The enemy of my enemy....

There was a conference in Iran recently, to discuss the Holocaust, and why the psychos of the world want people to believe it didn't happen. I won't bother to put a link to an article, since they are so numerous you shouldn't have any trouble finding one. And I'm not going to talk about the conference itself, or even the Holocaust deniers. I'm not going to try to disprove the lies, because if you don't already know they are lies then there's little I can do to help you. What I'm going to talk about is why this conference is the most dramatic in a series of recent examples of evil people, with completely incompatible agendas, coming together in ultimately unstable alliances for the purpose of destroying that which is good.

The conference was hosted by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is arguably one of the most evil men of the last 100 years. He actively supports Islamic terrorism, with money, equipment, training, and propaganda. And he's not shy about it. He doesn't even try to hide it, even while trying to convince the western liberals that he wants peace and freedom for all people, like he did in his most recent letter. He aggressively and enthusiastically advocates the destruction of both The United States and Israel, and the imposition of Islamic rule over the whole world. He has delusions of grandeur, believing that he will be instrumental in the ushering in of the age of the Mahdi, the Islamic savior figure that will destroy the world.

One of the other more prominent participants of the conference was David Duke, the former national director of the KKK. If you aren't familiar with this man, I suggest you take a quick look at his website. His pure and unwavering hatred for Jews is staggering, and his paranoia of "Zionists" is pathological. It's clear from his writings that he's a narcissist with delusions of grandeur, seeing himself as some kind of hero figure that will save mankind from the Jews. His hatred for other groups of people is equally disturbing. He believes in eugenics against blacks, among other disgusting concepts, and still he claims to be Christian, but he seems to have no problem smearing the good name of Christianity and getting rather chummy with people who want to kill all Christians just as soon as they're done with the Jews.

The only thing these two men have in common is their blind hatred for Jews. Nothing else. Their agendas intersect nowhere else, other than perhaps their hatred of President Bush and western conservatism. Ahmadinejad wants Islamic rule, and the destruction of the west, Duke wants white supremacy, with his sick brand of Christianity. These agendas are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. And yet, there they were, cooperating simply for the purpose of advocating the destruction of Israel, one of a shrinking number of countries still dedicated to goodness. Without that evil desire to unite them, they would most likely have tried to kill each other.

This pattern has been repeated innumerable times in recent years, people with evil, yet incompatible agendas uniting in the hopes of destroying as much good as possible. Now, let me make myself clear. Not all liberals are evil. I wouldn't even say most liberals are evil. The vast majority of them are just confused and brainwashed. But the leaders of the various liberal groups, the ones that form the policy, the ones that disseminate the propaganda, that legislate and rally, those people are evil. The people that grab onto any scrap of an opportunity that might allow them to justify and praise abortion, the people that legislate to expunge Christmas from the American landscape, the people who want sexual "freedom" to replace marriage altogether, those people are evil.

Since so many people get caught up in the definition of words, trying to strip them of their meaning so that they are no longer good or bad, just neutral, let's quickly go over the definition of evil. The Christian definition of evil is anything that opposes the will of God. For any of you who might not believe in God, let's call it anything that is in opposition to goodness and the things that promote and support goodness. This can range anywhere from Charles Manson to kicking your neighbor's dog. Just as there are degrees of sin, there are degrees of evil. Supporting and advocating the destruction of everything that has made western society special in favor of behaviors and beliefs that have resulted in the destruction of other societies is evil.

So, while Islamic terrorism is probably a more blatant and clear-cut example of evil, the western liberal agendas are also evil. And yet, as I've explained in previous blogs, these two evils are completely incompatible. Liberals want to feminize the world and give preferential treatment to people of "alternate sexual lifestyles", while Islamic terrorists want to strip women of all their rights and slaughter homosexuals. And yet, they have allowed their animosity for Judeo-Christian values to bring them together in a perverse support for one another.

So I ask this question: what do they expect to happen after all the Christians and Jews are gone? To paraphrase one of my favorite radio personalities, Michal Medved, do they think daffodils are going to spring up out of the ground, fluffy bunnies will bounce through the streets, and gays and islamo-fascists will join hands and sing songs of freedom? Because that's not what would happen. Within a matter of days, the fighting would continue, now between the western liberals, the islamo-fascists, the communists, the racist groups of the world, and anyone else that was left. The entire world would erupt in pure anarchy as each group tried to impose its vile agenda on all the other groups. They don't seem to realize that the only thing holding this world together are the Judeo-Christian values that the west and many other parts of the world hold so dear. They're picking away at the foundation of humanity because it's the only thing keeping them from descending into the deepest basement of depravity. They're going to be surprised when the whole thing suddenly collapses on their heads.

