NOT ALL RACISM IS INCORRECT

Some interesting points from a Leftist writer

Writing in 2000 after almost 10 years of fighting in the Balkans, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek noted that much of the commentary on the war revealed as much about the prejudices of the commentators as it did of the combatants. In particular, Zizek observed the barely concealed racism running throughout much of the commentary on the Balkan wars: the conflicts were portrayed as the latest in a long history of vicious melodramas among infantile peoples whose cultures remained mired in tribal barbarity.

Such comments were all the more remarkable because they often came from people who would never dare apply such appalling stereotypes to other cultural groups, such as African Americans. But because the Balkans is part of Europe, and therefore "part of us", such sensitivities could safely be dispensed with. In Zizek's words, "The Balkans constitute a place of exception with regard to which the tolerant multiculturalist is allowed to act out his/her repressed racism."

With the release of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, we might add central Asia to the places of exception. There is a similar thread of repressed racism running through the enjoyment of the Borat movie. Since few of us will ever go to Kazakhstan or meet Kazakhs who might be offended by such caricatures, it's the perfect place on which good multiculturalists can safely project our prejudices.

The Kazakh Government's flat-footed attempts to counter the poor image of Kazakhstan presented in the film have only helped to reinforce such images. Late last November, for example, Kazakh Foreign Ministry spokesman Yerzhan Ashykbayev threatened Borat's creator, Sacha Baron Cohen, with "legal measures" for his continued pillorying of Kazakhstan. In a sublime twist, Borat responded by supporting his "Government's decision to sue this Jew" - Baron Cohen is Jewish - before going on to boast of Kazakhstan's progressive and pluralistic culture, illustrated by the news that homosexuals no longer have to wear blue hats, that women are now allowed to travel on the insides of buses and that the age of consent had been raised to eight.

To some extent, the Kazakh Government misses the point of the Borat film, insofar as most of the jokes are not targeted at Kazakhs at all. Kazakhstan is simply a convenient stick with which to poke fun at a culture that is so ignorant of the rest of the world that it swallows the idea that there exists a whole country populated by boorish fools who have only incompletely made it to modernity.

His clumsy attempts to ingratiate himself with his host enable him to get away with murder. At one point in the film, Borat addresses a US rodeo audience and, in his mangled English, enthusiastically pledges Kazakhstan's support for "your country's war of terror", to the rapturous applause of the crowd.

But even accepting this, Cohen's Borat routines are a roundabout way of mocking people - both in the US and in Kazakhstan - who are different from, and have had few of the opportunities enjoyed by, liberal multiculturalists.

To some extent, of course, all humour trades in caricatures, and Borat relies on the ignorance of his victims. What's telling about Borat, though, is the precise contours of the caricature: his misogyny, racism, and homophobia - all of which are presented as entirely normal and natural - are the exact inversion of liberal multicultural politics.

By embodying everything liberal multiculturalists oppose and opening them up to ridicule, Borat works to prop up our own commitment to liberal tolerance. He conjures up a distant people and place through which liberal multiculturalists can distinguish themselves, thereby confirming everything that they are not.

Source



WORD GAMES ABOUT LEFTISM

Conservatives are suicidally polite. We feel bound to act nice, and so we go along with whatever euphemism the Left chooses for itself. On their side, Democrats loudly argue for truth in advertising for baldness cures-- but not in the marketplace of political ideas, where telling the truth is a lot more important. That is why the Left constantly seeks new PR labels to disguise itself. Using the word "socialism" is taboo in American politics, but today the Democratic Party is socialist at heart. Even "liberal" isn't accurate any more, because today's Democrats are hardly the party of Cold War liberals like John F. Kennedy and Harry S Truman. Instead, they have fallen back on fuzzy, wishful Marxism. It's where they feel most comfortable.

The Left is now pushing for yet a new PR label, "progressive," which gently rings the old Marxist chimes for those in the know. If you call yourself a progressive, everybody who doesn't agree must be a Neanderthal. But words mean things, and "socialist" is simply more accurate than either "liberal" or "progressive."

On Iraq the key to Democrat thinking is that they are internationalists-they despise nationalism of all kinds, seeing it as the cause of wars. But the old Communist anthem was of course "The Internationale." Internationalism is a defining feature of socialism, going back to the 19th century. It is our fundamental difference on foreign policy. Conservatives see American patriotism as a saving grace. A widespread faith in the goodness of our country brought us through the dangers of the 20th century. Sure we made mistakes, being human, and politics being what it is. But for conservatives, the United States is still the last, best hope of mankind. The anti-American media therefore constantly tries to undermine pro-American feelings. Instead, they look to socialist Europe and the socialist UN; against a century of facts, they would place our safety in the hands of strangers. That is presumably what Senator Hillary Clinton had in mind last week, when she called for more "internationalism" in American policy.

We stand at a point in time where we are now in the process of redefining both American internationalism and American interests. ... It is essential that we win this war against these borderless terrorists, but it is, I believe, critical that we once again recommit ourselves to that American internationalism that I mentioned in the beginning.

But "American internationalism" Is an oxymoron; it contradicts itself. After 9/11 we know perfectly well what "American Internationalism" really means. It means that we pay for NATO and the UN, protect Europe with a nuclear umbrella for sixty years, and then, when terrorists cause mass civilian deaths in New York City and Washington, DC, the Europeans will scream and yell at us when we try to preempt further attacks. For socialists, internationalism comes first and America a very distant second. We have no true allies in Europe, except for Britain, and Tony Blair is now losing his job over faithfully sticking by our alliance. Senator Clinton's "American internationalism" is a slogan for milking Uncle Sam and screwing him at the same time. If you doubt it, consider this story from the Washington Post by Thomas Edsall, June 28, 1998, in the happy days before 9/11.

