6.26.2007

The Road To Hell is Paved With Meaning Well...

AN EDITORIAL BY
REMULAK MOXARGON
OVERLORD OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE


Former sitcom writer turned political and moral philosopher Peter Mehlman took time off from writing about 'nothing' to showing the world that he knows nothing. He popped down to the internet's one-stop shop for fashionable leftism and occasional Antisemitism, AKA HuffPo, to let the world know that he understands the Bush administration and its motivations.

Apparently, it's pure evil.

You can read the piece here, or if it's been yanked, as is HuffPo policy when contributors endorse fascism, you can read the complete text here.

You see, Mehlman is the classic leftist. He claims to understand the world, he claims to understand the motivations of p
eople, especially Republicans. Yet that claim to understanding is based upon a fundamental hypocrisy.

Allow me to step on Xran's turf and explain.

Leftists claim to be open minded and against discrimination, but often show themselves to be the most closed minded and discriminating Earthlings I have ever encountered.

When a conservative pundit claims to un
derstand the actions and motivations of someone like Iranian prez Mahmoud Ahmadinejad they base these things on the stuff he says and does. I have no problem with calling someone "evil" if they spend their country's resources on nuclear weapons during massive unemployment and threaten a democratic country with being "wiped off the map."

However, when a Leftist brain-box like Mehlman claims to understand the actions and motivations of George W. Bush it's based on a conglomeration of personal prejudices that manifests itsel
f as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" rather than anything Bush actually says or does.

Bush says he's trying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, and America's best and brightest are fighting to bring it about. Contracts have been signed giving the Iraqis control of their own oil resources and who they sell it to. Halliburton does not own it, y
et Mehlman still clings to the myth of blood, oil, and Halliburton.

You see Mehlman believes in what post-modern thinkers call the "meta-narrative" whether he knows it or not. This concept says that certain facets of society will do things in certain ways for certain reasons.

According the meta-narrative of the Iraq War, the fighting has nothing to do with bringing democracy to a country tormented by decades of dictatorships. Instead it's all a big evil conspiracy to kill people for the sake of killing people so they can drill for oil under the puddles of blood and spattered brains. Sure, a functioning democratic nation would solve a lot problems in the Middle East, but that doesn't fit the meta-narrative.

Mike Nifong, the Duke lacrosse persecutor, believed in the leftist meta-narrative that all evil rich white boy
s do is go around raping poor black women. He believed it so strongly he sacrificed investigative procedure, constitutional rights of the accused, the good name of his office, and in the end, his own legal license to fulfill it.

Even I have fallen victim to the rabid Inquisitors of High Church of Our Lady of the Over-Arching Meta-Narrative.

If you look at our Culture Corner post and scroll down to the comments you'll see a lot of lefty trolls accusing me of being racist and using the term "dirty brown people."


Okay, my memory may be failing me, but I don't recall ever using the term "dirty brown people" when describing Islamist terrorists. I believe that Islamist terrorists are found all over
Earth's ethnic/genetic spectrum and that Islam has very strict sanitary codes so their most ardent fundamentalists can't be described as "dirty."

When I attack Islamist Terrorists I try to make a point to attack their actions and their public statements, not their ethnicity or cleanliness.

Yet I'm attacked as if I did.


Why?

Because the Leftist meta-narrative declares that since I support the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the bringing of democracy to the Middle East, the smiting of terrorists wherever they're found, and the frequent nut-punching of hippies, I must be some sort of racist who must have, at some time, called Muslims "dirty brown people" whether I actually did or not.

So here's what it boils down to.

Meta-narrative is no different than the old-time Jim Crow era beliefs about African Americans, but since it is aimed at Republicans, Christians, and pro-Israeli Jews it's dressed in the slightly tattered, but socially acceptable, robes of liberal academia.


Now it's perfectly okay to downplay the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and now Saddam Hussein, because the Meta-Narrative says it's okay because they're the sort of people Republicans opposed.

Much the same way the Ku Klux Klan thought lynching blacks was okay, because it fit their meta-narrative.

So the next time Mehlman opens his mouth
, show him this picture:

And ask Mehlman if Saddam meant well.

Then tell him to ask the Kurds if Saddam meant well.

Then call him an asshole.

Which is your right as an American.

11 comments:

President Ahmedinajad said...

READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.

Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.

Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;

Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.

GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.

GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!

BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.

100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING

THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.

Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?

GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.


The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.

This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??

Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?

I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.

For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM

(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)

http://bible.islamicweb.com/

http://www.islamicity.com/

http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml

http://www.islamalways.com/

http://ifamericansknew.com/

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm

(BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

ANTI-WAR

http://www.harunyahya.com/
(EVOLUTION DECEIPT)

http://www.barnabas.net/

http:/www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm



HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122


101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.


