www.adamyoshida.com

Friday, May 12, 2006
The Left and Our Enemies (But I Repeat Myself)
The most striking thing about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush – his “come to Mohammed” letter if you will – is how common the whole thing feels. In reading the Ahmadinejad letter – and I did take the time to read the whole thing – it quickly became apparent that there was very little to distinguish his words from those of any generic liberal activist. The letter – and the reaction to it by the American and global left – once again calls to mind a certain phrase that I have used in the past. There is only one war and there is only one enemy.

The letter brings to mind Osama Bin Laden’s final message before the 2004 Election, which served as a combination endorsement of John Kerry and recitation of the gospel of Michael Moore. It goes further to demonstrate what many of us have warned of for a long time: the synchronization of the domestic and foreign foe. In Iraq, al-Qaeda sets off bombs to hurt America and, in Washington, the al-Qaeda caucus in the Congress does the political equivalent.

Ahmadinejad’s letter is unmistakably a left-wing rant, full of typical liberal garbage about how American soldiers in Iraq are, “subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide” and going on to sound off about how the CIA’s secret European prisons are not compatible with the , “provisions of any judicial system.” Based upon this, what are we to conclude?

There are two basic options. Either he means it (and Bin Laden meant it in ’04) or he doesn’t mean it. In the first case (and worst case), it means that Iran’s lunatic President and the global left are as one on the issues of the day. In the second, and slightly-less-than-worst, case we are left with the fact that the left, well meaning though it might be, has become nothing less than an active tool of the foreign policy of our enemies and that this letter is a deliberate effort to play to useful idiots among the world’s people.

There is only one war: the global and universal war against those forces that are determined to destroy Western civilization. This is an existential war and it must go on until either one side or the other is destroyed. There is no middle ground between Western freedom and Islamic slavery. Either you are, as President Bush once said, with us or you are with our enemies.

And in this war – in this great struggle for the future of the greatest civilization in the history of man – whose side is the left on? Who do they want to win? What do they wish for the final result to be?

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the left wishes for us to lose this war as much as the Islamists do. Certainly, I do not contend that the left has the same endgame in vision as their Moslem allies do (a universal Caliphate versus the benevolent rule of the transnational progressive supermen), but their short term goal is the same: the breaking of American power, which is the major obstacle to the fulfillment of their dreams.

Let me ask an honest question: have the left, since September 11th, done anything at all which has helped the cause of the West in the Global War on Terrorism? Have the actions and proposals of the left helped to stop even a single terrorist attack? Have the led to the death of even a single Islamist?

I am reminded of the words of a great man who, in the midst of another global conflict where the left found itself on the wrong side, that those who say they do not like our methods have not told us any other methods which we could use which would be effective. Instead, the method of the left has been to undermine, to snipe, and to attack a magnificent President and his noble works for purely political gain.

No one denies that the President has made mistakes. I certainly do not. But he is the man who is out in front, day after day, while the left simply sits in the back seat and attempts to force him to swerve off the road. In this – in their constant efforts to undermine the President and to obstruct the War on Terrorism – the left is serving the same ends as our enemies abroad. Our foreign enemies may mostly pray to the Moon God and our domestic enemies may be largely Godless but, when they pray, they pray for the same thing: the failure of this President and his efforts to defend America.

The clash of civilizations is a clash of visions. The liberal dream of a pansexual drugged-up bathhouse utopia might not share all that much in common with the Mohammedan’s lust for building stone walls to topple over on gays and adulterers, but the one thing they do share in common is this: they will not come to pass until America has been castrated. American power and determination is the common factor which confines the fantasies of our enemies to the realm of the mind.

As Red-Brown alliances of communists and fascists often spring up to destroy liberal democratic societies, today it is the Red-Green alliance of liberals and Moslems which threatens the world. Neither fascism or communism can rule while a democratic society survives. Neither the Caliphate nor a UNtopia can exist so long as America leads the world.

