12
Only the good die young
If you darken the same virtual doorways as I do, you’ve no doubt sat spellbound as James Wolcott works himself to fine froth over Dinesh D’Souza’s latest wingnut welfare busy-work, in which he blames the The Cultural Left (friend of yours, Norbizness?) for 9/11. Marvel first at the dull repugnance of the charge (“it’s a sleazy, shameless, ignorant, ahistorical, tendentious, meretricious lie, one that was waiting for the right brazen liar to come along to promote it,” Wolcott writes), but then be sure to pause a moment and appreciate the essence of what D’Souza is saying: In liberalism, American conservatives share a common enemy with our terrorist foes.
He’s already told you what you are, if you would kindly answer the man’s question: What is he?
Now, it’s pretty much common knowledge that our fundamentalist loons share quite a lot of things in common with the fundamentalist loons we’re ostensibly fighting over there to avoid fighting over here, etc. And it’s hardly a secret that our loons are jealous of the perceived impunity with which these “uncivilized barbarians” operate (oh, come on – you know they’d love to shut down a movie production or cancel Olbermann by threatening to cut off someone’s head). But I must admit that even I, a connoisseur of right-wing lunacy, was surprised by Dennis Prager’s apparent appeal to would-be Judeo-Christian martyrs:
If you are debating whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about humanity’s future, here is a point to consider: In every generation, especially in the last century, vast numbers of good people — often the best people — have been murdered by the worst people [...]
Consider the type of Homo sapiens who literally slaughtered Daniel Pearl — the Wall Street Journal reporter whose life was dedicated (perhaps naively, but nobly) to promoting understanding between peoples — and compare them with him. You then have the paradigm of what has been happening for a hundred years — the worst of humanity eradicating the best of humanity.
You have to wonder how long the world can endure the constant removal of many of its finest souls, and the simultaneous survival and reproduction of many of its most vicious.
Okay, so he doesn’t actually encourage anyone to strap bombs to their body and blow up as many Muslims as they can, but I’ve read that passage a couple dozen times now, and damned if I can’t shake the impression that’s what he’s getting at. (If you think I’m crazy, by all means, let me know. I would actually prefer that.) Of course, Prager could just be talking about genocide*, in general. And he also talks about this:
Indeed, much of the world is no longer capable of even identifying the indecent — or the decent, for that matter. Moral relativism, multiculturalism and dividing humanity between strong and weak or rich and poor, as opposed to dividing it between the decent and the indecent, have all virtually paralyzed the human conscience.
The net result is that not only do the bad keep eradicating the good, but much of the world actually denies that fact, denies that we can even categorize any people as “good” or “bad,” and often opposes the best taking up arms against the worst.
Is the prognosis for good triumphing over bad therefore hopeless? Not yet. The good need to fight not only the bad but also the vast middle of humanity who can’t tell the difference between the two. It is a daunting task.
Psssst … I think he’s talking about us.
*That’s the message commenter “Rugged Individualist” drew:
It’s high time we stop diddling around with smart bombs and politically correct military tactics. Millions and millions of evil people need to die. It’s the best chance for lasting peace.
This character has his own blog, too, where he explores similar territory in a lone post.
Mallard Fillmore said,
October 12, 2006 at 21:54
I blame political correctness … and Ted Kennedy.
Chappaquiddick uber alles!
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:14
You have to wonder how long the world can endure the constant removal of many of its finest souls, and the simultaneous survival and reproduction of many of its most vicious.
You mean to say he’s not referring to people like Cheney and Kristol in the simultaneous survival and reproduction catgory??
Worst. President. Ever. said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:23
The good need to fight not only the bad but also the vast middle of humanity who can’t tell the difference between the two.
Exactly. The Nazis said it best, “Erwache, Deutchland!”
(“Awake, Germany!”)
The Left said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:26
I actually confronted D’Souza in my college days on the issue of affirmative action, but The Cultural Left is a wholly different person: this is the guy who stuck a bullwhip in Dinesh’s rectum back in the late 80s.
Marq said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:33
One wonders, in the current political environment, how big an impact the dishonest blattings of Dinesh D’Souzaphone will have. Even the funnymentalists seem (somewhat) to be waking up to the fact that they’re serving the “useful idiot” role for the Rethugs, see Tempting Faith, for example.
Seanly said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:38
I love how the conservatives think they are so wonderful. They just want to separate the decent from the indecent, is that so wrong? Uggh.
