Moonshine Political Romantics Runaway from Sunny Reality
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Because all three of you in your political and intellectual weakness and lack of depth are strengthening the dangerous fantasies of soft power as an antidote to the dangerous realities emanating from apocalyptic fanaticism that are hovering over the head of Western civilization and threatening it with ‘decapitation’. Of course such an existential threat you and Kervick, if not Clemons, would diagnose it as paranoia. But anyone who has studied history, without being a prisoner of it, might come to the conclusion that the art, the vocation of a statesman is to identify promptly an irreconcilable implacable enemy and destroy him before he becomes stronger.
Already the soft power fantasy as embodied in the new foreign policy of Obama is irreversibly failing. In the diplomatic overture to Iran, in resolving the Middle East conflict, and in clinching a concord cordial with Russia, of which Obama was so confident that he would have the support of the latter on the issue of Iran. Now we have Putin and his Foreign Minister Lavrov declaring that they would veto any resolution in the Security Council that would impose new sanctions on Iran.
Clemons, Kervick, and you, with your characteristic geopolitical and strategic myopia and romanticism could not foresee the failure of this new foreign policy of Obama based on ‘loving- holding hands’ and soft power that is unravelling now before everyone’s eyes.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Will Petraeus Accept Running as Obama's Vice-President?
By Con George-Kotzabasis
No intelligent eminent American would accept running as VP, least of all General Petraeus, with a by now politically bankrupt president as Obama, whose political stocks will be totally dwindled by 2012.
Steve Clemons speculation that Petraeus would accept such an offer by Obama if it was made stands in blatant contradiction to his own thinking. Only a few days ago he was flagging his much discussed post “...Sinking Obama Presidency” and presently he wants to place Petraeus on this sinking Titanic and the highly intelligent Petraeus would assent to take a ‘voyage’ that would lead to his own drowning. There is no “maybe” about such an event happening as Clemons muses and such a possibility would indeed be “crazy.”
Clemons has to make up his mind whether the Obama Presidency is sinking or floating.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
No intelligent eminent American would accept running as VP, least of all General Petraeus, with a by now politically bankrupt president as Obama, whose political stocks will be totally dwindled by 2012.
Steve Clemons speculation that Petraeus would accept such an offer by Obama if it was made stands in blatant contradiction to his own thinking. Only a few days ago he was flagging his much discussed post “...Sinking Obama Presidency” and presently he wants to place Petraeus on this sinking Titanic and the highly intelligent Petraeus would assent to take a ‘voyage’ that would lead to his own drowning. There is no “maybe” about such an event happening as Clemons muses and such a possibility would indeed be “crazy.”
Clemons has to make up his mind whether the Obama Presidency is sinking or floating.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
The Value of Human Action Stems from its Goal
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Yes Nadine, Norheim is pretentiously “morally pure” as any person of inveterate weakness would be. You have noticed of course that whenever he finds himself deplete of cogent arguments he resorts to smart ‘Alecry’, as above. And you must have noticed that Kervick too, the disciple of David Hume is not immune from this intellectually debilitating disease, as his above laconic comment reveals. And his hypocrisy in his “quick question” is astounding, as if his own cascading passionate defence and suggestions of where America’s real interests lie could be supplanted by “...no other life.”
Passion and intellect are vital forces of human action and envelope one’s life. And their value depends on the aims and goals one expends them on. Nadine expends them passionately by defending the justified concerns of Israel of being deluged and destroyed by fanatical Islam and in protecting an outpost of Western civilization in the midst of resurgent barbarity from the malevolence of the prattling and historically ignorant classes that for a long time now attempt to turn the defender against aggression, Israel, into the aggressor. Norheim and Kervick, likewise, are passionately expending these vital forces for their own aims and goals. The difference being between Nadine and Norheim-Kervick that while the former is fighting injustice and malignity the latter are fighting for their manmade phantoms and for the cause of black magic. As their Archimedean point for ‘shifting the world’ is no other than the voodoo politics of a bygone ‘progressive’ demi-monde socialist era.
The above piece emitted the following responses
Posted by Paul Norheim, Mar 26 2010, 1:59PM - Link
Kotzabasis' intellectual mission at the Washington Note seems to be to weaken Dan K., Steve C. and myself. I think he's been working on this for a couple of years now. Steve creates a new post, the commenters argue about the topic, and in comes Kotz saying that we are weak and delusional.