The Iraq Study Group Report

I have not posted for almost a week, the reason being that after a minor problem with my ISP making line upgrades, the Iraq Study Group Report was released. I have spent the past few days reading it in its entirety, making my own analysis. Here it is.

This report does contain a number of very good suggestions, mostly about changes that need to be made to the Iraqi military and police forces, and changes in security procedures. The rest is garbage. To give a very quick and dirty summary, it suggests that we forgo increased military action against the enemies of Iraq in favor of increased diplomacy with all the people who are actively trying to pull Iraq down into chaos. And the best part? America should foot the bill!

The first suggestion of the report is The New Diplomatic Offensive. It consists of trying to get all the active psychopaths and the restrained psychopaths to agree on what's best for Iraq, to help it come about, and to help pay for it. It includes talking to Syria, Iran, and Palestine, enlisting their help in improving the regional situation. The report suggests that these countries could use their influence over the terrorists and violent sectarian groups in and around Iraq to ease tensions and advocate cooperation..... I'm sorry, did I miss something here? Why would they do that? If they had any intention of doing that, they would have done it already. If they wanted the terror and sectarian violence to end, they wouldn't be providing them with money, supplies, weapons, ammunition, training, propaganda dispersal, safe haven, or political legitimacy. It's like offering the Don of the Mafia a key role in an organized crime task force! All it would do would be to put those countries in an even better position to undermine our efforts in Iraq.

One of the telling features of this New Diplomatic Offensive is the fact that Israel has only one job to do: give up even more territory to Palestinians, and promise to play nice. Pardon my skepticism, but what the hell does giving back the Golan Heights have to do with Iraq? And what makes the Iraq Study Group think that it will convince the Palestinians to stop attacking Israel? Because it's worked so well in the past? I don't even think they believe it, every time they referred to the Palestinians, they had the following words in parentheses: (those who accept Israel’s right to exist). As if there are any. Even if the sorry excuse for a Palestinian government did agree to some kind of peace treaty, the Palestinian terrorists certainly wouldn't. And the Palestinian government has demonstrated time after time that they are either unwilling or unable to stop them.

In the military section of the report, the study group recommends that we use our continued support or removal thereof as an incentive for the Iraqi government to get off its butt and start making some progress of its own. Now, that would be a splendid idea, and it would probably work, except for one problem. At least half the reason the Iraqi government isn't making any progress is due to the aforementioned interference from other forces, including sectarian groups within the country, and other foreign forces assisting those groups. If we tell them that we're going to start cutting military and economic support if they don't make any progress, those other forces are going to triple their efforts to make absolutely sure that no progress is made. And if we make good on our threat, victory is theirs. And they know it.

Adding to the absurdity of this report is the indirect suggestion that America should pay for all the strategies recommended. The New Diplomatic Offensive includes trying to form an International Iraq Support Group, for the purpose of gathering other nations to assist with the political and financial burdens of helping Iraq. Once again, if other countries were going to help, they would have done it by now. The small handful of nations that are already helping us are either helping as much as they can, or as much as they are willing. A support group isn't going to change that. And the recommendations of just how much money we should be willing to spend doesn't take into account any hypothetical sum that's expected to suddenly materialize from the new and unprecedented cooperation of countries that either don't care or want us to fail. In other words, we're supposed to pick up the tab. And in addition to that, it's recommended that when we leave, we leave behind a portion of our military equipment for the Iraqi army. Not only is that stuff expensive, but it would only end up in the hands of our enemies anyway. The only way Iraq should get any of our hardware is if they BUY it from us AFTER they are secure.

All in all, this report suggests that more military action isn't the right solution, and we should try to negotiate with the monsters we're supposed to be destroying. It's no wonder that the only people who are happy about this report are the terrorists and the liberals. All the Islamic terror groups are calling this a great victory for Allah, holding it up as evidence that their tactics are working. If even a fraction of these recommendations are put into effect, not counting some of the Iraqi military reorganizations, we will lose the war. Period. And our enemies, foreign and domestic, know it.

