Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Radical Islam Surrenders to Progressivism

Radical Islam Surrenders to Progressivism

The War on Terror has entered a new successful stage once the US field commanders began to force the enemy units to comply with the same government-imposed rules and restrictions that the US Army increasingly faces on a daily basis. One man, identified only as a "Soldier for Allah" explained, "We were led into a classroom and had to sit in circles for what they called 'Collective Self-Attaining Support Sessions' where they lectured us on matters such as "Gender Awareness." "Multicultural Identity." and "Environmental Racism." For the love of Allah (peace be upon him and his messenger, the Prophet Muhammad), even in Saddam's prisons, I was never accused so often of being guilty!" Trembling, he continued. "We had...had...gender role-playing. We had...had...non-dairy vegan diets. We had...had," at which point he broke down and cried, "You win, America! I had to write a 17-page memo explaining why my unit did not have an Hispanic presence! Please, you win!"


At November 22, 2005 2:55 PM, Blogger Cosmophant said...

And the current US administration claim they are not using torture...

The People's Cube is of course satire, but here is a true story about the moonbats of the US federal government:

Firefighters: We Were Misused In Katrina Rescue Efforts

Instead of going directly to New Orleans to help out, the firefighters were made sitting through an eight-hour course on sexual harassment and equal opportunity employment procedures.

Only in America...

My friends in America are telling me that, to be sure, they are not going to help out this time in a third major European war. I start thinking that this might be to our advantage. And after all, the probability is around fifty-fifty that the US would decide to help out the Muslims.

At November 22, 2005 4:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not everyone in the (US)federal government is incompetent as you seem to believe. Perhaps reading sometimes other than the drivel the MSM puts out would be useful.

And with your attitude, no doubt there wouldn't be many Americans willing to help you--given your obvious opinion of their stupidity.

Of course you can always get France to help you. Now, there's a government everyone would want on their side in a time of crisis.

At November 22, 2005 5:22 PM, Blogger the adventuress said...

And after all, the probability is around fifty-fifty that the US would decide to help out the Muslims.

This is unfortunately true. We've almost always taken the Muslims' side against fellow kaffirs. Israel being the only exception. And we're not that good of allies to Israel either.

At November 22, 2005 6:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction: something instead of sometimes in my previous post.

I do agree that a large segment of the US population would rather help Muslims than Europeans. Just as a large number of Americans take the side of the Islamists against their own country. The US has been deeply divided even before the 2000 presidential elections. What would you attribute this to?

What I object to is the constant America bashing, especially when those doing the bashing have no better record of solving problems than does the US.

A fairly current (summer 2005) report shows how the US is perceived by other nations.
U.S. Image Up Slightly, But Still Negative

At November 22, 2005 8:33 PM, Blogger the adventuress said...


I was referring to the US government and its history of alliances, not individuals. Perhaps you are not familiar with:

Suez Crisis, 1956: US backed Arab Muslims against France, England and Israel.

Pakistan-India wars: US backed Pakistan against India in 1965 and again in 1971.

Serb-Muslim civil war, late 1990s: US backed Muslims again against "Serbian fascists".

East Timor, 1990s: US backed Muslim Indonesia against Christian East Timor in its bid for independence from Indonesia.

1980s: US backed Muslim Afghans against the invading Soviets.

Today: US backs Turkey's entry into the EU, a move that will destroy Europe's culture and civilization.

We never got anything for any of these Islamic alliances BTW except hatred from the Muslims because we weren't dhimmi enough (i.e. turning against Israel).

It's not anti-American to acknowledge these things. Our government has helped the growth of Islam tremendously over the past 50 years or so.

At November 22, 2005 8:54 PM, Blogger the adventuress said...

PS -- As for your poll, I am not really all that interested, except in the fact that our stock has risen considerably with Hindu India (71 percent favorable).

I am hopeful that India will forgive us our foolish dalliances with the basket case known as Pakistan, and become our greatest ally in the world to come, what England was in the 20th century.

Otherwise, both we and India are in deep trouble, with both targeted by a combined alliance of the Islamofascists and China.

At November 22, 2005 11:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would be the first one to say, as I have many times, that US foreign policy has been rotten for decades.

I guess many people are hoping for another superpower, such as the former USSR or something worse, to replace the terminally clueless US government.

I think Saudi Arabia has done the most to promote radical Islam worldwide over the last 50 years--let's give credit where credit is due.

Bush deserves all the bashing he gets for his so-called friendship with this corrupt, evil country.

At November 23, 2005 2:05 AM, Blogger Cosmophant said...

We have reached a point in history when the era of Woodrow Wilson, universal liberalism, and US hit-and-run world policing is bound to end.

The next European war will not be a conventional war, and the only conventional troops we risk meeting will be the ones of Uncle Sam's trying to interfer and making nice. And I say, no thanks! And I'm glad so many Americans already agree.

However, If the US invade in order to take over (as a real empire), I'm prepared to reconsider.

At November 23, 2005 2:15 AM, Blogger Cosmophant said...

The US never took responsibility for their military campaigns, such as the British Empire did, and stayed indefinitely to rule the land. I figure if they had had to, they wouldn't have been supporting the Muslims (as they have done on so many occasions) more than once.