By claiming that we are weak, not strong, Kotz somehow expects that we get weaker than we were before he made his claim. And by repeating this claim, by typing it again and again from somewhere in Australia, and posting it on a thread read thousands of miles from his home, he hopes that we slowly get weaker and weaker. Voodoo!
Although I can't speak on behalf of Dan and Steve, I would like to inform Kotzabasis and TWN's readers that it actually works. I have no idea how (there must be some black magic going on here), but immediately after reading Kotz's last post, I felt weaker! And I also felt Kotz's increased strength. Weird!
Repeat your claim once a week, Kotz, and I'll be completely paralyzed around June or July. And you yourself will gain an enormous intellectual strength and willpower; before Christmas, you'll become a veritable intellectual Superman in your fight against Islamo-fascism and the delusional left.
Voodoo!
Go for it, Kotz!
Posted by Dan Kervick, Mar 26 2010, 4:49PM - Link
Paul, it turns out that one only needs to change two proper names in a famous poem by William Blake to capture Kotzabasis's sentiment fairly clearly:______
Mock on, mock on, Kervick, Norheim:Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!You throw the sand against the wind,And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem,Reflected in the beam divine;Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
The Atoms of DemocritusAnd the Newton’s Particles of LightAre sands upon the Red Sea shore,Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.
Kotzabasis says,
Kervick
It would be insolent to argue against the great poet William Blake. But you forget that the wind is 'contrarian' and can blow Aeolus like the other way and “blind” the mocked eye. That is why you cannot see “Israel’s tents” shinning “so bright.”
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Yes Nadine, Norheim is pretentiously “morally pure” as any person of inveterate weakness would be. You have noticed of course that whenever he finds himself deplete of cogent arguments he resorts to smart ‘Alecry’, as above. And you must have noticed that Kervick too, the disciple of David Hume is not immune from this intellectually debilitating disease, as his above laconic comment reveals. And his hypocrisy in his “quick question” is astounding, as if his own cascading passionate defence and suggestions of where America’s real interests lie could be supplanted by “...no other life.”
Passion and intellect are vital forces of human action and envelope one’s life. And their value depends on the aims and goals one expends them on. Nadine expends them passionately by defending the justified concerns of Israel of being deluged and destroyed by fanatical Islam and in protecting an outpost of Western civilization in the midst of resurgent barbarity from the malevolence of the prattling and historically ignorant classes that for a long time now attempt to turn the defender against aggression, Israel, into the aggressor. Norheim and Kervick, likewise, are passionately expending these vital forces for their own aims and goals. The difference being between Nadine and Norheim-Kervick that while the former is fighting injustice and malignity the latter are fighting for their manmade phantoms and for the cause of black magic. As their Archimedean point for ‘shifting the world’ is no other than the voodoo politics of a bygone ‘progressive’ demi-monde socialist era.
The above piece emitted the following responses
Posted by Paul Norheim, Mar 26 2010, 1:59PM - Link
Kotzabasis' intellectual mission at the Washington Note seems to be to weaken Dan K., Steve C. and myself. I think he's been working on this for a couple of years now. Steve creates a new post, the commenters argue about the topic, and in comes Kotz saying that we are weak and delusional.
By claiming that we are weak, not strong, Kotz somehow expects that we get weaker than we were before he made his claim. And by repeating this claim, by typing it again and again from somewhere in Australia, and posting it on a thread read thousands of miles from his home, he hopes that we slowly get weaker and weaker. Voodoo!
Although I can't speak on behalf of Dan and Steve, I would like to inform Kotzabasis and TWN's readers that it actually works. I have no idea how (there must be some black magic going on here), but immediately after reading Kotz's last post, I felt weaker! And I also felt Kotz's increased strength. Weird!
Repeat your claim once a week, Kotz, and I'll be completely paralyzed around June or July. And you yourself will gain an enormous intellectual strength and willpower; before Christmas, you'll become a veritable intellectual Superman in your fight against Islamo-fascism and the delusional left.
Voodoo!
Go for it, Kotz!
Posted by Dan Kervick, Mar 26 2010, 4:49PM - Link
Paul, it turns out that one only needs to change two proper names in a famous poem by William Blake to capture Kotzabasis's sentiment fairly clearly:______
Mock on, mock on, Kervick, Norheim:Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!You throw the sand against the wind,And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem,Reflected in the beam divine;Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
The Atoms of DemocritusAnd the Newton’s Particles of LightAre sands upon the Red Sea shore,Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.
