The following are best described as
opponents of the west.
They are some of the leading opponents in the west
of American and western power,
and opponents of American and western victory against
They appear regularly on my local radio and TV,
and in my local newspapers,
so I thought I would gather in one place refutations of them.
They have every right to speak of course, and it is one of the strengths of
the USA, the UK and other democracies that their harshest critics
- indeed practically their open enemies -
are not only free to speak, but can make a good living by doing so,
and even become immensely wealthy
doing so (like Michael Moore).
The people below claim
to be friends of oppressed people around the world,
but in fact they are enemies of the non-western world as well,
since they want to stop the spread of western ideas
to it, and hence prevent its liberation.
On apologists for evil:
"in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.
Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil,
the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil."
"It is the Left
- in America, in Europe and around the world -
that should do all the apologizing"
In reality, of course, the cause of third-world poverty is
Third-world people are poor because of
The War on Islamic Fascism
Chomsky on Afghanistan, 2001:
"Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. ... plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that's just kind of normal".
Chomsky opposed action against
(or even supported)
just about every enemy of human freedom
Indeed, had Chomsky been writing during WW2,
imagine him possibly writing in support of the Allies.
The Soviet Union (1),
the Soviet imperialist occupation of Eastern Europe,
Communist North Vietnam (2),
the Khmer Rouge (3),
the Ayatollah's Iran,
Saddam Hussein's Iraq,
Islamic fascism (4)
- all are supported, defended, or at least action against them is opposed
Again, it is impossible to imagine him supporting the Allies in 1944.
Surely he would have condemned
the D-Day liberation of France
as an appalling, illegal and aggressive act against a continent
that was finally at peace. (5)
(1) The Soviet Union:
See Noam Chomsky's Satanic Verses
by Paul Crespo, January 29, 2004
- Chomsky writing on US foreign policy in the 1980s.
Interesting on his credulous belief in
everything the Soviet Union spokesmen say.
(2) North Vietnam:
See Hanoi Chomsky
by Tim Starr.
In a 1970 speech, Chomsky is not just anti-war,
and pro-totalitarian communism.
that communist North Vietnam
killed nearly 2 million innocent people.
And Chomsky and the anti-Vietnam War
protesters must share some moral responsibility
for the communist victory and subsequent democide.
"There has now been enough analysis of the Vietnam War to demonstrate conclusively that the United States
was not defeated militarily. South Vietnam was abandoned to its fate because of the war's political costs at home.
The influence of radical intellectuals like Chomsky in persuading the student generation of the 1960s to oppose the war
was crucial in elevating these political costs to an intolerable level."
Chomsky welcomed the Khmer Rouge victory,
and denied reports of the genocide.
"Chomsky was this regime's most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist."
Chavez praised Chomsky as
"one of the greatest pioneers of a better world",
and Chomsky replied that:
"what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."
Chomsky attacks American freedom, sneering that:
"control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations... and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression".
David R. Adler
points out that
the US is so "oppressive" that
Chomsky was invited to address US military cadets in Apr 2006.
"just try to imagine a fierce critic of Chavez being invited to address a class of military cadets in Venezuela."
Chomsky's reputation as a thinker
rests on his work in linguistics.
My field is Cognitive Science,
and many in that field believe Chomsky's reputation will not survive
long-term - that he is a figure like Freud.
The central problem is the incompatibility between his ideas
and the origin of language
(i.e. its gradual evolution from non-language
in populations of hominids).
Chomsky scepticism about evolution:
"It surely cannot be assumed that every trait is specifically selected. In the case of such systems as language or wings it is not even easy to imagine a course of selection that might have given rise to them. A rudimentary wing, for example, is not "useful" for motion but is more of an impediment."
Chomsky scepticism about evolution of language:
"There is a field called Evolution of Language, which has a burgeoning literature, most of which in my view is total nonsense. But anyway, it's growing. In fact, it isn't even about evolution of language, it's almost entirely speculations about evolution of communication which is a different topic. And it's a kind of natural topic to look at if you're caught up in another myth, a misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, which holds that changes take place only incrementally."