We are losing this war on a strategic level (as in Vietnam, we are winning by every tactical measure) because we are failing to confront the enemy at home with the same vigor – and by the same means – as we confront the enemy abroad. We are opposed by two boxers, but we’re only punching one – conceding to the other the right to hit us again and again in the name of the freedom that they abuse.

Our failures on the home front – the uncontested battering that we’re taking – are making our struggle against the other fighter more difficult. We should have attacked Iraq in 2002, not 2003. 2003 should have been for Iran. 2004 for Syria. Who knows where we’d be by today? We are not where we should be – we have been delayed – because we have let our concerns for the rights and thoughts of people who are basically traitors to prevent or postpone action time and time again.

The left is never going to agree with this war – and they’re never going to wage it once in power – because it conflicts with their idealized vision of the world. They might launch limited strikes if public opinion demands it. They might arrest a few people – but they will not fight this enemy because they are the enemy as well.

Why is John Walker Lindh still alive? Why aren’t Cindy Sheehan and traitors like her in jail (or better yet, on death row!)? Why haven’t reporters who reveal national security secrets been thrown in jail? Why wasn’t Seymour Hersh punished for doing more damage to the war effort than any other single individual by disclosing what happened at Abu Ghraib? Why aren’t al-Qaeda supporters summarily executed? Why haven’t al-Jazeera and other pro-terrorist media had their facilities bombed and their reporters targeted for assassination?
Don’t say, “the Constitution.” As we have been reminded in the past, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This is war and it needs to be fought like a war on all fronts. When Abraham Lincoln was President this nation knew what was to be done with traitors. If this nation is to survive now we must do it once again.
Comments:
"Have the actions and proposals of the left helped to stop even a single terrorist attack?"

Adam, you do see the problem with this question, don't you? The obvious would be to say that the "left" does not control the levers of power, the right does. And I wonder how much they have to done to secure their country in the wake of the criminal acts of 9/11. Not much, I suspect, outside of all the posturing. But the question has an even more fundamental problem. You see, it's difficult to quantify terrorist attacks that have not occured, or have been "stopped".

Your last paragraph makes me wonder what it is you think is worth defending in "this nation". Summary executions, assasination of journalists, prison torture. Doesn't sound to me like any of it is.

Oh, and just as an aside, are there no laws in Canada restricting this kinda of hate "literature", (and I use that term loosely), and should such laws exist, would you fear them?
 
Why wasn’t Seymour Hersh punished for doing more damage to the war effort than any other single individual by disclosing what happened at Abu Ghraib

So send me to gaol, bitchez, I've got your Just War right here.
 
We should have attacked Iraq in 2002, not 2003. 2003 should have been for Iran. 2004 for Syria. Who knows where we’d be by today?

Well, Canadians would probably be exactly where they would have been under any other circumstances.

But if by "we" you're continuing your rather touching fantasy that you're part of the United States of America, I'd hazard a guess that if they'd attempted anything quite that deranged they'd be well on the way to both bankruptcy and international pariah status.

Come on Adam - the US military is clearly desperately overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. How the hell would they be able to attack just Iran (whose population and land mass is vastly greater, and the terrain far less friendly), let alone Syria? And how on earth would they get away with it diplomatically?

More to the point, since they clearly can't plan how to deal adequately with the aftermath of one invasion, how in God's name can anyone even vaguely sane urge them to consider three? (Bearing in mind that Iran and Iraq are utterly different countries on too many levels to count)

And why "attack"? I thought this was a war of liberation, not aggression? That single word has given away more about your particular psychopathology than a year's worth of rants.

Oh, and just as an aside, are there no laws in Canada restricting this kinda of hate "literature", (and I use that term loosely), and should such laws exist, would you fear them?

Adam's a perfect illustration of just why there shouldn't be such laws, as he condemns himself every times he puts finger to keyboard - if he was censored or otherwise stifled, people might think he was being taken seriously.