President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are seeking to take advantage of the unprecedented number of Western governments controlled by center-left parties to turn their "third way" political strategies in the United States and Great Britain into an international movement.

Third Way Socialism means piggy-backing Labour socialism on top of Maggie Thatcher's capitalism: Taxing the free market just enough to support the socialist state. Today, the free market in Britain is being taxed to sink British sovereignty into the greedy arms of the EU, utterly corrupt and anti-democratic. The people of Britain have now been so deeply indoctrinated that they hardly notice it any more. For the Left, politics is too important to be honest about. It has that in common with Islamist fascism.

If and when American conservatives decide to call a socialist a socialist, the Left will scream that it's is a McCarthyite smear. But is the word "socialism" defamatory or just the plain truth? In their hearts the Left believes, it believes fervently (in private), in caucusing with the Elect. Socialism is a coherent political philosophy, painting a rosy future of peace and equality forever, if only the really good people achieve total power; in reality, the socialist fantasy just keeps slamming into a wall of failures, disasters, tyrannies, massacres and miseries wherever it's tried. But conservatives can't even point to the Left's endless record of failure if we don't dare to use the word "socialism." We have to find the courage to say the s-word.

If you want to know what socialists really believe, read one Labour Councillor, Terry Kelly from Scotland. If Mr. Kelly seems like a nut-ball to you, keep in mind that he speaks for most of British Labour-- especially those who hate the traitor Tony Blair. He also sounds exactly like Moveon.org and the hard Left of the Democrat Party, which is now taking credit for the Leftist takeover of the US Congress. Writes Mr. Kelly:

I'm a Socialist who believes in equality, peace and the redistribution of wealth, I oppose Racism, Sexism, Sectarianism, Nationalism and any kind of discrimination. Best wishes for a Socialist future.

There. He said it. It's just the plain truth. Less than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the horrific past of Stalin and starvation is flushed down the memory hole. Socialists have not changed even one little bit. Reality has had no impact, because they are a millenarian sect that always has its eyes on an imaginary future. Yet peace and love are hard to find in Mr. Kelly's high-whine rantings. Councillor Kerry passionately hates America, Israel and Republican "thugs." His fidelity to "tolerance" does not include tolerance for the ideas of other people. These are the folks who control Europe, and who greeted the Democratic win last week with loud Hosannas. George Orwell is always relevant. A former socialist himself, he became a passionate advocate of truth-telling. Remember this:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

Perhaps conservatives should think of themselves as truth-telling revolutionaries in a time of wall-to-wall deceit. Using the s-word is a step in the right direction.

Source

The essay above is right to stress the importance of knowing history but should also have mentioned what American "Progressives" were like in the past. Before WWII, American "Progressives" were essentially Fascist. Only the details have changed



Pro-Homosexual Democrats To Push Anti-Christian `Hate Crime' Legislation

With the Democrats taking control of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this January, we can expect the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and its pro-homosexual surrogates newly elected to Congress, to begin an aggressive push for passage of a "hate crimes" bill designed to provide federally protected status to the behavior of homosexuality. This hate crimes bill is likely to be a re-engineered version of the old Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA). The pro-homosexual, anti-Christian Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is another bill that will be revived as part of the homosexual agenda.

Americans voted for a change in Congress. They obviously have not seriously considered the kind of changes they may have to cope with once the homosexual agenda goes into full swing in the Senate and House.

The homosexual goal is to create protected minority status for homosexuality as though it were equal to such immutable characteristics as race. The side-effect of this effort will be to criminalize criticism of homosexual conduct and to violate religious freedom and freedom of conscience. It is also likely that all attempts to pass a constitutional marriage amendment will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

Newly-elected Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey (D) who defeated pro-family Senator Rick Santorum (R) has already indicated his plans to push for a hate crimes bill that includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Casey's announcement is payback to HRC for its strong support of his race for the Senate. Gender identity, for those unfamiliar with the term, is code for an individual who thinks he is the opposite sex. (This includes cross-dressers, transvestites and transsexuals.) Sexually confused individuals will be a protected minority if Casey and his minions in the Senate have their way.

HRC is encouraged by the election of Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to the U.S. Senate. She defeated rival Mark Kennedy. Klobuchar is a proponent of pro-homosexual hate crime legislation; HRC raised thousands of dollars for her campaign.

In the House, HRC has applauded the election of such pro-homosexual and pro-abortion individuals as Gabby Giffords of Arizona who defeated Randy Graf for homosexual Jim Kolbe's (R) seat. Kolbe is under investigation by a U.S. Attorney in Arizona for his role in taking two House pages on a camping trip in 1996. Kolbe has admitted he was aware of Mark Foley's inappropriate emails with House pages as far back as 2000.

In Florida, an HRC-endorsed Democrat Ron Klein defeated 13-term Republican Claw Shaw in the 22nd District. Klein can be expected to payback HRC with homosexual-affirming legislation when he takes office in January.

With both the Senate and House now under control of Democrats and dozens of pro-homosexual lawmakers, all Americans must be prepared to endure serious threats to their freedom of speech, their right to make employment decisions as business owners, and their religious freedom in the business world.

TVC did everything in its power to educate and inspire our supporters to vote for candidates who uphold traditional morality. We tried to warn voters what would happen should liberals gain control of Congress in January. We fear our predictions will be correct-and religious freedom and free speech will die by a thousand cuts-beginning in 2007. Fortunately, the people can change course in 2008, after they've seen the horrors to be offered them by the sick ideology of homosexual activists and liberals. My hope is that the damage done to our cultural foundations will be minimal during these next two years of liberal occupation. With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader, God help us.

Source