A Christian Arab agnostic with a massive chip on his shoulder.
He praised the Orient - and yet of course he did not live there.
He lived (of course!)
in a far better place - the United States of America,
where he enjoyed tenure and great honours at a top university,
while he whined about the alleged flaws of America and the West.
What a hypocrite.
Obituary by Mark Steyn
- ".. he didn't
seem to understand that the life he enjoyed
was only possible in the west.
The 300 firemen who died on September 11th died in part for
their fellow New Yorker Edward Said,
though he is too stupid
and graceless to understand."
Said's Orientalism".. taught an entire generation of Arabs the art of self-pity - were
it not for the wicked imperialists,
racists and Zionists, we would be great once more - encouraged the
Islamic fundamentalist generation of the 1980s,
and bludgeoned into silence any criticism of Islam"
Warraq points out that
"Intellectual inquisitiveness is one of the hall marks of Western civilisation"
- in contrast to most of the world,
who have little interest in anything
outside of their own narrow culture.
It was Westerners who discovered
the orbit of the planets,
the laws of gravity, the distance of the stars,
the size and age of earth and the universe,
the sub-atomic laws of physics,
the nature of genetic inheritance,
the origin of human civilization,
and a million other things
- and told an ungrateful world about it all.
It was even Westerners who told the Orient about its own past:
"One should remind Said that it was thanks to this desire for knowledge on the part of Europeans
that led to the people of the Near East recovering and discovering their own past and their own identity.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth century archaeological excavations in Mesopotamia, Ancient
Syria, Ancient Palestine and Iran were carried out entirely by Europeans and later Americans - the
disciplines of Egyptology, Assyriology, Iranology which restored to mankind a large part of its heritage
were the exclusive creations of inquisitive Europeans and Americans. Whereas, for doctrinal reasons,
Islam deliberately refused to look at its pre-Islamic past, which was considered a period of ignorance."
"As common sense suggests and Ibn Warraq substantiates, the interest of Westerners in the East from classical antiquity onwards was motivated" [not by "imperialism" or "racism" but]
"by intellectual curiosity; they wanted to find out about the other human beings with whom they were sharing the world. To seek knowledge for its own sake is the special and wholly beneficial contribution the West has made to mankind. ... Rationalism, universalism, and self-inspection are Western traits which expand civilization. Said's cultural relativism leads only to a dead-end."
In short, Said was yet another narrow-minded, reactionary,
tribal Easterner who failed to understand the West.
In this cheeky novel,
one of the villains is the
"Now Rashid, of course, was a star in the intellectual world.
Among his fellow academics, he was considered a great man.
A hugely popular professor of multicultural studies, he was credited with
formulating the very concept of multiculturalism in his best-selling book,Eastern Mind, Western Eyes."
Edward Said (died 2003) certainly
sounds like the model for Rashid.
In the novel, Rashid
is secretly involved with Islamist terror.
The hero even tortures the professor in order to (successfully)
avert a major attack on America!
And then at the end we hear that
Rashid has "disappeared" into the CIA's secret prisons!
Very naughty of Klavan, but you have to laugh.
It makes a refreshing change from
the usual right-wing and "neo-nazi" villains.
Edward Said's cover
attacks western artists who took an interest in the Orient,
The Snake Charmer
But it is Edward Said who comes across looking like a bigot, not them. Ibn Warraq
points out the delicious irony that these European "Orientalist" paintings
are not despised but are
much sought after
by wealthy Arabs now.
They pay high prices for them
- since they are rare portrayals of a lost Middle East.
Islam discouraged painting, so often these are the only portrayals of that era.
The childish clown
who shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left
in the Islamist War.
The vulgar, anti-American, mean-spirited, immensely wealthy
The semi-educated author of cartoon-like books
and simple totalitarian propaganda
who makes Chomsky
look like a deep thinker.
Stupid White Men
- a perfect description of the kind of people who bought this book.
And the title!
This kind of PC
patronisation must drive minorities crazy.
As if non-whites are always wise, and cannot be stupid!
