The World According to Imal

Musings on Life, the Universe and Everything.

"Imal is a warrior poet, a modern day Nostradamus without all the annoying quatrains."
-Greg Packer

"Heed the need to read my screed."

Published Wheneverly. A Proud American and Citizen of the Free Republic.

"Come for the coffee, stay for the pie."

Atom Site Feed

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

Research Break

A note to my handful of loyal readers: Summer is upon us, and I dare not ignore her call. Aside from some rest and relaxation, I am also doing some light research for upcoming posts.

Rest assured, I will return soon with a fresh cartload of opinion and polemic to share with you.

posted by Imal  # 12:23 PM

Friday, July 18, 2003

Bambi, Beware!

WARNING!: If you are an attractive young woman accustomed to jogging nude through the desert outside Las Vegas, Nevada, then you may want to pay close attention to this story. Why? Because someday, when you least expect it, you may just find yourself the target of a ruthless, sex-crazed paintball hunter.

Or so the press would have us believe.

It's a sordid tale of guns, violence, sex and money. In other words, it has everything necessary to be the latest cause célébre among the perpetually-outraged set. So what is all the hubbub about?

All you need to do is visit the website! Huntingforbambi.com spells it all out for us:

More shocking than anything you've ever seen before. Labeled by CBS News as a cross between Sex and Violence a deadly combination! Women are being hunted down like animals and shot with paintball guns. This Raw and completely Uncensored video is a cross between Bum Fights and Girls Gone Wild and is sure to be the topic of many Howard Stern Show fans. You will be completely stunned when you see some of the wildest, most outrageous moments ever caught on tape. This is without a doubt one of the sickest and most shocking videos ever made. When it comes to hunting women if you can think of it we probably show it. Women are screaming with fear as our Team Bambi hunters track them down and blast them with paintball guns...

Sounds like good, clean fun, so why all the controversy? At a glance, one can see plenty of ammunition for pompous indignation from:

- The National Organization for Women (NOW), for violence against women and the exploitation of women.

- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (TBCTPGV), because guns, even paintball guns, are evil! Of course, we can expect the entire alphabet soup of "gun control" groups to climb on board and use this to remind us why "assault paintball weapons" are the criminals' "weapon of choice". Expect breathlessly-worded federal legislation and maybe a few constitutional amendments to follow soon.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), because this points out the shocking cruelty of hunting to which real animals are exposed (oh, and by the way, check out their sexiest vegetarian contest). Maybe they'll treat us to some more of their own nude protests in Times Square or on the Capitol Mall.

- Hunter's Quest International (HQI), for giving real hunters a bad name (and getting them into more trouble with PETA). Secretly, they're probably upset that they didn't think of it first.

- The Walt Disney Company (WDC), for besmirching the respected name of "Bambi", one of their veteran cartoon actors, who also happens to be a buck, not a doe. We can expect the real Bambi to hold a press conference on this and announce a lawsuit, after consulting his lawyers, of course.

- The Screen Actors Guild (SAG), for not using union members in producing the video, itself an unforgiveable crime worthy of permanent blacklisting. Just wait and see if the producers and staff of Hunting for Bambi ever work in that town again!

- The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), because the women are not wearing protective eyewear, and for other likely safety violations in the "workplace".

The list of the potentially aggrieved goes on and on. Any organization with a good acronym can probably find something to disapprove of here. And that's the giveaway. The story is just too pat, too well-contrived to be anything other than a publicity stunt.

I won't even bother to cite press accounts of this tempest in a teapot, because they are worldwide in scope, and I am certain you have already heard about it. Even now, from across the Atlantic, do I hear the sound of millions of French tongues condescendingly clucking in unison at the latest exploits of the "dirty cowboys"? I doubt anything could be more delicious to the Gallic palate than a plate of brie, a bottle of Chateau de Cochon Bleu and a generous helping of titillating scandal from those perverse Anglo-Saxons across the pond.

This kind of publicity is something traditional film studios pay tens of millions of dollars to try to achieve, and usually without anywhere near the success. And these guys are getting it for free!