102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

104. We called out to him "O Abraham!

105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

106. For this was obviously a trial-

107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

111. For he was one of our believing Servants.

112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.

113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,

115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;

116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);

117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;

118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.

119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:

120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"

121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

122. For they were two of our believing Servants.



ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?????
Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
HADITH

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times."
The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it."
The Prophet added, "May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael's mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth." The Prophet further added, "Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, 'Don't be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.' The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

Remulak MoxArgon said...

What the fudge?

I can't even read all of that.

I think this person's visited before, if I'm not mistaken with the same sort of rant, if not the exact same rant.

Sekhmet said...

BAH! It's a cut-and-paste barf!

Damian G. said...

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/25/audio-john-gibson-versus-peter-at-least-hitler-and-stalin-meant-well-mehlman/

Again, this guy is a retard.

Anonymous said...

I am so sick of the author of this blog making excuses for the monumental failure of GWB’s decision to go to war with Iraq. Let’s just try and be sensible about this:
The Iraq War is an ongoing conflict which began with a United States-led 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda connection. Yet others pointed to human rights abuse in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the need to establish democracy in Iraq as reason for the war. They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited non-military options. Many critics of the war have alleged that this was a primary reason for the invasion.
The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. As a result of this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have withdrawn troops from Iraq. The causes and consequences of the war remain extremely controversial. Critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs.
Some academics see such costs as inevitable until US foreign policy turns away from expanding U.S. hegemony. Professor Chip Pitts accepts that an American empire exists, but argues that it is profoundly at odds with better instincts of U.S. citizens and policymakers, and that rejecting neo-colonialism by military means such as those employed in the Iraq War, is a prerequisite to restoring domestic civil liberties and human rights that have been infringed upon by an imperial presidency -- while being crucial, as well, to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East and other places of vital U.S. interest. For Iraqi citizens, it seems that can't happen soon enough. When asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace is opposed to US occupation and want US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis support attacking US troops. More Americans understand this now, as shown in the documentary film The Ground Truth which interviews American soldiers returning from Iraq and their families.
No matter what the controversial reasons for the Iraq War, we are still there and Iraq and the US are no more safe than when we started. In fact, we are less safe and Iraq is more unstable.
The rest of the shit you posted (Mehlman, generalizations of what constitutes a leftist’s paradigm, etc…) is just bullshit.

Rick said...

We invaded Iraq, captured Sadamm and killed him. We won the war. Now let's get the fuck out!

Anonymous said...

I believe the "dirty brown people" comment was just a generalization of how some people (not necessarily you) see all middle easterners. Usually it is ignorant Southern Male Republicans that want to just nuke the entire Middle East because it is just full of "dirty brown people". Trust me this is true. I hear it every day of my life here in MS.

Vulcanrider said...

As a Southern Male Republican (well, FORMER, I couldn't take any more of the party called me racist over the illegal alien act), I find your comment divisive AND racist. I don't know what part of MS you happen to be in, but I'll guaran-damn-tee you the so-called "ignorants" you refer to are in the minority. If that's not the case, you'd better fucking move!

And, just satisfy some personal curiosity, since you can't share your name, or even a nick...How much time have you spent in the Middle East? How many times have you had to stop or swerve your vehicle to avoid what might possibly be an IED? Ah, never mind, I know the answer...

And Saddam declared war against the coalition of countries when he continually violated the multiple sanctions placed against him as part of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. The war didn't start in 2003, it started in 1992 when he fired on the coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zones established by that bastion of truth and honor, the UN. If you think it all started in 2003, all you're doing is spouting the same old meme's the left has been using since than and conveniently ignoring the facts.

Anonymous said...

My thoughts exactly vulcanrider! I would love to get the hell out of MS!

I come from a military family. I've had two family members die in Iraq. One of them blown up by an IED. So screw you for being so pompous.

You are correct that if you dig deeper the "war" mentality has been front and center in US and British political realm since 1991. The aim has been the destruction of Iraqi society enabling the US and Britain to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves (with an extra bonus of making money off the billion dollar contracts to "reconstruct" Iraq).

Why does my name matter? I am the voice of millions.

Vuclanrider said...

I come from a military family. I've had two family members die in Iraq. One of them blown up by an IED. So screw you for being so pompous.

All you did here was answer my question, I didn't ask about family members serving, I have the utmost respect for them, but you, since you can't be bothered, are an ass. I have many friends and relatives buried in Arlington, and have stood in flag lines for the fallen here at home. C'mon, find a leftist talking point for that.

Trotting out the "war for oil" meme ain't gonna cut it either. You think that's the case? Get down to the local gas station and check the price.

Why does my name matter? I am the voice of millions.

And you call ME pompous?

Anonymous said...

Ok, Vulcanrider you are right. I'm a pompous ass and we are not in Iraq for the oil.