Chimp Vision

Via CUANAS, from Opinion Journal:

"George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to me. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs.


"Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." A Jordanian of deep political experience at the highest reaches of Arab political life had no doubt as to why history suddenly broke in Lebanon, and could conceivably change in Syria itself before long. "The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus."

Wonderful eagle-eye, that Pastorius, and this is inspiring.


Chimpy McHitler, they call him on the internet.



Our postmodern Western world is blind to the universe of possibilities. How the underqualified C-student child-of-privilege George W. Bush became the visionary of the Western World is beyond me. (The less prudent and worldly call it a miracle.)

The phrase "reality-based community" became a self-definition for our friends on the left, in reaction to this quote from an anonymous White House staffer:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality...we'll act again, creating other new realities..."

Now, this was taken as some neo-con psychosis, but how different is it from Bobby Kennedy?

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were, and ask 'Why not?'"

Actually, Bush didn't have the vainglory to dream of things that never were; more like he wanted to help the things that already are to blossom. The desire for freedom and to be rid of tyranny goes back to at least the ancient Greeks, and no doubt further. I'm certain our real Vietnam mistake was that the Vietnamese were not offered freedom, only a slightly less abusive tyranny than that of the Viet Cong. All things considered, people go with the locals.

Bush isn't LBJ. And these Straussian neo-cons aren't the paranoid WWII generation who (properly) feared world totalitarianism.

Bush's belief in the "consent of the governed" means that he and his evil advisors have learned the lessons of history. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon tells us about the universal hunger for freedom.

The idea that Syria hasn't bathed the streets of Beirut with blood to preserve their little empire because they're afraid of George Bush rings true with me.

In 1982, the Syrians killed 25,000 people who hungered for freedom in one night (the "Hama"). The only difference I can see is C-student cowboy George Dubya Chimp on the world stage, being as reality-based as all get-out.

Strausscleaning

Idealist writes:

If I really believed our aims were so altruistic I'd be supportive and I suspect others in the world would be, too. However, I can't see it as anything other than a power grab by cynical Imperialist Straussians. I did read the Report for the 20th century by the Wolfowitz, etc. think tank whose name escapes me and it scared the hell out of me. I don't want to be an imperialistic nation. These guys are egotistical, cynical tyrannical creeps and I don't use those terms losely.

Well, let's look at the record. Much has been said about the philosopher Leo Strauss and his "followers." Little is understood. I assume you refer to this:

"The PNAC website states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are

American leadership is good both for America and for the world

Such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle

Too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

Sounds good to me. Weakness is not a strategy, and every nation has paid for theirs with their own blood. Further, the US today is not an imperialist nation. And further, with few exceptions, the rest of the world is corrupt and is incapable of putting moral imperatives into practice.

I'd be interested in anything substantive against the philosopher Leo Strauss besides the "noble lie" canard, which dates to Plato, not him.


It is true that Strauss had extreme difficulty with modern (not 1700-era, which is "classical") liberalism. His own philosophical quest began when as a Jew himself, he was appalled that the modern-liberal Weimar Republic lacked the power or the will to protect the Jews, and saw a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of "tolerance" as a First Principle.

Strauss was correct. The same moral inertia of Weimar persists in modern liberal Europe, and in many of your penpals, I'm afraid. Saddam's open support and reward of Palestinian suicide bombers was enough of an offense against humanity.

Modern Europe, and of course the openly anti-Israel UN, were and are quite content to let the Jews keep dying.

It is indeed no coincidence that many of the neo-cons and "Straussians" are Jews, although many others are Christian. And it is no coincidence that Saddam's support for the murder of Jews was not put forward as a reason to depose him. Europe, and the modern left, frankly don't give a damn.


(I once again recommend the CUANAS blog. The blatant anti-Semitism of the rest of the world goes shockingly unreported in the American media. Not much has changed since the 1930s, when Leo Strauss first sat down to think.)

Nihilism/"Annihilate," Meaning to Bring to Nothing

Complaining about political language is to me a lefty thing, and I have avoided it. Surely there's a basic core of an idea, even an opinion, that doesn't depend on manipulating words. But the media (yes, even FoxHitlerNews and of course Auntie Beeb) calling these homicidal/suicidal maniacs in Iraq "insurgents" has just got on my last nerve.

I understand WWII hero Rodger Young, who gave his life to save his platoon. I understand Japan's kamikazes, fighting for their homeland. I even understand Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove riding his H-Bomb to nuke the Russkies.