And he'd probably claim that Canadian laws don't apply to him, what with him being American and all. I mean, we've seen on countless occasions just how little this self-styled scourge of "traitors" thinks of his own native country - one of countless reasons why his blog is so irresistibly hilarious.
 
There is only one war and there is only one enemy.

This sentence says everything that ever needs to be said about Adam. For the fanatic, there is always "only one war and only one enemy". The war between the fanatic and the entire universe, which stubbornly refuses to alter itself to conform to the fanatic's delusions.
 
Why is John Walker Lindh still alive?

Because the US doesn't indiscriminately kill its own citizens, however misguided their actions. Greatly to its credit, it doesn't even kill people like Zacarias Moussaoui - a man who so transparently wanted to become yet another glorious Islamic martyr that he's been visibly crushed by his life sentence with no possibility of parole or publicity (remember how he tried to change his plea when he realised just what he had to look forward to?)

Why aren’t Cindy Sheehan and traitors like her in jail (or better yet, on death row!)?

Because the US has a proud tradition of freedom of speech, quite apart from Mrs Sheehan's overwhelming justification for anger against the current administration - you know, the one that went to war on the basis of a lie, and condemned her son and thousands of others to death?

Why haven’t reporters who reveal national security secrets been thrown in jail?

Because the US isn't a totalitarian state, and it's not a crime to conduct legitimate investigations into wrongdoing - especially not if said wrongdoing is occurring high up in the government.

Why wasn’t Seymour Hersh punished for doing more damage to the war effort than any other single individual by disclosing what happened at Abu Ghraib?

Oh, for fuck's sake, Adam - just put down that keyboard and run, don't walk, to the nearest shrink. Or better yet, neurosurgeon. So you're seriously arguing that grotesque abuses of authority should have been hushed up? That Americans don't have the right to know what their armed forces are doing in their name?

Also, how exactly would Abu Ghraib have been covered up? Even if Americans had been successfully kept in the dark, Iraqis sure as hell weren't. Those soldiers that you're implicitly defending have the blood of countless others quite literally on their hands - far more of it than any of the other people you're trying to smear. Which is why they've been jailed.

Why aren’t al-Qaeda supporters summarily executed?

Because the US is a free country and its citizens are free to say what they want, however unsavoury or inflammatory. Canada offers similar freedoms, which I see you take full advantage of.

Why haven’t al-Jazeera and other pro-terrorist media had their facilities bombed and their reporters targeted for assassination?

Well, quite aside from the fact that al-Jazeera is a serious news channel that annoys just as many Arabs as it does Americans for refusing to regurgitate the propaganda line of any government, it's based in Qatar. So how exactly do you propose that the US bombs its facilities and murders its employees without committing major breaches of international law.

Seriously, Adam - get help. You're really starting to lose it now.
 
Adam you're such a cute little fanatic; I hope you run for more elections.
 
You poor unfortunate boy; for God's sake get your prescription re-filled!

And stay away from violent video games- they're ruining what little (Chuckle) brain you have.
 
Right on Adam.

You should see what the Useful Kosidiots are saying about you. (along with the fact that they would outlaw Christianity itself if they could, which I found interesting even though I am not religious).

If you struck a nerve with them, you are on the right track.

Look how they celebrate Moussaoui getting off with life (Chimp), and urge the US to do nothing about Syria and Iran (Michael).

They make your points for you.
 
Enough with the "us" pablum. You're not an American. Get back to World of Warcraft and let the adults handle the problem of terrorism.

As for your comically deluded recommendations, um, the Alien and Sedition Acts expired in the early 1800s, so you're thinking of some other totalitarian state.

I'll also restate my earlier challenge. I make quarterly trips to Vancouver for business. I'd like to get together so I can whip your cowardly, snivelly little ass for a while. Accept my challenge or explain to your five readers how such a craven little pussy can straight-facedly talk such a violent game. Chickenshit little kid.
 
Thanks for the offer, "Footonthroat", but homosexual sadomasochism isn't my thing.
 