The very title of the book declares that whites are cool people who can take insults,
and non-whites are sensitive and must be patronised, like children.
David Frum asks an excellent question
about Moore's inexplicable popularity at Cannes
and at the Oscars:
"If an American were to make a documentary about the (genuine in this case)
links between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein
- how do you think he'd do at the Oscars?"
The lies of Michael Moore
by Christopher Hitchens.
He quotes Orwell, writing in 1945,
but it could just as easily be about the present day:
"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects
or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and
prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point.
But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though
unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy
and admiration for totalitarianism."
"What I found myself wondering
.. was whether Michael Moore may, in the end, turn out to be the American Loonie Left's
He's become the rallying point. He's raised the flag, and the most motivated LL's are flocking
to support him. He's become their poster boy, their public face. He provides a focal point;
he's a magnet around which they can gather and organize.
He has chosen the ground they will defend
- and it is dreadful ground indeed."
"the LL's have rallied to his flag. They've moved to his holy city. They've adopted positions on the terrain he's chosen for the battle. And they're using the arguments and evidence he provides as ammunition.
In the short term, it may seem as if the LL's are mobilized and fighting hard. But it also leaves them concentrated and vulnerable. And they are fighting on just about the worst ground they could have chosen."
Worst, that is, if they want to win the election.
"Moore has planted his flag smacko in the middle of the Holy City of anti-Americanism. To defend that position, the LL's will now vocally proclaim something many have long believed but avoided admitting: they hate America and everything it stands for. That is not a message that will sell well to the broad electorate."
"It is rare for a political faction to be blessed with an opponent who is so charismatic to his fanatical supporters, so repulsive to non-supporters, and so vulnerable to criticism and caricature. I can't think of a high-profile leftist I'd rather have "at the centre of things" than Michael Muqtada al-Moore."
Less is Moore, Kyle Smith, September 27, 2009, on the ruthless capitalist millionaire Michael Moore,
who attacks capitalism
while becoming rich out of it
and proposing no alternative.
"But I don't begrudge Moore his earnings. Being allowed to separate suckers from their money is one of the more entertaining privileges of capitalism."
Smith is amusing on how leftists like Moore never seem to propose
a better system than capitalism:
"David Denby defined "Snark" as, in part, a system that fails to make an affirmative argument. Snarkists are back-of-the-class spitballers who go silent when asked to teach the class themselves.
Moore .. cannot stand in the front of the room and define for us a new system of government to replace the one he finds so unbearable. ... If he shouted the name of the system he apparently worships .. he would be the mockee instead of the mocker. He'd have to play defense instead of merely being offensive.
As it is, Moore drops hints that communism is kinda groovy while solemnly presenting a clip of an angry victim of foreclosure who speaks of armed uprising against banks ...
The majority of the liberal audience, which hates the same things Moore hates ... feels so cozy in his company that they fail to ask themselves where Moore-ism leads."
I think this rather sums up Michael Moore:
In Feb 1994, an unrelated man called
Michael Patrick Moore
broke into a house in Texas and murdered a 35 year old woman.
He was sentenced to death.
He failed, and Michael Patrick Moore was executed in Jan 2002.
One good thing is that he did genuinely apologise and repent:
"I can blame it on abuse from my parents but the fact of the matter is, I did it, and there is nobody else to blame."
"Fahrenheit" shown on TV in Cuba
- The communist tyranny of
No dissent (such as calls for democracy) is allowed to air in Cuba
- but the state promotes Fahrenheit 9/11.
Is Moore proud
that his film is so safe and acceptable to tyrannies all over the world?
Fahrenheit 9/11 Debuts in Tehran
- The Islamofascist tyranny of
No dissent (such as calls for democracy) is allowed to air in Iran
- but the state promotes Fahrenheit 9/11.
An Iranian Moore, poking fun at the Iranian government, would of course be executed.
Some quotes from the Iranians watching the film:
"The authorities obviously gave the film the green light for political reasons, in that anything against the United States must be good"
"They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea that America is the great saviour"
"out of all the films people would love to see, the authorities had to go for this one
- just because this film is in line with the view of the Islamic regime"
"It [the USA] sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it
- and makes so much money!"