Now they can marvel as the donations just roll right in! At $20 per video, these questionable opportunists stand to benefit quite nicely from the moral outrage of America's self-appointed guardians of the American psyche. Buying the video on DVD or VHS is as easy as clicking on a few buttons. Oddly enough, however, actually contacting the company if you have questions about your order or need customer service is more difficult than you might expect. You can send email to bambi@huntingforbambi.com if you wish to contact the "company", but good luck finding a phone number or physical mailing address on the website. Hmmm.

Some clever rascals made a rather tasteless "themed" porn video on a shoestring budget and needed to drum up some cheap publicity. But how to do it? The video alone was not enough. They needed something "over the top" to catch the imaginations of America's opinion leaders. What better than to take the action out of the staged video and offer "hunting trips" for "real"? Apparently, that's all it took, and the rest is history.

So are the producers of Hunting for Bambi actually running safaris aimed at bagging nude women? As of this writing, there is nothing to suggest that this has ever been done, except for some rather unsubstantiated claims by the producers themselves. As usual, Snopes.com, a voice for reason in the maelstrom of breathless Internet-propagated urban legend, weighs in with the sort of level-headed analysis of the Hunting for Bambi controversy that seems so tragically elusive to "professional journalists".

I think the real story here is how the press and America's "legions of decency" are promoting the success of a porn video.

posted by Imal  # 8:45 PM

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

The New Credibility Gap

It must be hoax season once again on Capitol Hill.

Yes, it's a cheery, colorful time of year when no story is too thin or incredible to make the front page, when editors and reporters alike whistle pleasantly as they cast prudence to the wind and print whatever their fancies may dictate at the moment.  Nothing seems to make the presses roll as merrily along as contrived news.

Last week, a story claiming that George W. Bush knew intelligence reports from Britain about Iraq purchasing uranium ore from Nigeria were false, prior to citing them in his State of the Union address, was retracted by its author who, in doing so, told a tale of deception and intrigue that would do Robert Ludlum proud.

This week, the controversy continues, with claims from this discredited article still finding their way into unattributed quotes and references in stories being carried by major news agencies and being used as fuel for the latest Democratic smear campaign.

Lo and behold, today we hear tell of another story now claimed to be a hoax. In this installment, Stephan Minikes, ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, says a letter attributed to him slamming 'disloyal' career diplomats in the State Department, posted by Reuters earlier today, was not written by him.

The irony in this case is that the supposed phony letter is quite credible on its face, and doesn't seem to make any claims that seem outrageous or even unlikely, in light of the agenda-driven and highly publicized commentaries emanating from recent defectors from the State Department.

In fact, the more salient question here is not whether the situation the letter describes is true, but rather who actually wrote it, or would take credit for it. Alas, Reuters is not very helpful in this regard, giving the source of the letter as simply "a letter he [Minikes] published on Tuesday".

Hardly a surprise, that. Printing stories with unnamed, unidentified or deliberately anonymous sources has become de rigueur since Watergate. Even the most innocuous of sources is now more jealously guarded than a gold mining claim.

Stories credited to known persons alive today are in the fractional minority in the world of modern journalism. It's sexier to quote "a senior State Department official" than to blandly repeat remarks made by "Secretary of State Colin Powell" at an official press conference. Direct attribution is so... last century.

One must wonder how someone like Jayson Blair would have fared had the New York Times decided to hold its staff to the sort of basic discipline that used to be taught in journalism schools, or, for that matter, is enforced to this day by editors of high school newspapers.

The Times' new executive editor, Bill Keller, would do well to get back to basics and take the controversial step of confining his newspaper's editorializing to the editorial page. Considering the illustrious activist political history of the New York Times, however, I am certain the staff can rest assured that they will not be held to any onerous ethical standards, such as verifying and attributing sources, anytime soon.

In light of the growing tendency of the commercial press to trumpet everything they read on the Internet as honest-to-God truths, Matt Drudge is looking more like a bastion of ethical journalism every day.

At least he posts links to his sources.

posted by Imal  # 5:50 PM

Monday, July 14, 2003

International Socialist Conspiracy?

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
        - Keyser Soze, The Usual Suspects

As time goes by, I become more and more convinced that a relatively small group of people are in charge of and coordinating the International Socialist movement. Of course, positing that secret cabals control any kind of political movement is usually grounds for dismissal for mental health reasons. But does this prejudice against such suspicions automatically mean they cannot be true?