Of course, to some of them the indecent ones are labeled such because they are black or gay or poor or Catholic or not Catholic or have a tattoo…
Wally Whateley said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:38
I’m sorry — it’s funny.
D’nesh D’souza and Dennis Prager and “Rugged Individualist” are going to declare undying war on the 70% of the American population that don’t love George’s vanity war. The cowardly keyboarders say they’re going to leave their Funyuns behind and kill us all.
That’s comedy.
LA Confidential Pantload said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:39
…or consider the type of Homo sapiens responsible for the deaths of 600,000+ Iraqis.
Seanly said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:41
Coz I think slow…
Should we let Dinesh know that he would be one of the ones put against the wall when it is decided that Asian Indians are no longer decent no matter how much water they’ve carried for the glorious conservative christian cultural revolution?
mikey said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:42
It’s high time we stop diddling around with smart bombs and politically correct military tactics. Millions and millions of evil people need to die. It’s the best chance for lasting peace.
My Gawd. Do they really not see it? Do they actually not see the other side of this coin? Have they, in their carefully cultured inhumanity, become tone-deaf to the virtually identically-worded calls to genocide as the only possible way to peace from the very people whose eradication they cry out for?
How can they not notice, or fail to recognize, the identical language eminating from various caves on the Pakistani frontier? How can they not know that to become as bad as your enemy means you have lost, not won? How can they pretend that if you just kill enough, wallow in enough blood and sadness and suffering, then somehow you will arrive at that “Peace in our Time” promised land – you know, one populated by 72 virgins?
mikey
MCH said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:44
Wolcott left me thinking that D’Souzaphone (fucken brilliant, Marq) is merely trumpeting the flat notes of Falwell’s Gays Caused 9/11 symphony (Opus 69), minus the thundering “Brimstone” movement, and tarted up with little scholarly flourishes and derivative variations.
Woodrowfan said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:46
Seanly: Sadly, no. I suspect that’s been pointed out to him before, but he’s kind of a dim bulb. It won’t sink in until some fat minuteman has actually pushed him against the wall and the firing squad raises their rifles. (and maybe not even then)
Jay B. said,
October 12, 2006 at 22:54
I like D’Souza’s take because it finally allows us on the decadent Left to pick our enemies. Sure, I hate the war that’s killing innocents in Iraq — but I’m not so fond of the censorious Imam types either (there’s a small, very faint, echo of decency in what Hitchens is drooling these days). So now we all know who’s gunning for us. The Islamofascists in the GOP.
J— said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:30
From Wolcott’s piece:
Here’s one more for the D’Souzaphone: the Sexual Left.
Ugh said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:35
Here’s a hypothetical for these guys: 100 million muslims have to die in order to stop the next 9/11, is that worth it?
Some Guy said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:36
Ahahaha!
“Fight evil! Destroy the insane! Become a Christian Martyr TODAY and enjoy your reward of 72 tax cuts in Eternal Paradise!”
God, you just know someone somewhere is thinking of actually doing that.
Some Guy said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:37
Also, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they look like they just ate Piglet.
It’s probably just a bad still, but irregardless.
r4d20 said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:38
Hippies and Commies and Traitors, oh my!
Notorious P.A.T. said,
October 12, 2006 at 23:57
You see, bin Laden attacked America because he hates our sexual liberation and our growing acceptance of gays and our women’s lib. He said he attacked us because we defiled the Muslim holy land, but that was just to throw us off the trail.
funkyb0ss said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:01
mikey: “How can they not notice, or fail to recognize, the identical language eminating from various caves on the Pakistani frontier? How can they not know that to become as bad as your enemy means you have lost, not won?”
Because they are sociopaths with zero sense of irony? Or were the questions rhetorical? =)
Otto Man said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:05
Here’s a hypothetical for these guys: 100 million muslims have to die in order to stop the next 9/11, is that worth it?
I’m not sure some of them see that as a hypothetical. They see that as the rationale for Operation Awesome Kickass in Iraq.
Ugh said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:05
and another thing, if The Cultural Left is to blame for 9/11, i.e., they’re the reason we were attacked, wouldn’t rejecting The Cultural Left be appeasing the terrorists?
