seize the infidels

A short while ago we all had a good laugh over the flying spaghetti monster and the idea of creationism being presented alongside evolution as valid scientific theory in public schools in the US. I think most of us thought things would settle down and get back to normal, everyone more or less coming to their senses. We were a little concerned when it wasn’t just Kansas anymore, but an actual movement in the new righter-than-right America. The NYTimes published an attempt to keep up with the ugly bubble and Google just about throws up when you inquire.

It’s all getting a little carried away in a country so crushed under the weight of paranoia and arrogance. Whole legions are confusing opinion with fact, morality with law, church with state. All this in a country founded on the one single pristine principal of freedom. Of course, if freedom really was what the US is about there would be no need for a conservative party.

But there are Republicans and they are a paranoid and ignorant bunch, as a whole. (If you’re reading this and a Republican all I can say is you can’t blame me for your press.)

When paranoia is allowed to run rampant, which is what happens when a government seeks to entrench itself using fear, you get little side skirmishes like this one, where a self-important flunky thinks he’s doing God/Bush’s will by taking the fight to the very doorstep of the infidel. The author of that last article suggests the political appointee might be spiritually related to this fella, who published, I stress, in 1919, and not five hundred years earlier as one might assume.

Over the long term, suffering these tunnel-visioned, willfully ignorant little pissants can only do a world of harm. I say boot ’em to the curb and get reality back on track before it’s too late. Such a policy would necessarily include Bush, obviously. He would have you believe that there is no such thing as global warming so you’ll keep supporting his industrial state. Here is a man that insists the Kool Ade is safe just so he can sell more poison. I mean Kool Ade.

And while the US self-destructs from the inside the rest of the world is only too eager to help. Violent backlash among extremist Muslims over a series of caricature cartoons originally published in September in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has now resulted in at least four deaths. What stands out for me, though, is the number of attacks not against Danish or European Union targets (of which there have been many) but against American outposts. So far as I know not a single mainstream American publication has published the offending cartoons, yet when all hell breaks loose, or in this case all jihad, the US is among the first to be blamed by the masses.

In fact Michelle Malkin derides the US for not publishing the cartoons. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Most Muslims believe it is wrong to craft a likeness of Mohammed, lest it lead to idolatry. Hence the riots and death threats. You go right ahead and do that, Michelle. I have to say I agree with CNN editorial on this one.

That said, the Brussels Journal has a good up to date article on the conflict in Europe which includes the cartoons if you’re curious like me.

I can laugh at the US for its arch-con paranoia the same way I laugh at horror movies. I can laugh at the anti-Muslim cartoons if I adopt a sufficiently insensitive persona. I can laugh at how an arrogant failure of a businessman can ride his old boys club bootstraps to the Presidency and wield the exact same club of terror as his Muslim extremist enemies, inspiring the exact same theo-political result. I can laugh at just how tiny and pathetic the group mind is in practice, proliferating ignorance globally and recklessly thrashing any progress toward unity we’ve made in the past sixty years. Or eight hundred years.

But somehow none of it is really funny.

13 thoughts on “seize the infidels”

  1. haha You have to agree with the CNN editorial on this one? You have to agree with CNN censoring their news because it might offend a bunch of fanatics? You enlightened people in entertainment (and news) are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. What happened to artistic freedom of expression? An artist should be free to create and distribute a cartoon with any content they please, without fear of physical harm or death. If you don’t believe that DJ, you are no better than the extreme right-wing (and left-wing) book burners you decry. And what about Theo van Gogh who made the mistake of exercising artistic freedom of expression and ended up with a fanatics knife in his chest? I don’t remember hearing anything about that in your blog. You didn’t care! He wasn’t a Republican or an American! If it doesn’t fit into your world view of USA=Evil and Everyone else = Good it isn’t worth your time. Like usual, the level of hypocrisy is astounding…

    COMMENT:
    And once again you prove yourself unwilling or unable to see the forest for the tree you can’t seem to get around. I’ll say it again, just for you: decent, clean living people take it as an insult to their faith when caricatures are made of the central figure of their religious devotion. While I will defend with my last breath the right of the media to publish content without fear of reprisal I would also expect anyone with any sense of common decency to respect others’ right to their beliefs. You seem to be sadly lacking in that basic sense of respect for others, but I suspect you’re speaking without thinking (again).

    How do you feel when you see your flag being burned? How do you feel when you hear someone calling your girlfriend (or boyfriend) a fat ugly cow? How do you feel when someone pisses on a picture of your mother?

    You don’t know? No one’s ever done it? Then who the hell are you to even step into this conversation?