Of course, it is entirely possible that the striking similarity in political talking points among Italian communists, French diplomats, Hollywood movie stars and Democrats in the U.S. government is coincidental, but the fact that they tend to match verbatim puts such a theory in the realm of astronomical impossibility. They're all talking the same talk, and using the same words to do it. Some form of communication must be taking place among them, and I don't think it is all that presumptuous to conclude that there is, so let's just accept that as a given for now.

So that leaves us with determining what form that communication takes. It could all be peer-to-peer, with socialists the world over bouncing ideas among one another via the Internet, with the catchiest ideas taking root in the public discourse. True, it is entirely possible that this is exactly what is happening, and many intelligent people I know are convinced this is the case.

But something nags at me. Even considering the near-instantaneous speed of modern communications, certain ideas and expressions seem to propagate and gain acceptance among socialists far too quickly to account for inevitable differences in opinion, even among otherwise lockstep socialists. Even those wholly consecrated to the Gospel of Marx will invariably differ as to how to interpret and apply that gospel. It's human nature.

Left to free thought, people will always disagree with one another to some extent. Even in oppressive institutional hierarchies, individuals can't help but put the stamp of their opinions on everything they touch, as a means of asserting their existence. But the overt policies and opinions of the leaders of such institutions can nonetheless be powerful enough to present an appearance of unanimity.

Thus the central question: is this amazing consonance of ideas and opinions the result of a collective ideological unity, or the product of central control? I suspect that it is the latter, but have no proof. Just a nagging hunch.

But armed with this hypothesis, thinly substantiated though it may be, I may now search for evidence to support it. Whether it is groundless speculation or hard fact has yet to be established. Perhaps, by searching for it directly, the truth in this case may be revealed.

Finally, lest I mislead you, my treasured reader, into thinking that by "central control" I mean absolute control, I wish to assure you that is not the case. Rather, I suspect that these leaders are leaders by means of influence, not necessarily rigid hierarchy. This influence may be simple persuasion, intellectual, charismatic, ideological, financial, military, legal or political in nature. I believe that all of these are employed in various measure. Also, I further suspect that these cabals are not all that formal in their arrangement, but more de facto in character.

A single monolithic shadow organization controlled by a single iron hand? Highly unlikely. But there are strong indications that a great deal of the "opinions" of international socialists originate "from on high". Although such a thing may be impossible to either prove or disprove, perhaps enough information will be uncovered over time to allow a reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

Class Warfare

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
        - The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter One

For those wondering why the political bread and butter of the Democratic Party is the division of Americans into groups such as "rich and poor", "black and white", "gay and straight", "oppressor and oppressed" and, in general, "us and them". I submit the above quote.

They are just following the dictates of the Marxist version of history, and hey, it works pretty well!

posted by Imal  # 5:50 PM

Sunday, July 13, 2003

Hillary in '04?

Still grasping at straws, trying anything and everything to get some kind of usable dirt on Dubya, the Democratic National Committee has resorted to yet another campaign of outright lying. This time, the story is that President Bush was told by a CIA adviser that the "Nigerian uranium story" was false, and that Bush retorted by effectively insisting that the evidence be changed to agree with his predetermined policy on Iraq.

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, the day after the original story was published, Doug Thompson, founder of and primary contributor to the webzine Capitol Hill Blue, posted a remarkable mea culpa on Free Republic which stated in no uncertain terms that the story, and its source, were fraudulent. This retraction has also been posted on the Capitol Hill Blue website, the source of the original story. However, the retraction seems to be getting far less play than the original story, and the DNC and its fellow-travelers in the press are using this bogus story and vague allusions to it to try and get some political traction.

In light of the very strong possibility that the fraudulent source works for the DNC or a sympathetic body, this whole brouhaha has the stench of an attempted beer hall putsch. If Mr. Thompson's sensational story is true, the implications are staggering, suggesting a careful plan to secure his confidence over two decades, only to spend the whole ball of wax for this one hit piece against Bush.

