality in cyberspace through the Internet and videogames, artificial foods and substances overtaking the market, fashion being reduced to holding certain tags, etc. Perhaps the most potent manifestation of postmodernism in American culture is the widespread rise in popularity of “reality TV”, the paradoxical phenomenon of reconstructing drab “reality” into something its not, a Freudian-esque subconscious desire for the destruction of reality for something completely different, postmodernism at its apex surely

Now that we have a more refined understanding of the nature of postmodernism and its implications on popular culture, let us examine the more pertinent issue at hand and the prime concern of this writing; postmodernist influence on the political environment. It is irrefutable that the hyperbolic non-reality elements of postmodernist thought have penetrated both poles of the political spectrum, a phenomenon which I will divulge in for the remainder of this paper.

As alluded to in the introductory remarks of this writing, liberals often charge that postmodernist dogma has warped out of substance the conservative mindset, something I will address later in full. Right now I would like to bring up my own assertions of postmodernist political collusion, except this time its with liberal thinkers, particularly the rather peculiar environmentalist enclave. I do believe that environmentalists are out to form their own religion, their Garden of Eden being primordial Earth, the defiling Adam and Eve being humanity, Original Sin being the advent of technology. Based on my perception, this religion has all the ingredients for a postmodernist recipe, the rejection of technology, modernity and contemporary norms for some abstract ideal improvable objectively. Certainly their incessant, obnoxious and hopelessly paranoid alarmist tracts of the “impending global warming-induced apocalypse” fall into the same postmodernist clique I’ve mentioned before. Sensationalist, flagrantly “techno-organic” leftist exhibits like An Inconvenient Truth and the Live Earth “green and clean” rock concert tour (right, I guess all the artists are swimming to the venues then eh? No private jets please?) populate the media with perpetuity, distorting the truth and dismembering all traces of reasonable reality in the discourse. Yeah, global warming is going to kill us all, just like the “people bomb”, just like Chernobyl, just like Y2K, every generation for the last 50 years or so this culture of leftist environmental alarmism has fermented another ghastly bogeyman to frighten the masses and perpetuate its lobbying conglomerates, each new scare ultimately proving as depthless and imaginary as the last.

Furthermore even non-environmentalist liberals frequently compose social criticisms in the postmodernist tradition that maintain very little credibility or sophistication, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 actually accomplished what no serious political commentator or spectator could have possibly surmised; it transformed the morbid and traumatic events surrounding and succeeding September 11^th and transformed them into a clownish and sloppy smear job condensed with a plethora of flashy visuals and production values. Is there any better exhibition of postmodernist raping of reality than turning September 11^th into a pseudo-comedy propaganda tape?

It gets better, fear not. Stupendously exaggerated and outright false allegations of artificial socio-economic barriers imposed to keep the black man poor, an allegation any economic statistician, immigrant or successful African American would dispute in a heartbeat. Could it possibly be that in fact it’s the Democrats that want to maintain the welfare state to keep the black man poor because they realize its their chief constituency? Postmodernist liberals will have none of that, no. And remember, Kanye West says “George Bush hates minorities”, try asking that to Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Alberto Gonzales will you?

I believe I have quite sufficiently addressed the question of how postmodernism can be employed to generate political arguments as observed by the liberal propaganda machine. Now its about time to debunk the myth of right-wing postmodernist lunacy I discussed at the very beginning.

            Admittedly after 9/11 there was a brief period of national unity and harmonious dialogue between both liberals and conservatives. But I will be first to point out that yes, conservatives can be attributed to using some postmodernist terminology at times; this is most clearly related to the more sophomoric right-wing shock jocks like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, whom characterized all who disputed the reasoning behind invading Iraq as unpatriotic anti-Americans. This is most evidently infinitely untrue, I’m quite certain arch-paleoconservatives such as William Buckley, Dr. George Will or Dr. Francis Fukuyama would have taken great offense to such remarks.