But in Iraq (and leave the US/UK military forces out of it), we've got psychotic Muslims killing innocent Muslims. For nothing.

Some sort of consent of the governed, if not democracy, will become the law of the land in Iraq. That's a fact. These guys are not even killing for God. They are dying not for God, but for themselves alone. They are building nothing. They are saving nothing. They are taking many people with them. For nothing. The self is a dead end.

Faithful correspondent Idealist writes:

But then I don't believe in one-sided wars. It's been called imperialism before.

A one-sided war is slaughtering innocents when the "opponent" refuses do the same. The imperialists, the murderers, the Islamofascists in this case, simply kill, with no achievable goal. Even the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had an achievable goal in mind.

"Insurgents" is an insult to all our intelligence. They kill the very people they purport to save because their own self-annihilation is more important than even their fellow Muslims. They are terrorists and murderers, sociopaths. No other words will do.

Stairway to Hell

 

That's noted satanist Jimmy Page boogie-in' on down at the New York Stock Exchange. It all fits now, doesn't it?

Happy V-E Day!!!!!!

I'd bet less than half of Americans know what V-E Day is. It means Victory in Europe, and today is the 60th anniversary of the Nazi surrender.

There is some buzz in Europe, but the American media is almost completely silent about the occasion. Not surprising, since there are parallels to today's crises, and none of them suit our media's worldview.

President George Dubya Bush is over at the ceremonies, unabashedly (as is his style) noting that the Americans fought Hitlerism in the cause of freedom. Now it's true that the USSR, locked in a death struggle, did the heavy military lifting in defeating Hitler.

But it's also true that the US (and UK) could have come to an accomodation with Hitler and signed a separate peace, leaving the continent to the Nazis' tender mercies. If they had, Hitler could have turned his full attention to the USSR, which could not have survived.

I see many nations that owe their freedom to the US and UK trying to finesse the threats of today's world seeking some small diplomatic or economic advantage by making separate peaces with today's implacable ememies of freedom. I see many people in those nations whose understandable distaste for military history has caused them to miss its lessons.

Read the Butcher's Bill for the Second World War. The most shocking revelation is that civilian casualties, for perhaps the first time in military history, outnumbered those on the battlefield.

The lesson is that war is no longer some incestuous pastime for the testoterone crowd. We are past the age of border disputes. When the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

Good men doing nothing is still the biggest threat to freedom, justice and human dignity. There is no diplomatic solution to tyranny. Freedom and dignity are ideas, and your freedom and dignity were bought with blood, your forefathers' blood and willingness to shed it for such impractical ideas.


And so, after having his way in Afghanistan and Iraq, why is Bush still pushing, pushing, pushing? Politicking at WWII memorials, haranguing Putin?

In your heart of hearts, you know why. It's not about oil.

Perfect Result

Blair survives today's election, the Tories are up but their leader Howard's out, and in the biggest surprise of the day, the staunchly anti-Iraq war Lib-Dems pick up the Muslim vote.

Situation normal---status quo, and everybody in Britain's still miserable. I think they like it that way.

Doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, Doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-waaaaaaaaaaah

Went to a university jazz recital last night, and there were quite a few 21st century phenomena. First, midway through the show, there was a power failure and the room plunged into darkness. Fortunately, only the keyboardist was electrified, and he sucked anyway, so the rest of the band kept cranking.

Since next to nobody in Los Angeles smokes anymore, nobody in the crowd had a lighter, but slowly, the stage was bathed in more and more eerie blue light issuing from the audience.


Everybody in LA has a cell phone. It was very cool.


So that was a first, and surely not a last.


I'm not much of a jazz fan, but I've come to appreciate the greats, if not the form itself, over the years. Black jazz critic Stanley Crouch got fired a few years back for saying that these new white kids just don't swing---you know, the thing that makes you tap your foot and sway to the beat. Instead, though they're highly technical and accomplished, the end result is poo-poo.


These freshly scrubbed yuppoids with no cultural connection to the music were attempting to recreate the genius improvisations of mind and soul, of Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, from painstakingly transcribed sheet music! I mean, that defeats the whole purpose of the thing.



The face of 21st Century Jazz. 


Well, I think you see where I'm going with this, if you recognize the folks in the photo from Galaxy Quest, aliens who built their entire reality by reassembling an old Earth TV show. Think of it the next time you hear some music that sounds perfect to the ear and brain, but has a hole in the middle where its heart (and your heart) ought to be.

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, said The Duke (that's Ellington, for those who came in late), and that's all me and the estimable Mr. Crouch are saying.