Although I am skeptical of this tale, to say the least, I do feel it only fair to give Mr. Thompson a shot at laying out the corroborating details and salvaging his journalistic credibility, although his account reads more like a Tom Clancy novel than a droning recitation about fact checking. We'll see how that goes.

Tales of deception and friendship betrayed notwithstanding, the fact remains that several major news outfits are running with a story that has been publicly retracted by its original source. I don't know which is more remarkable: the amazing lies that are being thrown around as "facts", or the truth that, despite its armies of dirt-diggers working around the clock, this is the best the DNC can come up with. That they perpetually propagate lies and use every dirty trick known to man is a given, it is only when they fail to deliver the dirt that the story becomes noteworthy.

The Free Republic thread that followed Mr. Thompson's remarkable retraction, titled by him "BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD", has drawn responses numbering over a thousand and growing, and has taken on a life of its own. Yet I have neither seen nor heard anything about it from the same sources that are running with the "Bush lied" story. Perhaps that will change after the Sunday morning talking heads take up the issue, assuming any do.

It is impossible, when confronted by such a familiar modus operandi, not to at least glance in the direction of the usual suspects. Indeed, this latest handcrafted scandal has a sort of James Carville feel to it, although it's unlikely that he needed to get his own hands dirty for this. He has plenty of willing acolytes to take out the garbage for him these days.

The urgency of this latest campaign smacks of a need to open the door for something. Hence my speculation that perhaps Her Majesty has secretly decreed that 2008 is too late for her ascendancy to the throne after all. Certainly, this whole business has the distinct smell of Clintonism to it. Let's see how that plays out.

One of my more dramatic ravings from the apologetic thread posted on Free Republic by Mr. Thompson has been deftly lifted and pasted here for your reading pleasure. Although it sums up more than a few things in my view, please bear in mind that it is a post made in response to another FReeper. The original post may be found here.

It is clear that the DNC is frantically slinging mud wherever it can, and hoping some of it sticks. Rest assured that the Whitehouse knows all about it, and is actively monitoring these efforts a lot more closely than you may think.

In the balance lies the very real possibility of a presidential bid by Hillary Clinton in '04. No one among her supporters nor her detractors buys her "thrice refused the crown" act for a second. If the Democrats get a toehold, she'll make a "surprise" bid in '04. If not, she'll bide her time until '08, when a new Republican candidate must be fielded (hint: it won't be Cheney).

On this topic, and a growing number of other ones, I'm finding myself to be a reluctant tinfoiler. There are some very powerful interests in conflict here, and the arena is global, not just the field of American politics. There is a lot of foreign money and power being thrown into the fray, because the future of the world is being decided as we speak. The currents of history are running strong and swift through our time.

The hidden hand of the Illuminati? I think not. But the very real influence of the undead Marxist revolution now quaintly styling itself as "progressive world socialism" is a far more pernicious and potent threat to free humanity than anything Adam Weishaupt could have possibly dreamed. The spectacle of the propaganda and track record of the Democratic Party being in lockstep with world socialists is all the proof any reasonable mind requires.

For my part, I am one of the often-derided Libertarians of the Free Republic, but I will be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republicans in '04 and for the foreseeable future. Why? Because as the great Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".

The great beast of Marxism is once again raising its diseased and addled head, and it is poised to strike viciously at the heart of America, with even more devastation than the tragic and seductive poison of the New Deal could wreak. I believe it will claim even more victims in this century than the last, with wars and genocide on scales beyond the darkest imagination.

When this war is joined in earnest -- and that day is not far off -- the middle ground will be a killing field. This is not a time to be demure or sophistic, but to keep the powder of freedom dry.

While my post was somewhat melodramatic, and almost crying out for composition in iambic pentameter, my point should not be lost that Marxism's "great struggle" is not just some pleasant parlor room political conversation, but a memetic virus that has killed scores of millions of human beings and will likely kill billions more in the future if left unchecked.

Only time will tell if humanity will survive this deadliest of diseases.

posted by Imal  # 7:02 AM

Saturday, July 12, 2003

Hello, world!

On this day, July 12, 2003, into the great Sea of Anonymity, a fresh new droplet of opinion fell from a cloudy sky.