            But what all liberals have done since then equals, if not dwarfs in damaging aftershocks what a few conservatives once did. Virtually immediately succeeding the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the leftist slander-machine began shifting into high gear; charges of imperialism, crusade, blood for oil, American terrorism, policing the world, Bush lying and other such cheap soundbytes were being circulated like wildfire amongst leftists of all breeds and locales. This is also another fine example of liberalism’s postmodernist rhetorical efficacy, whenever anyone attempted to justify the Iraq war or even the war on terror as a whole, some hysterical permutation of the above canned remarks would be tossed out at random. This entire phenomenon was quite brilliantly satirred by master polemicist Trey Parker in his postmodernist political critique

“Team America”.

But being a liberal wasn’t just a political stance anymore, it was a matter of social congruence. Suddenly liberalism was parallel with “coolness” with the release of Green Day’s “American Idiot” album (personally I would argue the worst musical composition ever produced in the history of rock music, both instrumentally and lyrically speaking a phenomenal artistic catastrophe), Pearl Jam’s World Wide Suicide release and Rage Against the Machine’s recent reunion to name a few, not to mention the furious popularity of The Daily Show and Colbert Report, have returned the postmodernist liberal axiom not only to social approval, but reverence. At this point the liberal spin has so deeply entrenched itself into the annals of society that even remotely supporting interventionalist policies makes you a fiendish redneck war monger by definition.

I have had enough, frankly. Day in and day out it’s the same over-used and meaningless tripe from the talking heads, I’m going to defy It and lay the facts straight here. Liberals are always squealing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that we should be focusing our time trying to root out “the guys who did 9/11”. I don’t know if they noticed or not, but actually the 9/11 prosecutors are all dead, thus is the nature of a “suicide bombing”. Who do liberals want us to root out? A tired, diseased old man called Osama bin Laden? Someone who has surely lost any significant leadership role in al-Qaida and could quite possibly be already dead at this point, is that our fearsome nemesis? What happens if we get him? The End? Buck stops there?

This isn’t about fighting one single group; this is an entire conflagration of suicidal, fascist, imperialistic ideologues who wish to expand their horrid philosophy of contemptus mundi throughout the entire world via global caliphate. This isn’t just al-Qaida, this is Hamas, Hizbollah, Mehdi Army, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., Global Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, and Jamaat i-Islami, to name the more prominent ones. These people, by their own admission, want to expand the veil of Islamism throughout the entire planet, particularly America and the rest of the Western world. They’re devious and persistent, they’ve struck us since 9/11: Madrid, London, amongst various other attempts including most recently Fort Dix.

This is a group so infinitely intolerant that they actually chopped people’s heads off because of some silly Danish cartoons, so intolerant that they killed Theo Van Gogh because he was making a film documenting Muslim abuse of women, so intolerant that they put a decade long fatwa on Salman Rushdie for a remote satire of Muhammad in his stellar literary magnum opus The Satanic Verses. This insidious sharia law is so abysmally low in the gutter that in Iran it actually legally sanctioned the stoning of a woman to death because she was raped.

And the Chomsky-ites claim we brought this on ourselves? Relativists claim there is no objective lens from which to perceive true evil? If you cannot objectively see the appalling villainy and inhumanity that is Islamism, you must be blind. Frankly the grand conundrum of liberalism is how it claims to be for human rights, yet also claims to be relativist. How can a feminist ever be relativist? By what strain of logic?

Why did we attack Iraq? Liberals vaguely retort “oil and empire” and end the discussion, allow me to expand on that. After 9/11, there was no country called

“al-Qaidia”, no concentrated nexus of terrorist activity from which to launch a necessary long-term campaign against Islamism as a whole. You do have Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime, a barbaric dictatorship that had been executing genocide upon its own people and its neighbors, defying a decade of sanctions, was barring weapons inspectors from entering the country, and, according to a universal consensus by every intelligence agency on the planet, was thought to be manufacturing biological weapons. Not to mention it was harboring Abu Nidal, the pre-eminent terrorist of our time and the most wanted man of the 20^th century.