  2. The “decent, clean living people” that are rioting in Europe right now? The ones that rioted and burned France a few months back? The ones that are offended by something yet again? And when did you become so respectful of other people’s religious beliefs? In the last 12 hours or so? Between the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and constant mockery of all things religious (mostly Christian) you are yet again showing yourself to be a hypocrite. But sadly, I realize why you are defending these fanatics. These fanatics hate the United States and everything it stands for and you take the simplistic view that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. These are dark days when people are held hostage by idealogues who will turn their hatred on you when they are done with Europe and the United States. And what about the Theo van Gogh? Still no comment? Did he die in vain? He made a film that someone didn’t like and he paid the ultimate price? Do you care? Or was it a fair punishment for being disrespectful?

  3. Your tunnel vision is getting old. My one mantra has always been “get informed and think for yourself”.

    There is a huge difference in defending free speech and defending hate.

    Theo Van Gogh was killed by extremist Muslim ideology the same way millions have been killed by extremist Christian ideology, so you tell me: who is right? When did it become acceptable to kill as long as you’re white and you’re killing brown?

    We’ve all got the right in our culture to be ignorant and loud, but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Screaming about free speech doesn’t make it any more acceptable to scream about hating an entire culture.

    I oppose tunnel vision, BuddyBoy. That has never changed and never will. I oppose ignorance and never have I uttered one hypocritical word.

    You, on the other hand, seem to be doing a fine job of representing the Torches & Pitchforks mob.

  4. Whoa??? Wait a minute! Who’s saying it’s acceptable “to kill as long as you’re white and you’re killing brown”? Do you see people as brown or white DJ? Strange comment. In any case, i’ll quit asking you questions you seem unable to answer.

  5. I thought I answered you directly. Sorry you missed it. You seem to have a problem with Theo getting killed by a Muslim, yet you make no mention of thousands of non-combatants killed by Coalition fire in the name of Democracy.

  6. This has been a debate about freedom of expression and the killing of someone who exercised it. Not an argument about who or what killed the most people. Quit trying to baffle me with bullshit DJ. I ain’t buying it.

  7. Let’s hope it’s not an argument about who killed the most people, because you know how that would go.

    So. Freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech equal the right to insult a third of the planet for the actions of a tiny minority? Yes. It does. But that doesn’t make it acceptable.

    Have I simplified this argument enough for you? You clearly deal in soundbites.

    If you had the freedom to rape, would you? If you had the freedom to hit people in your car, would you? If you had the God-given right to kill someone for playing their music too loud or smoking in your personal space, would you?

    I can’t believe this is a debate. It’s so fucking infantile. Having the right to do something does NOT make it acceptable to abuse that right. Get a clue.

  8. “Of course, if freedom really was what the US is about there would be no need for a conservative party.” I’m shocked and dismayed that this would even be posted here. When you refer to the “US,” I’m sure that you’re not referring to my whole country, are you? You are just referring to the Bush administration, right?

  9. As always, Broch, I’m referring to the US in general, not most of the great people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting over the years. But as far as that goes, yes, I am referring to the vocal US, which speaks with Bush’s voice, the voice which sets and carries out foreign & domestic policy and is woefully shortsighted and Americentric. Think Rome at its decadent peak.

  10. The vocal US you are referring to, in large part, is the media. You are very correct about that in your previous statement, they suck. It is clearly obvious that you hold no ill will towards the country in whole, you are marrying one of us….

    I just want to make it abundantly clear that most of us don’t agree with G-dubbya either, he is just who we happen to have at the moment.

    I understand where a lot of the anti-western sentiment comes from, I detailed it in a post on brochspot.com a few years ago. Obviously there is an unbalance of power, of money, of a lot of things. We love our fast cars, loud music, freedom to speak as we will, and our girlfriends who are willing to endure brazillian waxing. Of course that comes across as juvenile and arrogant. In my opinion, yeah, so what. We are hyper-materialistic,and are willing to work like hell to give us the ability to play like hell. In the scheme of things, the western world IS quite juvenile. Compared to the Middle East, Africa, Asis, ane Europe, our countries are VERY young, and we are enjoying spreading our wings a little bit. The saving grace for Canada is the tight connection that it still holds with “The Crown.” It gives Canada a little more of an air of sophistication. The United States is a different story. Basically, it is the bad teenage child of the rest of the world. Does that viewpoint make any sense???

  11. Your viewpoint is about as positive a light as I’ve heard that I can agree with, Broch. Thanks for taking the time. It overlooks the bad impression the egocentric American attitude makes all over the world, though. From blood-letting federal foreign policy to weak education to ignorant and arrogant travellers, you can’t swing a stick blindfolded without hitting another well-earned stereotype. They may not be the majority but somehow Bush is in office and no one else is surprised.

    Being a young nation is no excuse for wielding power like a spoiled child when, at the same time, you want to be recognized as a benevolent force for democracy.

    Look at it this way: what kind of example does America set? For all the good America has accomplished, and there is a lot, casual ignorance of the rest of the world drags you two steps back.

  12. […] He says democratic society fails if it isn’t also honourable. This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that the publishing of the anti-Muslim cartoons, first in Denmark then more globally, was irresponsible and insensitive. […]

  13. Pingback: djmischiff » touche, dirtbag

Comments are closed.