"Who Am I, Why Am I Here?" Some of the 20 to 30 people I expect to actually peruse this blog will know me from my ravings on Free Republic, where I hold forth on a variety of topics. A FReeper friend, windchime to be precise (using flattery, which is kryptonite to me), suggested I start a blog, so here it is.

What do I plan to address in my blog? Pretty much any damn thing I feel like talking about, just like everyone else. One aspect of a blog versus posts in FR bears noting: in FR, you can post replies. Here, you can't. A good and bad thing, I guess. On the bright side, if you disagree with what you see here, I don't have to hear about it. On the dark side, if you disagree with what you see here, I don't get to hear about it.

On FR, I am something of a hit-and-run contributor, because I do have a life outside the Internet, after all. I expect to be the same way in the blog arena. Who knows? Maybe I'll play with this for a while, then move on to something else. I am a rather capricious critter, after all. Time will tell.

By way of introduction, and to backfill an otherwise contentless blog, over the next several days I will post some selected juicy cuts from the Best of Imal Collection(tm). A casual scan through the collection will serve as a better introduction, and basis for a successful clinical diagnosis, than any self-serving self-description I may choose to throw together for you, my valued reader.

I make no apology for duplicating posts here from the Free Republic or anywhere else I write them, because, as Krusty the Klown so aptly put it: "I'm a lazy, lazy man."

So enjoy, you lucky reader you, because I have a great supply of canned brain food to slap down on your cognitive plate!

First, how about some of My Great Quotes(tm)?

Here's a few gems:

We could hardly call America the "Land of Opportunity" if we didn't have opportunists. (Imal, FR, 5/30/03)

I had to look so far to the left to read this article, my eyes hurt! (Imal, FR, 5/30/03)

If they passed a law making spamming a capital crime punishable by feeding spammers alive to hungry sharks with lasers mounted on their heads, I would support it wholeheartedly. (Imal, FR, 5/31/03)

If I had a dime for every time Bush's critics were right about him, I'd need to borrow a dime. (Imal, FR, 6/1/03)

Of course, there are plenty more, but I'll try not to use them all up in one shot, which I have a bad habit of doing. As my ex-wife so astutely observed: "If you were a stripper, you'd come out naked!"

"They misunderestimated us!"

I am proud to have created what I think is the best definition of "misunderestimate", a word actually coined by Dubya himself. When I saw my own definition being used in other FR threads, I knew I had arrived, and that fame and fortune must surely not be far behind:

From Merriam-Webster OnLine:*
Main Entry: mis·un·der·es·ti·mate
Pronunciation: &"mis-&n-d&r-'es-t&-"mAt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Coined by President George W. Bush at Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
1 : to estimate a person's intelligence as being dramatically less than its actual level
2 : to insist that a person who repeatedly hands you your ass is too stupid to be able to do so.

* Nota bene: Okay, this is not actually not from M-W OnLine, but I stole the template for the definition from them. Thanks Merriam!


What better way to keep the ball rolling than with an in-depth discussion of "strategery"? I use the term, which was actually coined in a memorable skit starring Will Ferrell on Saturday Night Live way back in October 2000, as a blanket expression to describe the way our President operates.

An interesting thing to note about this article is when I posted it. Funny how quickly some things in politics change, while others don't change at all.

Bush Uses "Strategery" Against Iraq, the U.N. and the Democrats
Posted to Free Republic January 10, 2003

This is my first, and possibly last, vanity post. I have held back from starting a thread on this article for months, and have posted various aspects of my "strategery" theory in different posts on different threads, but am dying to discuss it in its own thread, because I think it is important enough a theory to stand on its own. In fact, this article is mostly boilerplated from this post, which evolved out of a discussion about the American hero Captain Michael Scott Speicher, may God bless his name.

Granted, my theories about George W. Bush are speculative, and time may prove me wrong (we will know soon enough). But my thoughts arise from many months of study, observation and contemplation, and, so far, the passage of time only seems to confirm my hunches about the man and his methods. And you should know, my first impressions of George W. Bush were by no means flattering. Those impressions have been tempered by numerous events since his ascendancy to the presidency. But make no mistake: I am not a Bush groupie by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I think We the People need to make sure he doesn't accumulate too much presidential power, but that's another topic for a different thread.