I’m so confused.
rerun said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:30
Ugh – was thinking the same thing. He’s saying he wants to compromise our freedom to make the bad men go away. Or to rephrase a strawman from the Right, “Some say if we outlaw sex for those who aren’t married, the terrorists will leave us alone…”
Jeremy OConnor said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:30
I heard that Hollywood ignored the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US” memos. Osama even admitted that he planned the attacks to teach the left a lesson when he said on December 21, 2001, “Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people.” Obviously, a scathing indictment of the cultural left.
Mudge said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:36
It is much easier to murder arbitrarily when you choose to define an entire class as evil, instead of specifying individual evil. By Rugged Individualist’s approach, Terry Sciavo, had she been Muslim, would have deserved to die for that fact alone. To decide otherwise is to indulge in moral relativism.
Their underlying motivation is hatred. It is no different viscerally than the Nazi view of the Jews. Hating the “enemy within” is also so much more satisfying because it does not require putting yourself at personal risk. In addition to having someone to blame for their foolishness, of course.
Mal de mer said,
October 13, 2006 at 0:56
Oh, no…another stupid American. How shall I react?
*yawn*
Lesley said,
October 13, 2006 at 1:01
The American neocons and the Taliban both prefer their countries burka’d. Both prefer invasion to diplomacy and negotiation. Both prefer mass killing “in the name of [insert Allah/Jesus here].” Both prefer torture. These two have so much in common.
mikey said,
October 13, 2006 at 1:04
Oh, no…another stupid American. How shall I react?
Gee Mal, in light of your recent behavior, I’m going to guess…Stupidly?
mikey
Pinko Punko said,
October 13, 2006 at 1:11
They need to be wiped out before they develop a clintonium weapon.
Mel de Mer said,
October 13, 2006 at 2:31
Wait, is this one a kike or a hebe?
GoatBoy said,
October 13, 2006 at 2:32
I can’t help but notice I don’t get the Stand Down order these days, mikey.
another Travis said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:05
Hey, GB, for most peeps, you have a moment, you move on. Y’know? Seems there’s these bent cats, Mal and Deb are the textbook, who just can’t find a way to rejoin the community, so they fling poo, because that’s all they’ve got, and they’re messed up. I thought that night was Mal’s moment. I guess I owe you an apology, ’cause I expected him to come back normal and he’s like totally defective. But in my own defense, most people AREN’T assholes, y’know?
mikey
herr doktor bimler said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:06
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they look like they just ate Piglet.
It’s probably just a bad still
I know the kind of bad still you mean. The distillate is full of fusel oils and general nasty stuff, and it gives you a hangover all weekend. No more ‘Old Abbatoir’ for me, oh no.
If I understand D’Souza’s argument correctly, we should spending all our time in deviant sex and moral degeneracy. Otherwise the terrorists have won.
mikey said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:08
Oooopsss, that was me. And if my verbiage left any confusion, I meant the asshole was Mal, not Goatboy. And I’m gonna delete all the fucking cookies now…
mikey
Jillian said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:11
Did someone say deviant sex?
mikey said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:11
Herr Dok is right. I’ve lived in the south, and I can attest. While there may be some truly FUNKY stills, the product thereof is always deserving of consumption…
mikey
Jeff said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:17
Yeah, but I’m thinking his current title is a little namby-pamby. Why not say what the book is really?
The Enemy at Home: Why I Think Osama bin Laden Was Completely Justified in Attacking America on 9/11
by Dinesh D’Souza
The Enemy at Home: Why America Sucks and Osama is on to Something
by Dinesh D’Souza
The Enemy at Home: Like an Ann Coulter Book, But Less Manly
by Dinesh D’Souza
The Enemy at Home: Wherein I Channel My Self-Hatred At Not Having the Guts to Serve in Iraq or Afghanistan
by Dinesh D’Souza
The Enemy at Home: Because Real Research is Just Too Damn Hard
by Dinesh D’Souza
mikey said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:31
The Enemy at Home: Because Real Research is Just Too Damn Hard
Not fair, not fair. I wanted to write that book….
mikey
Mal de mer said,
October 13, 2006 at 3:34
Wait, is this one a kike or a hebe?
Who cares American asshole?
debaser said,
October 13, 2006 at 5:15
Culture Warrior (cover is a photo of Osama bin Laden) by Dinesh D’Souza
islmfaoscist said,
October 13, 2006 at 5:54
Fixed it.