What's wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11?
by Joey Tartakovsky,
describes the happy scenes of Saddam's Iraq as
"surely one of the most disgraceful instances of cinematic propaganda
in the annals of American film".
The enemy narrator describes Michael Moore as
"one of my favourite guys",
and says of him:
"After all, there are honest and influential guys in America".
Is Moore proud?
These people incinerated three thousand civilians in the city where Michael Moore lives.
They are violent, uneducated religious maniacs fighting to enslave Iraq
under totalitarian rule.
Is Moore proud?
This propaganda video also vividly shows how the
anti-Vietnam War protesters
encouraged the West's enemies
- all the fascists, totalitarians and religious maniacs that the world has been
full of for 5,000 years.
Dennis Prager interviews Howard Zinn
(and part 2).
Zinn is opposed to all war against tyranny,
including the liberation of Iraq,
the liberation of Afghanistan,
the liberation of South Korea,
and he even refuses to declare in favour of WW2.
"I think we have to find ways other than war to get rid of dictatorships and tyrannies."
As Prager says:
"I would love that. But this is where we often consider people on the Left, at best, to be naive."
apparently described Castro's Cuba as
"a crucial model for challenging power".
John Pilger, 19 February, 2005,
sums up Pilger's alternative universe:
denies the basic fact that America protected the free world
from Soviet imperial expansionism during the Cold War.
He describes the long, hard,
American-led effort to save liberal civilization from communist tyranny
"modern history's imperial trail of blood of which Iraq is the latest".
What I don't understand is why he excludes the liberation of Europe in 1944 from this list.
1944 invasion of Europe
is the defining example
of this modern American imperialism.
He denies that the
was a struggle against democidal communist tyranny,
and instead claims that America
- rather than democidal communism
- was the real enemy of the Vietnamese people.
Well he must be happy then, since the communists won,
and took over the country for decades.
1.7 million people killed by the communists in democide in Vietnam alone,
no human rights,
Nothing like a happy ending, is there.
Pilger on Vietnam:
"The longest war this century was a war waged by America against Vietnam,
North and South. It was an attack on the people of Vietnam,
communist and non-communist, by American forces."
For oil, or rubber, or something, presumably.
Pilger laughably claims that Ho Chi Minh was not like other communist butchers.
Well if so, then
why didn't he set up a democracy
For 23 years, until his death in 1969, he ruled like a typical communist dictator,
showing no interest in setting up a free democracy.
Why was this?
Can Pilger explain?
Criticism of John Pilger
for not treating Islamists as
who are responsible for their actions.
"So naturally, the bombs of 7/7 are Blair's. The Islamist terrorists who actually built and deployed them
were acting in a blameless way, with the inevitability of falling rain and lions pursuing prey.
You don't blame the rain for falling. You don't blame lions for killing gazelle.
And you don't blame Islamist terrorists for bombing London.
In this view, the terrorists aren't "wrong" per se. They're just reacting. The only way to get them to stop
is for us to change."
And the writer really nails it:
"To the degree that getting us to change policies is a goal of the terrorists,
then John Pilger's way of thinking is necessary for terrorism to work."
He describes it as hopeful that Hizbollah are fighting Israel:
"But there is hope. After all these years of terrorising an occupied people,
eventually driving them to the despair of having to commit their own atrocities,
the rogue regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv may,
... just may, have met their match."
He claims that Palestinians were driven to suicide bombing Jewish women and children
rather than by Islamist Jew-hatred.
His weasel words about Hizbollah deliberately targeting civilians,
as if this is some unfortunate collateral damage
rather than the intended target itself:
"The resistance to rapacious power, to epic crimes of invasion
... is humanity at its noblest; yet the paradox
warns us that no resistance is pretty;
that each adds its own form of violence in order to expel an invader
(such as the civilians killed by Hizbollah rockets)"
fanatical religious reactionaries.
Anyone who supports them has no moral compass.
Now do you understand,
Jose Ramos Horta?
John Pilger only supported East Timor because Indonesia was
a western ally.