In my opinion, the upcoming war in Iraq is an excellent and illustrative vignette that encapsulates the understated brilliance of the man we call "Dubya".

In this chapter of the Bush presidency, I believe he is using Iraq to accomplish several strategic goals in one stroke. I believe his cabinet and advisors are fully on board with him, because success in Iraq will be a masterful stroke of military and diplomatic cleverness.

I am fairly convinced that the Bush administration is in possession of some very hard evidence that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction and has been positioning them for use, but also has provable ties to active terrorist organizations, probably but not necessarily including Al Qaeda. The ties may even involve safe harboring of many terrorists in Iraq, which would partially explain why the U.S. has been quietly surrounding Iraq with troops and security agreements (such as with Jordan) for more than a year.

Iraq may very well be Afghanistan II, with the toppling of a hostile regime and terrorist hunt scenario. Except in this case, the stakes are raised, because Saddam is much craftier than Mullah Omar, and the Iraqi military has much greater resources than the Taliban (remember them?) ever dreamed of.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Bush will invade Iraq without the hard evidence he needs to put egg on the face of the U.N. and the Democrats, both of whom he despises and both of whom will look like idiots once the truth comes out.

Why hold back the evidence, rather than using it to build a groundswell of domestic and international support? I think there are two main reasons, as well as several lesser ones:

Reason 1: Military and intelligence security. Saddam knows we know about his weapons and evil intentions. However, he doesn't know exactly what or how much we know. If he did know, he would quietly take steps to both eliminate the evidence (or move it out of sight) and eliminate those assets that revealed it. He could have an entire weapons program's staff and their families tortured and slaughtered without batting an eye, and has a reputation for exactly that. As Sun Tzu and every other great military leader has pointed out again and again, deception is the greatest weapon of war.

Reason 2: Politics. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was an obvious and egregious enough act to build support for a coalition to drive Saddam out. Revelations of nasty weapons, terrorist ties and war plans are not as dramatic, and, even in the wake of 9-11, make for a harder sell to a skeptical domestic and international constituency. Naysayers who would oppose war no matter what (including the now heavily Liberal and Marxist Democratic Party, which used to be much more hawkish) have been expending their energy fighting a straw man crafted by the vague and unsupported claims made so far by the Bush administration. I find it extremely unlikely that Bush is lying about Iraq, but I notice that he has not been at all forthcoming about details. This is apparently deliberate. Those foolish enough to jump on the bandwagon against him without any real basis to do so will be utterly discredited when he lays his cards on the table. Cries of "foul" about being kept in the dark will be trumped by the legitimate need for operational security, and the naysayers will be neutralized politically. This, of course, applies to the Democrats, but especially to the U.N., the relevance of which Bush is openly challenging.

There are many other good reasons why Bush should wait until the eleventh hour before tipping his hand, including the generally mercurial nature of the American public, but I think the two reasons above are the big ones.

Consider that after Iraq is conquered, a government benevolent to the U.S. will be installed, oil will be sold in abundance to pay off Iraqi debts and rebuild the country (castrating OPEC -- and we're working on Venezuela, btw -- and, of course, the U.S. economy will flourish with all this cheap oil coming in = Bush + Republicans win again in 2004), a security agreement with the U.S. will be implemented that allows us to use Iraq as a huge, excellently positioned military base (no more begging the Saudis for permission, etc.), and puts U.S. forces in a much stronger position to pursue and eliminate both terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them, and invading Iraq is a no-brainer.

I could be wrong, but everything about the way the Bush administration is acting supports my suspicions to the tee. Everyone who has underestimated the shrewdness and wisdom of George W. Bush in the past has come to regret it. He's extremely clever, and, in my opinion, a modern Abraham Lincoln, who was also underestimated by his opponents and used it to stunning advantage.

I like to call his leadership style "strategery". ;^)

Of course, that wasn't my last vanity post to Free Republic, but I have kept the number very small. Good for me!

I guess I can start getting most of my vanity ya-yas out here, instead, something I am sure will be preferred.

So Just What The Hell Is A Blog, Anyway?

Eschewing a technical definition, I prefer to think of blogging as "screaming at God". Based on the way most blogs read, I believe my definition is fairly accurate.