Consider the type of Homo sapiens who literally slaughtered Rachel Corrie — the nonviolent peace activist whose life was dedicated (perhaps naively, but nobly) to promoting understanding between peoples — and compare them with her. You then have the paradigm of what has been happening for a hundred years — the worst of humanity eradicating the best of humanity.
LiberalDirk said,
October 13, 2006 at 6:16
You are all missing the point. The most important questions is?
“If D’Souzaphone gets showed up in front of a wall by a minuteman who then shoots him, would anyone give a damn, even D’Souzaphone ?”
And yes, not being a drunken, flaming homosexual means that you are appeasing the terrorists. So take that Falwell & Phelps you appeasears you
Anne Laurie said,
October 13, 2006 at 7:50
Before the FIRST Gulf War, Tom Toles had a cartoon where the Stereotypical Redstater is asked: “How many Arabs are you willing to see killed so that you can wear a tee-shirt in the winter?”
To which SR replies: “All of them… is that a trick question?”
Some things don’t change. Most of those things are tragedies.
g said,
October 13, 2006 at 8:17
“How can they not notice, or fail to recognize, the identical language eminating from various caves on the Pakistani frontier? How can they not know that to become as bad as your enemy means you have lost, not won? ”
Word, Mikey.
merlallen said,
October 13, 2006 at 9:12
damn what happened to that mal guy? did an American run off with her/his partner/wife/husband?
Dude, double your meds.
Pinko Punko said,
October 13, 2006 at 11:08
sometimes mal is clickable sometimes he isn’t- is someone sock puppeting, or was their another break?
are the skinheads back?
Mal used to comment here all the time. Then some of his family got killed by Israeli bombing in Lebanon. And things went to shit. I thought they had improved somewhat.
brooksfoe said,
October 13, 2006 at 12:31
And yes, not being a drunken, flaming homosexual means that you are appeasing the terrorists.
I resent the implication that drunkenness is in any way a necessary or even relevant component of flaming homosexuality. All the best giant fags are simply high on life.
lobbey_dosser said,
October 13, 2006 at 12:56
Quote:
Travis, Mark Steyn has been hinting at this kind of thing for a while, usually hiding behind the old; “Well it would a terrible thing if it happened, but hell that’s what it might take” excuse. He appears to cover it in some detail in his new book. Prager, Steyn, Hewitt and their amen chorus would love the idea of Christain suicide bombers, they just can’t say it directly.
Quote: . Mark should have used that for the tag line for his p.o.s. book.
herr doktor bimler said,
October 13, 2006 at 13:00
And yes, not being a drunken, flaming homosexual means that you are appeasing the terrorists.
I also resent the suggestion of any link between alcohol abuse and pyromania. In fact only a tiny minority of piss-artists set fire to things. I can stop any time I like.
Mel de Mer said,
October 13, 2006 at 15:03
“Then some of his family got killed by Israeli bombing in Lebanon. And things went to shit.”
Actually, no. Believe it or not things started to go to shit over Canadian lumber, Sugar Tits.
American Asshole said,
October 13, 2006 at 15:03
/singing a song just for Mel de Mer
//mostly trumpet accompaniment
GoatBoy said,
October 13, 2006 at 15:46
The continuing confusion regarding Mal v. Mel only proves that nobody clicks the clickable names around here.
Thomas Allen said,
October 13, 2006 at 16:09
IIRC, “[t]he good need to fight not only the bad but also the vast middle of humanity who can’t tell the difference between the two” was the exact same argument made by Osama bin Laden during his early struggle for power in Afghanistan.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 13, 2006 at 16:39
The continuing confusion regarding Mal v. Mel only proves that nobody clicks the clickable names around here.
No Mel/Mal confusion here, GB. I’ve been clicking you for days. My only confusion (well, not really confusion, just wonderment) has been about Mal v. Mal. Wondering whether there’ll ever be anything but raging, generalized anger there. Sadly, I think not.
sammy said,
October 13, 2006 at 17:46
Shorter D’Souza: “They hate us because of our freedoms. And rightly so.”
dAVE said,
October 13, 2006 at 17:57
I feel like making a joke here about the 101st FKs and Michael Moorcock’s Eternal Champion – but I haven’t had enough coffee yet.
maybe someone could photoshop something up. Who would be Elric?
GoatBoy said,
October 13, 2006 at 18:42
“I’ve been clicking you for days.”
Well you could at least tell me how kickass the new songs are. Hmmph!
