Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Time to Celebrate Fatigue

Is there anything more hypocritical than the New York Times complaining about 9/11 tributes?
Again it comes, for the sixth time now — 2,191 days after that awful morning — falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week.

Again there will be the public tributes, the tightly scripted memorial events, the reflex news coverage, the souvenir peddlers.

Is all of it necessary, at the same decibel level — still?

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.
Six times in 2191 days! The horror!

The virulently anti-American NYT and their loyal readership of holier-than-thou world-saving bleeding-hearts don't have any problem celebrating the anniversaries of Abu Ghraib. In fact they don't need any anniversary as an excuse to pay it tribute. Every day, several times a day. Umpteen days and counting.

Even more frequently the media concocts and then marks a fresh grim milestone of casualties in Iraq. For some reason they and their readers never bore watching a counter tick up.

The anniversary of Hiroshima just passed - 62 tributes in 22630 days - and the anniversary of Pearl Harbor approaches - 66 tributes in 24090 days. No complaints of fatigue from the NYT on these tributes.

There is something I am fatigued with however that I wish the NYT, or anybody with a national soapbox for that matter, would address. That would be the widespread denial of the Jihad, the immigration invasion, and how the two are related.

In the few short years since 9/11 the West has suffered several serious attacks and preempted many more. We have seen enough to recognize a general pattern:

A) The attackers are Muslim. Their rhetoric and rationale arise directly from Islam. They consider themselves jihadis (holy warriors) waging jihad (holy war) in service of their faith.

B) Their organizations are decoupled and command is decentralized. They are legion and they answer to no single man or nation state.

C) They deliberately infiltrate areas they do not control to wage guerilla war and gain control.

On all these points our leaders and the media feed us lies. Why do they try so hard to obscure these objective facts?

First of all they use the generic word "terror". As in "terror attacks" perpetrated by "terrorists". This would be fine if we were faced with a variety of unrelated people working toward a variety of purposes. The threat this situation would pose might then be most accurately described as "terror". On the contrary, the clear and common purpose in all the high-profile attacks (of which 9/11 was only the most severe) is jihad and the attackers are jihadis. If we used the proper words to describe what is really happening, The War on Terror would instead be called The West's Inept and Incomplete Attempt to Counter the Jihad.

Second, whenever a travesty occurs the authorities and talking heads stumble over themselves to quickly assure the public that it couldn't possibly have been a terrorist attack. What's obviously impossible is that they could be so certain of that so quickly.

Then, as soon as the facts indicate it is an attack, the very next thing we hear are questions whether the attackers were tied directly to Al Qaeda. If they aren't card-carrying Al Qaeda, the thinking seems to be, then the attack has nothing to do with 9/11. Ergo there's nothing to worry about, it's just another random terror attack in no way whatsoever related to that imaginary War on Terror. Decentralization, infiltration, and other sneaky tricks are classic jihadi tactics. They are also the best means the jihadis have at the moment to attack the West. If our talking heads studied Islam, or history, or the history of Islam they might know and share this information instead of spreading the mistaken idea that these jihadi attacks are random.

When the attackers turn out to be undeniably Muslim, the next thing we hear is how they are "home grown" - a description directly at odds with reality. Virtually nothing about Islam or its jihad philosophy has its roots in the West, and the jihadis perpetrating these jihad attacks are predominantly here on visas or are the children of immigrants. They are often here illegally. The only thing "home grown" about these attacks is perhaps their planning and funding.

Finally we hear, for the zillionth time, the "terrorists are a tiny minority" lie. They hate us. We know they hate us. And still our leaders let them come here. Still our leaders deny that a wide open Mexican border makes no sense, not only because it allows in a flood of poor, uneducated, unskilled, reconquista-seeking Mexicans, but also because the jihadis can so easily join them. After so much terror perpetrated by Muslim immigrants why do our leaders continue to insist that multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration are good? Doesn't diversity just make it harder to spot them? Doesn't multiculturalism just make us hate and distrust each other? How much would it cost the West to eject all Muslims? At what point will it become clear that the costs of pretending that we need alien Muslims with heads full of hate walking among us and the internal security we require to defend against them far outweigh any contribution they make?

I think these thoughts every time I take my shoes off at the airport, every time I look around and see myself surrounded by aliens, and every time the news starts buzzing with the latest travesty. I'm getting pretty fatigued.

