09.11.09

The enemy speaks on the anniversary of its biggest attack

Posted in Barack Obama, Culture, Diciness of Western civilization's survival prospects, Human freedom, National Security at 5:25 pm by Administrator

No, I don’t mean any of the surviving al-Qaeda leaders.  I don’t mean any of the other foreign forms of our enemy in this twilight struggle for the survival prospects of the United States of America, either.  I mean the embodiment of the domestic form of the enemy.  I mean Barack Hussein Obama.

Yes, he holds the position of President of the United States.  That’s precisely what makes him so dangerous.

His remarks this morning in “commemoration” of the 9/11 attacks were a deliberate attempt to eviscerate the nation he presides over, kill its essential character and make certain its transformation into a totalitarian state based on the perverse vision of a handful of delusional utopians.

“National day of service.”  Could he have been any more disgusting?  Could he have been any more insulting to the memories of Todd Beamer, Barbara Olson, the thousands trapped in the World Trade Center?  Could he have shown any greater disdain for you and me, who watched, horrified and terrified, the entire attack live on television that day?

I want to make sure I get to the core of why this is supremely obscene and un-American.  I don’t want to start with any secondary or tertiary levels of its significance.

I think the core of it is to be found in the word “service.”  It speaks volumes about the totalitarian nature of the leftist mindset.  It has much to tell us about the impetus behind the push for socialist health care, behind “green” zealotry, behind the push for “tolerance” and egalitarianism and moral relativism and the jucial activism that imposes that on our society.

From time to time I have considered that there may be different types, or perhaps degrees, of leftism, but now I’m not so sure.  Certainly, the friendly sprout-munching Sierra Club / Unitarian / Human Rights Commission / Democrat-voting person you say hello to on the dog-walking path does not exhibit the single-minded totalitarian determination of a TCM, Nancy Pelosi, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd or Cass Sunstein, nor the nearly universally unappealing histrionics of the Code Pink / International Answer crowd.  If pressed, however, the nice liberal down the street will forthrightly stand behind an approach to public life – and private life, which amounts to the same thing when their vision becomes reality – based on hatred for basic human freedom.

Leftists profess to care.  In a sense, they do care, but it’s about general principles that do not conform to human nature or anything else about reality.  Examples of this would be some kind of blanket “fairness,’ which is supposed to uniformly characterize all human activity.  Another is “need,” which opens the door to all kinds of assumptions about the actual situations of individual human beings.  Another is “equality,” which leads to not only feminism and its denial of the profound differences between males and females in the human species or any other, but quite mad notions such as the normality of transgenderism and even rights for animals lower than humans.

If our current juncture were merely a matter of seeing such perversion in our fellow  human being and saying to ourselves, “Some people sure have some funny ways about them,” and going on about our lives, this would be of little significance.  The problem is that, in the leftist formulation, one is not allowed to disagree with their sense of what’s right and important.  This is the core of what this blog means by the term “Freedom-haters.”  They are angling for the day when putting forth a different view of what a human being is and why life is sacred will be unthinkable.

That degree of totalitarianism has been brought into being before.  We saw many ghastly examples of it in the previous century.  It is still the order of the day in North Korea, Iran, Cuba – well, all the nations that have declared themselves our enemies.

It is happening here now.

What will cheer the hearts of do-gooder finger-wagging sprout-munchers across the country about TCM’s call to “service” is that they will have confirmed their perception of certain wrongs and unfairnesses and needs and beleagured demographic groups and have in their arsenal a new weapon by which to shame and intimidate anyone who takes exception.  If you’re not with the program of helping to make things more “fair” and “equal,” you are really some kind of outsider.

Let me come back to this mention I made of feminism and the notion of gender “equality.”  Implicit in TCM’s call to “service” is a gentleness with which he wants us to respond to a savage act of war.  He sees the kind of response that patriotic Americans deem appropriate to barbarity of 9/11 magnitude as out of place in the post-American state he is fashioning.

When Rudyard Kipling said that we sleep well in our beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf, his choice of gender was deliberate.  It is the men among us who have the capacity for the requisite ugliness to defeat evil.  God made it so.

If TCM can sufficiently obliterate the notion that men have particular qualities and capacities that serve a righteous and free nation in times of grave peril, he’s well on his way to implementing the kind of Aquarian fantasy that he and his ilk have nurtured for a century.

The shorthand version of all this is that the leftist vision is one of nicey-nice and patty-cake – until there’s disagreement about who somebody is or what they need.  Then it’s God help the disagreer.

I have no service to offer such a state.

Permalink