W. Kiernan said,
October 13, 2006 at 19:02
Seriously, people, why bother to take anything seriously that was written by a guy who previously published a book – about the United States of America, this book was! – entitled “The End of Racism”? That title wasn’t supposed to be sarcastic; the thesis of this book is that, as of the year 1995, there was no racism in the U.S. any more. Now if I had published a book entitled “The Sun Is Not Bright,” or “Two Plus Two Equals Five,” would you eagerly rush out to buy my next book?
GoatBoy said,
October 13, 2006 at 19:09
We’re all assuming he’s a closet case with possible ephebephiliac tendencies, right?
I mean we’re talking about a grown up young Republican, after all…
Pinko Punko said,
October 13, 2006 at 19:54
You know my eyes are so fried by computer screens, I actually can’t read the “Mel”- now I will try to focus.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 13, 2006 at 21:00
GoatBoy, I’ve been remiss. They do indeed kick ass. But is it wrong of me to imagine differentbrad and annie listening to “Neighbor Lady” as they engage in their interminable pas de deux over in the Ruppert thread?
Hate Encrusted Eyes said,
October 13, 2006 at 21:53
The conservative political order requires ennemies. They can not make sense of their beliefs without a terrible ennemy threatening the whole of society. It’s the old feudal impulse. The barbarians are here, hey be my serf and do as I say and I’ll protect you in my castle. Well when the barbarians were gone the lords were left with a predicament, how to keep the serfs in line. How do we make them need us and our domination at the top of the social order? Thus the conservative ideology was born and it has been the same ever since. The monied elite has replaced the military and landowning elite over 300 years ago but it is the same political impulse that motivates them. Keep us on top. Tell stories that make society need us and value us. Keep notions of equality and citizenship suppressed. Make sure the people have an ennemy.
It’s sad really. After WWII, a war which we thought had forever settle the question in liberalism’s favor, we were naive enough to think that humans had embraced liberalism culturally and had evolved beyond the crude political order that conservatism demands but…sadly no!
We still have quite a bit of work to do.
ddt said,
October 13, 2006 at 23:40
Wait, wait, wait… let’s not jump to conclusions. He _could_ simply be calling for free birth control. “We’ll keep them free of unwanted babies there so we don’t have to fight condom use here” or something like that.
J— said,
October 14, 2006 at 0:57
Seriously, people, why bother to take anything seriously that was written by a guy who previously published a book – about the United States of America, this book was! – entitled “The End of Racismâ€??
Here are two reasons. He works at the Hoover Institute, and this new book will be published not by some kooky fringe press but by Doubleday.
Marq said,
October 14, 2006 at 8:16
Some words of wisdom, Dinesh Direct! (h.t. to Walcott)
My bold. Oh, and
AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAA!1!!!!!one!!!
[sniffle]
aHah ha ha… hee. *snerrkkk* Ha. Oh, dear….
Jillian said,
October 14, 2006 at 17:26
You sneer because you, sir, are an indecent liberal.
For shame.
tigrismus said,
October 14, 2006 at 20:51
Millions and millions of evil people need to die
Nothing says “Good” quite like wanting to rain down horrible death on a significant slice of the world population.
mmm...lemonheads said,
October 14, 2006 at 21:47
I agree with many of the analyses given here of the conservative mindset, especially that of the lord/serf relationship. But there’s a simpler answer:
They need Daddy. Without him they’re lost.
GoatBoy said,
October 14, 2006 at 23:34
“But is it wrong of me to imagine differentbrad and annie listening to “Neighbor Ladyâ€? as they engage in their interminable pas de deux over in the Ruppert thread?”
Wrong, indeed. For my neighbor ladies to a one all have better legs than annie and are kept far too busy to ever dream of squeezing oranges.
shargash said,
October 15, 2006 at 4:00
Every deep dark dirty secret of these people is projected onto anyone and everyone who isn’t one of them. They whine about moral relativism, and then argue that torture is OK under the right circumstances. They whine that Islamists “hate us for our freedoms”, and then set about undermining our freedoms. They accuse the lefty blogs of spewing hate, and in the next sentence go off on a hate-filled tirade. They accuse liberals of being dishonest in a speech peppered with bald-faced lies.
And I honestly think they don’t realize just how fucked up they are, just how much of what they see in other people is really the reflection of the cess pits that are their souls. Even though I view conservatives with VERY low expectations, I’m still stunned at the lack of self-knowledge they exhibit every time they open their mouths.