There is only one way we can truly help Iraq out of the mess it's in. Full-blown martial law and lock-down of the borders. Anything that comes into or goes out of the country must be cleared in advance with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. Spy satellites and perimeter sensors must monitor the borders, and if anything comes through without authorization, it should be carpet bombed with extreme prejudice. Insurgents and terrorists who are captured on the battlefield should be harshly interrogated and then executed publicly. We also need to let other nations in the region know that interference will not be tolerated. Once the insurgency has been crushed, once the country is secure, THEN real reconstruction can begin. The more we try to be gentle with this situation, the worse it gets. A little heavy-handedness is in order. Whatever happened to "shock and awe"? We aren't doing the people of Iraq any favors by trying to deflate the situation, we need to pop it. Trying to rebuild the government, infrastructure and economy of Iraq while there's an active insurgency at work is like trying to remodel your kitchen while the living room is on fire.

Racism, and the racist way in which the media treats it

I enjoy searching for and watching various video clips on YouTube.com. They have some pretty funny stuff. However, today I found something not so funny. The title caught my eye, and I watched it in disbelief. The video is of a C-SPAN broadcast from October 2005, more than a year ago. I want you to watch this video, and make sure your sound is clearly audible. Then, after you're done, I want you to ask the same question I'm asking. How, even after being broadcast live on C-SPAN, did this story not make headline news?

I also want you to watch this video. This is the video of Michael Richards losing it in the comedy club. This story most certainly made headline news. And not surprisingly, a celebrity going on a racist rant during a performance? Of course that's going to be big news. And the reaction from the media and people like Al Sharpton was predictable, as usual. But as shameful and idiotic as his comments were, I hardly think they compare with the seriousness of advocating, on live television, the extermination of white people.

Dr. Kamau Kambon, the gentleman in the first video who calls for genocide against white people, was actually a faculty instructor at NC State University at the time. I find it impossible to believe that this was the first time he had mentioned this particular opinion, and I doubt his extremist views had never been brought to the attention of any school officials. So why was he not fired? If Lawrence Summers could be forced into resignation for daring to assert that there are in fact differences between men and women, then why wasn't Dr. Kambon similarly pressured? Why was this man being allowed to teach the easily influenced youth of this country?

I would also like to know why C-SPAN was covering this public forum in the first place. Does anyone really care that much about what a bunch of racist malcontents have to say? You don't see networks giving air time to the idiots in the KKK, do you? And considering the fact that it appears in the video that there is only a handful of people in the audience, I seriously doubt that C-SPAN was counting on this to be a big event.

Why is it that minority racists get a free pass, while whites get trashed by the media for anything that might even resemble a non-minority-friendly comment? Granted, Michael Richards' rant was much more than unfriendly, and maybe now he'll think twice about opening his fat mouth. But Dr. Kambon's speech was downright psychotic! And the clapping! My God, the clapping from the sparse audience sent chills down my spine. As the doctor himself stated, there were minors in the audience. He encouraged minors to commit genocide. Isn't that some kind of crime? How does this not qualify as "hate speech"? If Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic statements were classified as hate speech by the liberals (as if they give a crap about Jews), then why is there no outrage against this nutcase? I don't buy the excuse that it wasn't big news because he's a relative nonentity. Plenty of conservative nonentities get dragged into the liberal spotlight all the time. It's as simple as this: no one said anything about it because he's black.

There's really only two possible explanations for why the media doesn't give the same kind of attention to minority racism as it does to white racism. First, they agree with the minority racists. For the most part, I doubt this is the case. Which leaves the second explanation: the liberal media, being racist in and of itself, sees minorities as so inconsequential that it gives no weight to their opinions, racist or otherwise. The only time the liberal media ever reports anything a minority has to say is when it somehow fits the liberal agenda, which is to use minorities as nothing more than a voting base, placating them with false promises and directing their anger towards conservatives. And genocide against whites does not fit their agenda, since the upper tiers of the liberal movement are in fact fabulously rich white people. Not to mention the fact that making a stink about Dr. Kambon's rant would weaken their grip on the opinions of their minority supporters. So they just let it go, secure in their belief that no one will take the crazy black man seriously. But some people most certainly will. I pray to God I never meet any of them.