Look how they celebrate Moussaoui getting off with life (Chimp), and urge the US to do nothing about Syria and Iran (Michael).

Don't be ridiculous. How does saying that Adam is an impractical fool for calling for the US to bankrupt itself by fighting a war on three (actually four) fronts simultaneously equate to "urging the US to do nothing about Syria and Iran"? But there are sensible ways of dealing with the situation and recklessly stupid ones - and Adam's proposal falls squarely into the latter camp.

As for Moussaoui, I agree with Chimp. He wanted to die, preferably with maximum publicity, as this was his only chance to become an authentic jihadist martyr. Instead, he's being locked up for decades in solitary and will die long after he's been forgotten, with a pitiful whimper. As Chimp said, he was so clearly crushed by the sentence and what it would mean for him that he even tried to change his plea!

So there's no question to my mind which was the least attractive punishment - and all credit to the US justice system for administering it. Quite aside from it being obviously the right decision, it's also given the US an increasingly rare opportunity to occupy the moral high ground. And anyone who truly believes that the US is a force for good should celebrate this.

Oh, and the only nerve Adam has ever successfully struck is the funnybone.
 
Thanks for the offer, "Footonthroat", but homosexual sadomasochism isn't my thing.

That's not what your blog suggests - it's crammed to bursting with gay S&M imagery.

For starters, your entire political outlook is a gigantic metaphorical rimming of George W Bush's rectal passage - coupled with a fervent belief that unless all non-US countries are prepared to bend over and spread their cheeks to receive Uncle Sam's swollen veiny meat-shaft, there must be something wrong with them.

And you don't just disagree with people, you call for them to be tortured and killed in a variety of lip-smackingly lurid fantasies.

And you bang on about homosexuality in far more detail than any true heterosexual would bother with - let's face it, most people who don't have a greater-than-average interest in the subject tend to leave it alone.

Don't fight it, Adam - you're an adult, and there must be places in Vancouver for you to explore these urges in a harmless and mutually consensual way. No-one will think any the less of you for being honest with yourself.
 
>think any the less of you

Since I think Adam is a fascist retard I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to do so unless he starts raping babies.
 
Well, Adam did once write:

"Now, I know this last point is going to be controversial, but I’ll raise it anyways: adult male children of major terrorists are, almost certainly, going to turn out to be terrorists themselves. Even if they aren’t, anything less than full cooperation with American intelligence services on their part is a sign of their complicity in the crimes of their family members. The same goes for spouses. It may even go for daughters. Hell, if we can kidnap or kill their grandparents, I’m all for it. Anything to get at the Islamists.

Now, obviously, some senior terrorists won’t care for their families at all. That’s fine. As obviously, simply killing them would be a sub-ideal solution. Instead, US intelligence should keep them under surveillance and, when a good moment arises, kidnap them and remove them to a secure location within the United States. They might then (especially minor children) be held as a means of securing the surrender of certain individuals or, better still, as part of a plan to force certain Islamists to betray their comrades-in-arms.

Now, I’m sure some people will find the idea of kidnapping the children of Islamists to be morally objectionable. So be it. So far as I’m concerned, the Islamists forfeited their right to be parents the moment they first spoke a word against the United States."


(full post here)

This isn't quite the same as actively raping babies, but it's not far off as far as its general morality goes. He's one sick, sick puppy - and I sometimes feel guilty for laughing at him. But that's really the only sane response.
 
Thanks for the offer, "Footonthroat", but homosexual sadomasochism isn't my thing.

As I said: pussy. We didn't any further evidence that Adam was a quivering, cowardly little child, but keep this instance of his undeniably meek nature in mind the next time he calls for others to carry out his genocidal fantasies. Adam, be a man, or shut the fuck up. Pussy.
 
"I'd like to get together so I can whip your cowardly, snivelly little ass for a while."

What makes you think his ass is so "little"?

Unlike Adam, I do not have any problem with homosexuals generally. I do, however, have a problem with homosexual fantasies featuring Adam himself, a self-proclaimed former wrestler, and a horsewhip. For some reason this is unsettling.