If Indonesia had been an enemy of the west,
he would never have supported you.
Now do you understand?
58,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam.
North Vietnam never fell. Rather, it won the war.
In the 2001 Afghan war, the Taliban regime
fell before a single US soldier
died from hostile fire.
Essentially all US deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by nation building,
not by the war itself.
Same in Iraq.
As at 2009, after 8 years of nation building,
750 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan.
Do you want the facts ... or Fisk's version?
by Eoghan Harris, November 25, 2001
- "Fisk has now been wrong about three wars in a row.
In the Gulf War he told us the Republican Guard would give the Americans a hard time: in fact, they folded.
In the Kosovo War he said American bombing would not work: today Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes.
And Fisk has been wrong about the Afghan War from first to last."
Anglo-American Lies Exposed
- whining wartime propaganda from
Robert Fisk, 24 March 2003.
laughs at the idea that the allies are winning the
"So far, the Anglo-American armies are handing their propaganda to the Iraqis on a plate.
First, on Saturday, we were told ... that Umm Qasr, the tiny Iraqi seaport on the Gulf,
Then we were told ... that Nassariyah had been captured.
Then its "embedded " correspondent informed us - and here my old journalistic suspicions were alerted - that it had been "secured".
All in all, then, this has not been a great weekend for Messers Bush and Blair.
One of our own Tornadoes is shot down by the Americans
and we haven't even totally captured the first town over the border from Kuwait.
this weekend, the quick and easy war, the conflict of "shock-and-awe"
doesn't seem so realistic. Things are going wrong. We are not telling the truth.
And the Iraqis are riding high on it all."
Fisk propaganda, 1 April 2003
laughs at the allied effort:
"Even the "siege of Baghdad" - a city that is 30 miles wide and might
need a quarter of a million men to surround it - is fading from the diary.
I have a suspicion that what's gone wrong has nothing to do with plans.
Indeed, I suspect there is no real overall plan."
Fisk propaganda, 2 April:
"Anyone who doubts that the Iraqi army is prepared to defend its capital should
take the highway south of Baghdad. How, I kept asking myself,
could the Americans batter their way through these defences?"
On 9 April,
And yet still this ignorant man appears constantly on my radio set.
Doesn't it matter
that he was wrong?
Surely it counts for
Pryce-Jones talks of Fisk's
"hysteria and distortion"
in his reporting on the Middle East.
He describes Fisk as an enemy of the Iraqi people
posing as their champion:
"Perverting American purposes and
practices in Iraq, fisking helps to bring about the doom that it anticipates
with such glee and relish.
... The Iraqis are his real
This definition of "fisking" has not caught on, though.
The verb "to fisk" has been popularised by the blogosphere
to mean "to clinically dissect someone's shoddy argument piece by piece".
Robert Fisk is not a practitioner of "fisking".
Fisking is what is done to Robert Fisk.
In 2001, Robert Fisk was attacked and beaten up by ignorant pro-jihad Afghans close to the Afghan-Pakistan border.
He responded with sympathy to his own assault!
My Beating is a Symbol of this Filthy War, Robert Fisk, 10 Dec 2001.
He is sympathetic to their attack on a filthy infidel.
"And even then, I understood. I couldn't blame them for what they were doing. In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find."
"Many of these Afghans, so we were to learn, were outraged by what they had seen on television
A villager [said] they had seen the videotape of CIA officers "Mike" and "Dave" threatening death to a kneeling prisoner at Mazar."
They are outraged by rough words to a captured jihadist.
But they are not outraged by the Taliban's long oppression and butchery, or the 9/11 attacks.
And Fisk thinks these are reasonable people!
He had a glimpse of enlightenment, but he pulled back:
"Did I catch the word "kaffir" - infidel? Perhaps I was was wrong."
He sticks to his belief that they are motivated by geopolitics
rather than religion.
He says his attackers are not responsible for their actions:
"there were all the Afghan men and boys who had attacked me who should never have done so but whose brutality was entirely the product of others, of us - of we who had armed their struggle against the Russians and ignored their pain and laughed at their civil war".
