Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Blog Silence.

An old saw has it that if you want to boil a frog, put it in the pot before the water boils. He'll jump out immediately if you try to throw him into actively boiling water, and you'll have to chase your amphibious entree all over the kitchen.

In intellectual circles where the downfall of western civilization is planned (Tehran, Waziristan, etc.), this old saw is intimately known and admired, and has been chosen as the modus operandi for the establishment of the universal caliphate. The ingenuity of this strategy exploits the follwing: 1.) liberal intellectuals can be relied upon not to recognize that our Qutbist and Twelver enemies are extremely clever and capable of sustained strategy, 2.) liberal intellectuals are incapable of recognizing when they have been spun, viewing themselves as far too clever themselves to ever fall for enemy propaganda, 3.) liberal intellectuals are only too happy to champion any group they've been convinced is oppressed, preferably if in so doing it is to the liberal intellectuals' detriment (thus perversely demonstrating their integrity), 4.) partisan considerations are paramount in U.S. politics, therefore anyone with a clear idea of the nature of the threat (usually someone on the right) is automatically, vehemently, and brainlessly contradicted by left wing pols and pundits, 5.) liberal intellectuals have a disdain for the armed forces, who are really the only entities capable of defeating the subjugation of the West, 6.) the election cycles of western democracies preclude the consistent pursuit of any defensive strategies to counter the efforts of the Islamist enterprise, and 7.) liberal intellectuals are clueless about the consequences of international failure, detached from how it will very personally affect them and their offspring for generations.

The intellectual tools of the Enlightenment -- scientific method, universal suffrage, the doctrine of natural law -- are not necessary pre-conditions for formulating and pursuing a clever plan to forcefully impose a theocracy "from China to Spain". However, a pre-condition to defeating your enemy is to understand him. And the abject failure of our civilization to understand this threat and how to counter it have led me to Relative Blog Silence. Oh sure, I may pipe up for the occasional tactical observation, but all I can do at this point is wait for The Hardship. I think only the forthcoming years of Hardship will drive the evolution of our society towards a unified and effective response to armed expansionist Islamic fundamentalism. I hope we aren't good and boiled before that happens.

4 Comments:

Blogger K T Cat said...

I think you may be overstating the role of intellectuals. This country did not go to war with the dictatorships of the 30's and 40's until after Pearl Harbor. We're just not an imperialist nation. We rely on being the greatest counter punchers of all time.

12/14/2006 09:01:00 PM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...

I hope you are correct about the "counterpunching", although it depresses me to think the 9/11 sucker punch only fueled two retaliatory strikes.

The problem is that we are engaged in a multi-generational war against a very patient enemy who has proven to have an attention span degrees of magnitude larger than those of us in western democracies. Your argument has been expressed in the past ("Jacksonian Democracy") but I think our society has been spoiled by materialist excess to the point where I don't think we're a Jacksonian democracy anymore.

As far as "intellectuals" are concerned, it is usually these individuals who are leaders of the left -- whether political leaders or opinion leaders. If we are engaged in a deathmatch of civilization vs. barbarism, it would be nice if we could recruit these folks.

12/15/2006 08:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By saying they hate us because we are free is failing to understand the enemy or the conflict.
In fact doing so, puts the entirety of our nation at greater risk.
They hate us for what we do, they fight us because is is safer than fighting their own governments, which we back.
American foreign policy has never been consistent, it's a failure of our political system - but in those rare instances where we have managed a multi decade policy towards "3rd world" nations, it has always been to support tyranny over the people of that nation.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough wars, or that we haven't had enough wars, the problem is that we don't understand the wars we are fighting.

3/07/2007 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...

Anonymous,

You will get exactly one answer from me until you drop your anonymity.

"...in those rare instances where we have managed a multi decade policy towards "3rd world" nations, it has always been to support tyranny over the people of that nation."

I take it you support our removal of Saddam Hussein, then?

3/07/2007 04:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home