So Who Is God, Anyway?

I define God as All Things Without Exception.

This definition is actually compatible with most established monotheistic systems of belief that describe God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is my contention that it is not possible for God to be all of these things without being all things without exception. Ponder that, if you will.

I talk to God, and God answers me most of the time. So either I am psychotic, have a vivid imagination, God actually talks to me, perhaps through my subconscious, or, most likely, some combination of these.

Do I really talk to God? You probably better ask God that question.

International Socialism and You

I hate Marxism in all of its pernicious forms, so it should come as no surprise that I am not a Democrat, now or ever.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good things that have come out of Marxism. It's just that I consider their benefits are not sufficient to warrant the murder and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people. And I sure as hell don't wish to be one of its future victims, which are certain to outnumber its past victims by a sickening amount.

Throughout most of my life, I have been puzzled by many of the currents of politics both within my homeland of America, and around the world. Lately, many of the pieces are starting to fall into place, and you can expect me to expound on these as time goes by.

For now, suffice it to say that the movement which may be loosely labeled "International Socialism" is alive and well, and looking for more blood to lubricate its machinery. Unfortunately for humanity, but fortunately for the demonic shades of Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung (aka Mao Zedong, aka Lefty McGenocide), Pol Pot, and so many others who have murdered millions in the name of "social justice", there are millions of new idiots, both useful and useless, to paraphrase Lenin, willing to sacrifice themselves, their families, their countrymen and everyone else alive on the altar of communism.

Why did I include Adolph Hitler in that list? For those who don't know, the Nazi party's full name was the "National-Socialist German Workers Party". The word "Nazi" is derived from an acronym for the German version of this name.

So those who support Marxism in its various forms are in bed with some pretty unsavory characters. Why do people choose to align themselves with such incredible evil? That is a question I am still trying to find an answer for. Perhaps we can discover the answer together.

On the Intellectual Snobbery of the Left

A defining characteristic of leftists and self-styled Marxist intellectuals of every stripe is arrogance. Instead of relying on such outmoded notions as "reason", "logic" and "facts" to support their typically outrageous positions on various issues, they resort to ad hominem attacks and implications or outright assertions of their superior mental powers.

The truth is that most people who buy into Marxism don't have a clue about it. Having waded through The Communist Manifesto some years ago, I can understand why. While Marx and Engels did make some fascinating contributions to social science fields and managed to harness the power of the Social Darwinism movement, their work is incredibly opaque, even to scholars. Maybe it's just the translations, but I expect the German versions offer little solace.

Thus most leftists are little more than camp-followers who have bought into the Marxist mystique in the hope of looking as smart as all the other leftists think they are. The result of this intriguing "emperor's new suit" phenomenon is the existence of an international cult of Marxists who are, by and large, not all that bright. The ones who are smart tend to position themselves to influence the rest, resulting in a movement that resembles nothing so much as a sort of ideological Ponzi scheme.

On its face, such a band of buffoons is good for a laugh or two. Indeed, it's all in good fun until someone puts an eye out. The sad reality is that the result of this arrogance can be measured in blood and misery. The legacy of Marxism is a legacy of unprecedented genocide and terror, and our world is still struggling within its diseased grip.

So the next time some effete leftist snob tries to lay the "smarter than thou" routine on you, remember that not only are you dealing with an idiot, but a dangerous idiot at that. Just ask the people who have died at the hands of leftists around the world. Unfortunately, they can't answer you, because they are dead.

Well, that seems like a sufficient opening salvo for my humble blogsite. I'm sure I'll probably find more to post as the days go by.

Even though I'm new at this, I think I could get a taste for screaming at God.

This first blog posting was written while listening to Steely Dan and Daklon.

posted by Imal  # 5:19 PM

Captain's Blog, stardate 20030712.163808: Begin captain's blog.

posted by Imal  # 4:38 PM

Want More? Check Out the Archives!

07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003   08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003   09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003   10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003   11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003   12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004   01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004   02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004   03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004   04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004   05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004   06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004   07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004   09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004  

Copyright © 2003, 2004 Imal. Contents may be freely used and distributed provided attribution to the author is included.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?