The US should decide if they want to rule the world, or not. The current schizofrenic hit-and-run pranks are too often counter-productive.

(Still, I support hit-and-run pranks to stop an emerging nuclear rouge state).

At November 23, 2005 2:54 PM, Blogger Cosmophant said...


Most of what you know as anti-americanism actually comes from America. And this is kind of my problem. Beyond a certain point, I believe it is pointless to talk about being pro-american or anti-american. America is the water we swim in. Can a fish be pro/anti-water?

In 1917 America created the new world order as an image of its own neurosises. All the world and its geopolitics is permeated by american ideology.

America created the United Nations.

America created political correctness and suicidal multiculturalism (which is much more suicidal for Europe than America, but Doctor America proscribe it).

America is the home country of universal Cultural Leftism.

The pundits (Brit Hume et.al.) at Fox News sit in their self-righteousness and explain how fundamentaly bad it is that the French nation is based on a "racist concept" (i.e. all European nations are).

I do not se much difference between Kerry and Bush. They all stand for the same failed american ideology (maybe good for the US, it's up to you, but failed for the world).

An american president in geopolitics is exactly as a swedish social democratic prime-minister in Swedish politics. They try to do good and make nice. They are absorbed by their self-righteous stubbord belief that they represent the best possible ideology, and that it therefore must be imposed upon others. But they do it in a way without taking responsibility for it. And things had been better off if they had just stayed out of it.

I look forward to a world where we no longer have to be hit by the waves of american neurosises all around the world, due to its vast cultural imperialistic impact. I also want to remove failed institutions based on american ideology, such as the UN. You can have a UN in the US if you like, but let's keep it out of the world.

Green go! (or get serious)

At November 23, 2005 3:00 PM, Blogger Cosmophant said...

America also created the Internet.

Thank you for that!

PS. XXX to Al Gore.

PPS. The Internet turned out well because America has taken FULL RESPONSIBILITY for it. And indeed I hope that you will continue doing so, and not hand it over to the supreme institution of American irresponsibility -- the UN.

At November 23, 2005 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you kidding??

At November 23, 2005 9:04 PM, Blogger Cosmophant said...


Maybe to you I'm kidding, maybe to all others I'm being dead serious.

You need some historical persceptive to being able to decode what I'm writing. You also need perspective on prevailing secular creeds.

From Hans-Herman Hoppe's introduction to Democracy: The God That Failed:

"World War I began as an old-fashioned territorial dispute. However, with the early involvement and the ultimate official entry into the war by the United States in April 1917, the war took on a new ideological dimension. The United States had been founded as a republic, and the democratic principle, inherent in the idea of a republic, had only recently been carried to victory as the result of the violent defeat and devastation of the secessionist Confederacy by the centralist Union government. At the time of World War I, this triumphant ideology of an expansionist democratic republicanism had found its very personification in then U.S. President Wilson. Under Wilson's administration, the European war became an ideological mission - to make the world safe for democracy and free of dynastic rulers. When in March 1917 the U.S.-allied Czar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate and a new democratic-republican government was established in Russia under Kerenski, Wilson was elated. With the Czar gone, the war had finally become a purely ideological conflict: of good against evil.
As an increasingly ideologically motivated conflict, the war quickly degenerated into a total war. Everywhere, the entire national economy was militarized (war socialism), and the time-honored distinction between combatants and non-combatants and military and civilian life fell by the way-side. For this reason, World War I resulted in many more civilian casualties - victims of starvation and disease - than of soldiers killed on the battlefields. Moreover, due to the ideological character of the war, at its end no compromise peace but only total surrender, humiliation, and punishment was possible.
However, Germany was not dismembered and destroyed. Wilson had reserved this fate for Austria.
Since 1918 Austria has disappeared from the map of international power politics. Instead, the United States has emerged as the world's leading power. The American age - the pax Americana - had begun. The principle of democratic republicanism had triumphed. It was to triumph again with the end of World War II, and once more, or so it seemed, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 1980s and early 1990s. For some contemporary observers, the "End of History" has arrived. The American idea of universal and global democracy has finally come into its own."


This sums up the historical framework that I'm referring to... hmm, come to think of it, most of you readers will still think this all sounds very good...

BTW, add France into the equation too; another self-righteous republic in the lead of this race. Not as powerful and fancifully egalitarian as the US, but equally much bad ass about it, and often more nasty.

Is it because I say that Bush and Kerry and France are all the same, with a little historical perspective, that you think that I'm kidding?

At November 23, 2005 9:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I see by some of your posts that you're a George Orwell fan.

At November 23, 2005 9:55 PM, Blogger Cosmophant said...

Yes. George Orwell saw things as they really were, long before others could. It is not an easy task to dig through the many layers of illusions that constitute human existence.

I suppose you are a fan too?

At November 24, 2005 1:25 AM, Blogger Cosmophant said...


Maybe I could try and explain it like this:

You turn to God in order to oppose and defeat the Devil. But eventually you come to realize that they are both part of the same religion.

This is sort of where I am in this whole pro/anti-America business. I'm kind of beyond it and out of it.

I guess it would make me a-american (cf. amoral).


Post a Comment

<< Home