Pandagon: a perfectly parochial American

Amanda starts to correct herself, then decides against it:

In the meantime, I need to correct for a rather sweeping generalization I made about how the left isn’t harboring racists of our own. I should have known better than to be so simple about it; god knows I’ve seen enough liberals making racist and sexist and homophobic jokes that one can’t just dismiss it out of hand. Nonetheless, I think my basic point stands. If you are an honest-to-god hateful racist who uses politics as a way to beat up on other people for being different, you know what political party is yours—the Republicans. If you’re firmly committed to eradicating prejudice, you’re going to be pulling the lever for the Democrats.

Clearly the girl has never met an Italian Communist, a Swiss SPS member, a French Socialist or anyone from the British Labour Party. These people tend to be just slightly less anti-Semitic than your average Palestinian suicide bomber, moderately less anti-black than David Duke, (they’ll drop the word “nigger” as freely as a gangster rapper, although in their defense, I’ll point out that they honestly don’t realize that it’s supposed to be offensive), and many are openly avowed Marxists, if not Marxist-Leninists, whose leftist credentials would put Hillary Clinton and Betty Friedan to shame.

Amynda is also clearly unaware of the history of the modern Democratic Party. George Wallace was a Democrat and the only member of the KKK currently seated in the Senate happens to be its ranking Democrat. These days, the only people advocating legal racism are Democrats.

This serves as a reminder that the average leftist’s attempt to pose as a sophisticated intellectual nobly battling against the benighted bourgeoisie of Middle America is just that, a pose. The reality is that the vast majority of them are myopic and monolingual morons, too parochial and poorly read to grasp that their political spectrum is a rainbow that ranges from red to blue the short way round.

One for the whining warmongers

From Jim Dunnigan’s Strategy Page:

Many of the people involved in doing development work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places frequented by Islamic terrorists, actively discourage reporters from “telling the good news” about their particular project. Aid workers have concluded that when word of a successful project gets into the media, the terrorists will sometimes learn about it and target it. This has happened many times in Afghanistan, in the aftermath of news stories about schools for girls, and rural education in general. This is where the Internet comes in, because that’s how widely dispersed Islamic radicals can stay in touch. For these fellows, publicity is very important. And when they see a story that appears to disrespect them, like girls going to school, retaliation is discussed, and eventually someone follows through.

I don’t think that the pro-war commentariat is stupid because they hold a manifestly indefensible position, but rather because they so reliably demonstrate their ability to understand why things happen the way they do and to foresee the probable consequences of the actions they so loudly recommend. Their feeble capacities can be seen by the way in which they regard “well, we have to do SOMETHING” as passing for a defense of the Bush administration’s bungling.

The fact that they cannot even recognize that the enemy follows the Western media, (despite the way in which numerous organizations and individuals have played it so adroitly), does not lend credence to their assertions that the only thing standing between the USA and victory over “Terror” is will. This is, in fact, a monstrously stupid supposition, the same one that lies behind numerous 20th century military disasters from the Somme Ypres to Barbarossa and the Six-Day War.

Any adroit student of military history knows that the two previous waves of Islamic expansion were not defeated by offense, but by defensive measures. The Crusades were a near-complete failure; what little success was enjoyed by the first Crusaders was entirely dependent upon the unstable nature of the Dar al-Islam. I will post more on this soon, but as has been obvious from the start, a winning strategy in this latest round of Islam vs the West requires understanding the lessons of past successes as well as failures.