Because Muslims would never be violent if left alone by the West.
by Efraim Karsh
The Great War for Civilisation.
Good stuff by Fisk:
Let's give credit where it is due.
Fisk has not made the mistake of
supporting the vile
And my attention was drawn to this article:
Conspiracy of silence in the Arab world, 10 February 2007,
where he complains that Arabs do not protest Arab-on-Arab violence,
only violence by the West and Israel.
He complains at the silence of the Arab world about the Iraqi resistance
as it slaughters Muslims.
In among his usual attacks on the west and Israel, he has a good point:
"When the Hama massacre occurred, neighbouring Arab states were silent. ... Just as the imams and scholars of Islam were silent when the Algerians began to slaughter each other in a welter of head-chopping and security force executions in the 1990s.
Just as they are silent now over the mutual killings in Iraq.
where are the sheikhs of Al-Azhar and the great Arabian kingdoms when the Iraqi dead are fished out of the Tigris and cut down in their thousands in Baghdad, Kerbala, Baquba? They, too, are silent.
Not a word of criticism. Not a hint of concern.
But when does Arab blood become less sacred? Why, when it is shed by Arabs. It's not just a failure of self-criticism in the Arab world. In a landscape ruled by monsters whom we in the West have long supported, criticism of any kind is a dodgy undertaking. But can there not be one small sermon of reprobation for what Iraqi Muslims are doing to Iraqi Muslims?"
Good for him.
However, one could argue that Fisk's entire career is based on an excessive focus on violence
by westerners, instead of violence by non-westerners.
George Monbiot gets an inkling that everything he believes is wrong
- and then the darkness comes over once again.
"While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism."
This may be news to Monbiot,
but some of us understood this before the age of 20.
But it's hopeful.
Maybe he'll get there some day.
What am I thinking!
doesn't even believe in prosperity."In this age of diamond saucepans, only a recession makes sense.
Economic growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest as it drives inequality. It is time we gave it up.
If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises."
Not really a taboo, George,
just a sign that someone is nuts.
And we are not shocked. We just conclude that you are a loony
who should not be listened to on economics (or anything, I guess).
Brendan O'Neill, 15 Mar 2013, spots that Monbiot has completely reversed himself now the Tories are in power.
He used to call for a recession and "austerity" to save the planet.
And now he is railing about Tory austerity
and complaining about the recession!
Nice to know he admits all the "save the planet" stuff was just bullshit:
Monbiot in 2007:
"I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises."
Monbiot in 2012:
"The cuts, the coalition promised, would hurt but work. They hurt all right – and have pushed us into a double-dip recession."
Monbiot in 2004:
"People don't riot for austerity; they riot because they want more, not less. We have to riot for less."
Monbiot in 2012:
"Austerity programmes are extending the crises they were meant to solve,
yet governments refuse to abandon them."
"No moral compass" is what comes to mind when I think of Tony Benn.
In his diaries, Tony Benn wrote the following in 1996:
"Had a long talk to the Chinese First Secretary at the embassy - a very charming man called Liao Dong
- and said how much I admired Mao Tse tung or Zedong, the greatest man of the twentieth century."
Tony Benn sent fraternal greetings to North Korea's Kim Jong Il,
who put families in concentration camps.
Benn defended people who supported Stalin.
that no one knew Stalin had killed tens of millions in the 1930s and 1940s until
Khrushchev announced it in a speech in
"the charge that [the British Communist party]
uncritically supported all the excesses during the Stalinist period conveniently ignores the fact
that those excesses were not widely known, even in the Soviet Union, until Khrushchev's famous speech which disclosed them."
"Every reader of the Reader's Digest was familiar in the 1930s with the reality of Soviet tyranny."
Benn attacked John Bolton for his government's liberation of Iraq.
"it’s a war crime that’s been committed in Iraq
there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber".
on this debate:
"The best QT for months. We finally have a mature and grown-up debate about Iraq
John Bolton was a breath of fresh air compared to Tony Benn's infantile left-wing anti-Americanism and Israel bashing."