 Based on this intelligence, it would have been apathetic stupidity to ignore the threat posed by Hussein, and, more importantly, we had to start somewhere. We wanted a permanent American military installation in the region from which to use as a platform for further incursions in the region, and there will be further incursions. What the American public doesn’t understand is that this isn’t the “war reality” TV show postmodernist dialogue has made it out to be, this is a long-term struggle against a medieval creed of Bedouin mysticism that seeks our utter obliterations.

We live in a unipolar world, meaning that one force is always perpetuating a power struggle for primacy with another. Currently we are facing against the behemoth of Islamism; if we wish to maintain the secular civility, moral values and economic stability which has kept the West supreme for so long, we need to utterly purge Islamism from the face of the Earth. It truly is either us or the, they’ve already waged war, this isn’t the time for postmodernist parlor games of relativism.

            I could not close this paper without affording the right its just deserved postmodernist criticism as well. The Bush administration simply has not been honest with the American people about what it really is facing. First of all, the title “war on terror” has always been an outlandish one, terrorism is a combatant tactic, its been employed before the Islamists with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the IRA; that’s like calling World War II the “war against kamikazism” or the Vietnam War the “war against guerilliaism”. Bush should have circumvented absurd rules of political correctness and called it the “war against Islamism” or “war against jihadism”, this isn’t a mere matter of semantics, this is paramount in truly acknowledging our foe and calling for its annihilation. By the same token its about time he acknowledges that Islam is not innately a religion of peace, that in fact primary Qur’anic suras mandate violence and theocratic expansionalism, and that a significant minority of Muslims adhere to this line of thought.

            Furthermore, I think the neoconservatives behind the Bush administration are smart enough to know that “spreading democracy” is not a viable political apparatus to be pursued in this campaign. They know damn well that a free democracy in most of these Middle-Eastern nations would only lead to the election of a jihadist administration, like Hamas in Palestine. They should be open and honest and tell the American public that we’re not spreading democracy, we’re removing jihadist appeasers and installing firm, pro-American, civic secular dictators to stifle islamist activity, like Mubarak in Egypt, Ataturk in Istanbul or the late Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. Eventually, after enough time has passed and Islamist sentiment is purged, these nations will move towards democracies.

This principle is exemplified by Turkey, the single most secular Muslim country by far, that’s been run under the heavy hand of Ataturk who has been steadfast in his opposition to Islamist resistance. and consequentially has the most flourishing economy of a Middle-Eastern nation to boot. We need an Ataturk installed in every Muslim nation, not a Palestinian-style democracy, Bush ought to lose the postmodernist sensationalist simplification terminology and be open and honest about this.

            As an Iranian-American who has witnessed first hand the dire implications of Islamism, I emphatically abhor the whole blasphemous ideology and support American expansionalism in the region, I view it as the only feasible cure to the cancerous geopolitical disease that is Islamism. I sincerely believe the single biggest foreign policy blunder of the 20^th century was the liberals of the Carter administration allowing, even supporting and hailing as visionaries the Khomeini revolution. Sure the Shah was brutal, but by the same token the country was exponentially in a better state then than it is now, the economy was booming and civil rights were quite progressive; sometimes a leader needs to be stringent in order to suppress an animalistic evil. If America has learned anything since then is that jihadism cannot be allowed to fester, it kills people abroad and at home, our self interests are no mutually exclusive with those of other peoples.

            The Pax Americana, a golden age of civic secularism and sanctimonious peace brought about by American willpower and conviction. Liberals lampoon it as some sort of postmodernist ludicrous fantasy, I see it as the inevitable Hegelian end of history. We’ll be in there for the long-haul, most definitely, and if we’re going to be serious about this we need to dissolve all distortions of reality caused by this age of post modernity. But I’m optimistic for the future, its about time we return to he realm of cultural modernity, quit despairing and begin writing the greatest pages in the all-encompassing tome of history.