Please post an advance warning next time intend to spill your urges onto these pages. Some of us are not accustomed to inhaling our coffee, you see.
 
"Adam's a perfect illustration of just why there shouldn't be such laws, as he condemns himself every times he puts finger to keyboard."

I agree with this 100%. Hitlerian Genocidalists like Adam must be exposed and vilified. Free speech is our weapon. To do away with the 1st Amendment (which is precisely what Adam wants) or its equivalent would amount to unilateral disarmament.

Besides, if anyone did censor Adam, he'd probably go to jail and write his Mein Kampf. And then emerge with even more supporters than before.
 
"Adam's a perfect illustration of just why there shouldn't be such laws..."

"I agree with this 100%. Hitlerian Genocidalists..."

I would have to say that I too, agree with this 100% so please don't get me wrong. But I do believe that Canada does actually restrict certain speech. Ernst Zundel (friend of yours Adam?) was deported from Canada for what he said and thought. I actually live in France, where you can be jailed for holocaust denial. You can downplay, sex up or deny pretty much any other slaughter in human history, but Jewish holocaust denial can get you time in the slammer.

"...it's also given the US an increasingly rare opportunity to occupy the moral high ground."

Michael, let's not be too quick to lay claim to any moral high ground please, not with this story just breaking.
 
Adam, you have perceived and understood the key points to what is going on but your failure is over reaction to those same points. There is a middle ground but far too many must swing horribly left or horribly right.

It seems that only those of the far left visit here. They offer no hope and no solutions. They live to attack and put down all who appose them. If you file a complaint without a solution you are as worthless as those who cause the problem.
 
It seems that only those of the far left visit here.

Hand on heart, I haven't seen anyone posting here whose views I'd characterise as being "far left".

Indeed, one could argue that Adam himself fits that label better than most, given his frequent calls for a quasi-totalitarian system with the state imposing absolute control over its citizens (even to the extent of recommending that it executes people merely for expressing dissenting views). He's certainly much closer to a Stalinist leftist than he is to any kind of conservative.

By contrast, most of Adam's regular commenters seem to be broadly centrist in their political outlook, and one of his most persistent critics was genuinely far-right in a way that Adam merely pretends to be. More importantly, they have a lively sense of humour - the latter being rather more valuable in this particular context.

They offer no hope and no solutions. They live to attack and put down all who appose them.

No, not at all - just because we love mocking Adam's genocidal ravings doesn't remotely mean that we don't post anything sensible elsewhere. But since Adam has no interest whatever in pandering to anything other than his own masturbatory fantasies about killing as many nasty brown people as possible, what's the point in wasting energy around here? Except to poke fun?

What particularly amuses me is when someone discovers Adam's blog, thinks "Great! A soulmate!", posts loads of approving comments, then digs a little deeper... and then either disappears or, in one memorable case, unconditionally retracts his former support because he's discovered just what he's been defending. Sadly, I can't link to this as Adam's 2004 comments are no longer accessible.
 
They offer no hope and no solutions.

Well, one obvious solution to pretty much everything would be to search this blog for Adam's advice and then do the exact opposite.

There you go - advice that isn't only practical but guaranteed to work!
 
Oh Adam, it's so nice to see you back in the saddle again. I haven't had a good chuckle in ages. Thanks to your return, I can laugh again, and now that you're doing those uber-pompous podcasts as well, the mirth won't die until you do. Now, some may say I've stroked your ego enough in this comment (you do like to be stroked, don't you?), so just let me slide in one more helping of praise - you are no longer a mere part of Bush's base, thanks to his current poll numbers, it seems you are his base. At least, you would be if you were an acutal Yank. Pity that. He must be pretty lonely.
 
"...most of Adam's regular commenters seem to be broadly centrist in their political outlook..."


More or less. Not me - if I was a Yank, I'd vote for Ron Paul. But most other people are basically centrist around here.
 
Post a Comment