Speaking on enemy Iranian TV
(Iran kills both Jews and British troops) he said:
"We should tell the Israeli airlines EL Al that until they abide by the United Nations' decisions, no Israeli aircraft would be allowed to fly into any British airport. We should tell the British ambassador to withdraw from Israel, and the Israeli ambassador to withdraw from here."
He says nothing should be done:
"to assist the Israelis in their determination to destroy Hamas
... Hamas must be seen as the agent of the Palestinian people."
Great comment expresses
how I feel about people giving him respect just because he is old:
"No he's an old fool. He was once a young fool. But always a fool."
Tony Benn had these 5 questions for the powerful.
points out, when Benn
met the genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein
here is the kind of thing he actually asked him:
"I have 10 grandchildren ... and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?"
Saddam the war-mongering butcher was happy to oblige the foolish old man
with his puffball questions.
"First of all we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years.
We pray to God to empower all those working against war and for the cause of peace".
As Kamm says:
"The five questions didn't come up."
The liberal, left-wing Muslim
was rescued from the black racist Idi Amin
by the tolerant, anti-racist UK,
and given a wonderful, free, wealthy life that she could never have had in Uganda.
Sadly, she did not learn the correct lesson
- that we should broadly support countries like the UK, Israel and the US,
and spend all our time attacking people like Idi Amin.
"What incensed me was Alibhai-Brown's assertion that she knew what life was like in Baghdad, and that I was using 'emotional blackmail' by telling what I knew. She should be grateful that as an Asian immigrant she has a British passport and not an Iraqi one.
No human being on this Earth should have to witness what I have witnessed."
Alibhai-Brown should be grateful, that is the bottom line.
But gratitude is one of the hardest of all feelings to express.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown provides a refreshing insight into the mind of the modern left.
She utters the thoughts that so many have but hide:
- "I've been against the war and part of you begins to... you know, it's horrible how your mind works. You think 'Good!', you wake up thinking 'Good, there's all this mess'. And then you have to question your own self, saying what kind of a human being are you, that you want this mess?"
- "I am ashamed to admit that there have been times when I wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson. On Monday I found myself again hoping that this handover proves a failure because it has been orchestrated by the Americans."
Bless her honesty, at least.
She does recognise her darker impulses, and struggles against them.
But whatever happened to the left?
What happened to the left that is supposed to stand for democracy and human rights everywhere?
Why has it degenerated into this bitter anti-American cul-de-sac?
Why am I becoming allergic to the word "left",
even though my belief in democracy and human rights is as strong as ever?
I tend not to list actors and musicians
on this page,
or on my page on
the left's long history of praise for tyrants
and hostility to democracies.
Certainly, one could make a long list of stupid things said by
actors and musicians from the 1960s to today.
But what is the point?
Probably most people
think actors and musicians are fairly lightweight thinkers anyway,
not to be taken seriously.
Anyway, here's a few bits and pieces, but no exhaustive list.
Sean Penn on Cuba
"in a free and open election in Cuba today, the ruling Communist Party would win 80 percent of the electorate."
So why not hold an election then?
Cuba has not held an election since 1948.
Hollywood vs. Our Leaders
by Cindy Osborne
- lists the education records of members of the Bush administration,
and the education records of some of the Hollywood "anti-war" left.
"Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks
away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is
controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people?"
Martin Sheen, Sean Penn,
Barbra Streisand, Jessica Lange, Alec Baldwin,
George Clooney, Matt Damon
- not one of them
has even a basic undergraduate degree.
Just high school.
Whereas Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice
- all have postgraduate degrees.
Rice has a PhD, as do I.
Of course we could still be wrong, and the
could be right.
But you'd think they'd be cautious about calling the Bush administration
"idiots" and "morons".
The brave Iraqi blogger
and democracy pioneer
"Iraq the Model"
does a magnificent fisking of this
after the liberation
he is so grateful for:
We say Don't free them, NOT IN OUR NAME.
We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies;
we will show our solidarity in word and deed,
but excuse us if we can't come closer to you because frankly, WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war
.. and rally others to do everything possible to stop it
and we will offer no alternatives, as it's not our business!