Note: I downloaded the image above several years ago from a jihadi site discovered by Tracking Al Qaeda, an amateur obviously more skilled and motivated to expose the truth of the jihad than the NYT or anyone else in the mendacious MSM.

Labels: , , , ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our leaders know perfectly well what they're doing. They're handing over our country to foreigners, because white folks are too uppity. We aren't profitable enough, because we're into this human rights thing. Lately I've been thinking, the only thing we can do about it is identify a geographical area where third world types won't be allowed, and every American who wants to live in America can go live there. The alternative is to wait until all of America is like California. Too bad all the likely areas are cold and inland. Why did we have to give our beaches to the freaks? I was at the beach today, and I could hardly tell if I was in Mexico or Gaza.

9/02/2007 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I also believe they know what they're doing. I'm just not sure they know why.

One thing is sure. The good people who long ago predicted disastrous consequences were derided and ignored, but they were absolutely right. The evil people who did all the deriding and ignoring were wrong, but they're still making immigration policy.

If there are any good people left in government they are utterly powerless.

9/03/2007 02:05:00 AM  
Blogger Rick Darby said...

History will record, if honest historians are permitted to practice their profession in the coming times, that the United States became another Latin American banana republic because of the confluence of two overwhelming forces: international corporations and liberalism.

Corporations want a balkanized electorate that can't unite to use the power of government to rein them in. They also like an uneducated, intellectually unsophisticated population that will do what it's told and live for the products and entertainment that big business turns out. Replacement of the traditional American stock with Third World peasants fills the bill nicely.

Liberalism has no values except egalitarianism and tolerance. So the idea of choosing who is qualified to immigrate, or whether to allow much immigration at all, is abhorrent to liberals.

The two forces aren't consciously in alliance, but I think globalist corporatism knows what it's doing in exploiting liberals as "useful idiots."

9/03/2007 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

NYT editors believe remembering 9/11 is just fueling the fear-mongering and anti-muslim sentiment. Generalizations like "How much would it cost the West to eject all Muslims?" only fuels the fault-mongering anti-american sentiment.

Ive heard the 9/11 naysayers use phrases like "just get over it" after the first anniversary - there is no "getting over it" - its a part of us now.

Dont underestimate the significance of "home grown" terrorists. They should not be categorized as jihadis like the rest of them - they are variant or mutation of the disease. If there was ever something America could be blamed for - this would be the area to look into - How young Americans can be easily turned to jihad [when in many cases family members were shocked] tells you that this is indicative of a greater problem.

Religiosity is not the single cause. One drinks the kool-aid, too...

9/03/2007 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I agree with your assessment. What puzzles me is why so many of our leaders would go along with it seeing the disastrous consequences. Do they not see, or are they that deeply greedy? Even liberals have to see that the invasion threatens their beloved liberalism.

Truly home-grown terrorists are a miniscule threat compared to the foreign-born. Of course as long as the immigration invasion continues Islam will have a free hand to work its "magic" on our natives from within our borders. We're already told only a "racist" can identify aliens by sight. Imagine how it will be 10 or 20 years from now.

9/04/2007 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Michael Tams said...

Good blog, I can't believe I'm only finding it now.

Currently reading (I'm way behind, cut me some slack) America Alone. Steyn points out that Lefties won't even use the word "terrorist" for the love of God. Its "rioting youth" or some other nonsense.

We're in trouble if we don't start taking jihad and immigration seriously. Which maybe you and I are, but many, many Americans are not.


9/04/2007 07:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thank MT.

America Alone was depressing. He painted a very dim demographic picture. What I don't understand is why, Mark Steyn being the clever guy he is, the logical conclusion wasn't reached: a population explosion in the turd world only threatens a ZPG/NPG West if we're stupid enough to let them immigrate here. If we shut down immigration we'll be hurt economically, if we don't we'll be washed away entirely.

On Islam the best book I've read is Why I Am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq. Read that and it will be crystal clear why it's insane to allow them to walk among us.

9/05/2007 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/05/2007 09:01:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Probability of rabid biting immigration errors?

Sounds like a read...

9/05/2007 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following comments that you made are, for me, key:
- I also believe they know what they're doing. I'm just not sure they know why.
- What puzzles me is why so many of our leaders would go along with it seeing the disastrous consequences.

I really have no idea what is going on in the true believer liberal leftists head. On the WHY. And are our leaders focused on the short-term so much. Do gay rights, feminism and sharia go together. Insane.

9/29/2007 09:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home