Join your voices to ours and let's DO NOTHING.
"Last year, I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place.
They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies and,
and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed
and played with gumdrop smiles."
- Sean Penn's character in
Team America: World Police
captures perfectly the ignorant world of the
Artists performing for dictators
Bruce Bawer, 27 Dec 2013, lists some artists who have performed special shows for dictators:
performed for Gaddafi in Libya in 2008
for a fee of $1 m.
People like Matt Damon, George Clooney, John Cusack, Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are well known for radical leftism.
You know what you're getting with them.
But then there are much-loved actors like Tom Hanks
and Morgan Freeman.
For years they seemed perfectly reasonable.
And then they come out with some stuff that makes you realise what is going on inside their heads.
I like Tom Hanks, but then you are forced to recall he's an actor, not a thinker.
This is incredible:
As if that wasn't bad enough, he then idiotically says:
"Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"
John Nolte replies with great restraint:
"to answer Hanks's question:
No - annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what's going on today."
Hanks says it again:
"'The Pacific' now is coming out, where
it represents a war that was of racism and terror,
and where it seemed as though the only way to complete one of these battles
in these small specks of rock in the middle of nowhere
was to, I'm sorry, kill them all.
And does that sound familiar to what we might be going through today?"
Um, no, it doesn't.
Hanks says it again, March 14, 2010:
"It was fighting that was based on racism, and a war waged through terror. Horrible things were done on both sides to human beings both dead and alive. It was a case of 'We hate these people' - not 'We're going to liberate this island'. ... It was like a large industrial version of what all future wars were going to be like - between different-coloured peoples with different theologies they thought were the absolute truth."
What an idiot.
Morgan Freeman, Sept 2011, is shocked that Republicans want a Democrat President to only serve one term. He says it must be racist!
What the hell does he expect? That the Republicans will support a Democrat to be re-elected?
Saying the Tea Party is "racist" is pathetic and boring.
23 percent of tea partiers are something other than white Anglos.
(Whereas 25 percent of Americans are something other than white Anglos.)
When asked to explain exactly what is wrong with the Tea Party, he is completely incoherent:
"It just shows the weak, dark, underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. We really are. That's why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected president."
What is he on about?
Is he drunk?
It turns out that the wise and noble Morgan Freeman - the voice of
and the American President
and the noble prisoner
and God -
is a political idiot.
In contrast to useful idiots like Sean Penn,
understands what this struggle is all about.
He visits Afghanistan and complains about the media's
"It stuns me and appalls me that the media in the west only report bloodshed, murder, the violence.
Because I met people over there, reconstructing, with incredible pride and hope.
And little girls who had been shot at by Taliban going to school the next day because they wanted to, to be teachers and doctors.
That's really, really moving stuff and real stuff and that should be reported."
Good for him.
How unusual in Hollywood.
also understands the war.
He co-founded Operation Iraqi Children, which helps
the U.S. military distribute school supplies in Iraq.
He formed a band, the "Lt. Dan Band", to entertain the troops in Iraq.
He visits them, speaks to them, and tells them he supports their mission.
On a typical encounter in Iraq:
"It was hot, Iraq hot when we stopped at a check point
Gary began speaking with a soldier through the window and soon we were all standing outside so he could have his picture taken with him and a few of his buddies. Soon there were at least fifty guys around him and he greets each one as he always does.
As we are about to get into the vehicle we hear the guys yelling and in the distance is one more soldier. He is dressed in full battle-rattle humping as fast as he can in this unbearable heat to get to Gary before he leaves.
Gary without hesitation stopped and waited and he greeted this young man as if he was the first man in line, full of enthusiasm and appreciation.
When we did finally get into the vehicle I mentioned to Gary how I observe how he makes each and every man or woman feel special and appreciated, he paused in thought before answering, as he often does, and then says with a heavy heart, 'It's because we don't know what the next hour holds for them. As tired as I might get sometimes, and I do, it is nothing compared to what they go through day-after-day with the price they are so readily willing to pay.'"