Kotzabasis says,
Kervick
It would be insolent to argue against the great poet William Blake. But you forget that the wind is 'contrarian' and can blow Aeolus like the other way and “blind” the mocked eye. That is why you cannot see “Israel’s tents” shinning “so bright.”
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Nipple-fed Liberals Hate and Lambast General Petraeus
By Con George-Kotzabasis
It’s the “leg-breaking soldiers in fatigues,” to quote Dan Kervick who denigrates them, that are indefatigably and with great sacrifices defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam. But it is not surprising that the ideologues of the serially bankrupt left, like Kervick, would lambast great Americans, like General Petraeus, with their vitriolic sarcasm.
It’s obvious that Kervick as a hubristic member of the gang of General “Betraeus” is divinely apportioning from his Olympian abode his moral legless strictures upon great successful Americans who stand on, and leap with, strong legs. And it’s clear that Kervick with his intellectually and morally rickety feet cannot stand and ‘fight’ on the superb motto of Virgil, “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito”. But what other could one expect from nipple-fed liberals?
The above emitted the following comments on The Washington Note
Posted by Dan Kervick, Mar 07 2010, 6:44AM – Link
“…defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam.”
Mortal danger … right. You might as well say that the English language faces a mortal danger from Portuguese. Your sense of proportion and connection with the real world are seriously impaired.
From my own seat here in America, I don’t see many fanatical Muslims about. What I do see is a danger to liberal values rising from the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified. My concern is not with David Petraeus, who is just doing a job the civilian government gave to him, but with the poisonous weakness of the cowardly right, who seem ready to hand over their most valuable possessions to soldiers like Petraeus, if the latter promise to protect the relatively insignificant hides of the former.
Posted by kotzabasis, Mar 07 2010, 5:23PM – Link
Kervick
The reason that you don’t see the great danger “to liberal values,” and indeed to civilization as we know it, issuing from the few “fanatical Muslims” that you see is due to your lack of imagination. This is an asymmetrical conflict or war in the context of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and nuclear ones and one doesn’t have to see a myriad of fanatical Muslims to perceive the mortal danger to these values.
And do you consider within this context, that the professionals of HUMINT(Human Intelligence), not amateurs and dilettantes like you, who warn that in the near future there is a high probability that these few fanatical Muslims will be armed with WMD and nuclear ones are disconnected from the “real world” and “are seriously impaired” by “the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified,” to quote you? Who in this case is “seriously impaired” in one’s sense of reality? And in your continued inveterate sickly sarcasm you degrade and make a vaudevillian mockery of this stupendous danger by turning it into a protection of the “hides” of the rich.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
It’s the “leg-breaking soldiers in fatigues,” to quote Dan Kervick who denigrates them, that are indefatigably and with great sacrifices defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam. But it is not surprising that the ideologues of the serially bankrupt left, like Kervick, would lambast great Americans, like General Petraeus, with their vitriolic sarcasm.
It’s obvious that Kervick as a hubristic member of the gang of General “Betraeus” is divinely apportioning from his Olympian abode his moral legless strictures upon great successful Americans who stand on, and leap with, strong legs. And it’s clear that Kervick with his intellectually and morally rickety feet cannot stand and ‘fight’ on the superb motto of Virgil, “Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito”. But what other could one expect from nipple-fed liberals?
The above emitted the following comments on The Washington Note
Posted by Dan Kervick, Mar 07 2010, 6:44AM – Link
“…defending liberal values and the democratic and entrepreneurial mores of Western societies from the mortal danger that rises from the barbaric atavism of fanatical Islam.”
Mortal danger … right. You might as well say that the English language faces a mortal danger from Portuguese. Your sense of proportion and connection with the real world are seriously impaired.
From my own seat here in America, I don’t see many fanatical Muslims about. What I do see is a danger to liberal values rising from the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified. My concern is not with David Petraeus, who is just doing a job the civilian government gave to him, but with the poisonous weakness of the cowardly right, who seem ready to hand over their most valuable possessions to soldiers like Petraeus, if the latter promise to protect the relatively insignificant hides of the former.
Posted by kotzabasis, Mar 07 2010, 5:23PM – Link
Kervick
The reason that you don’t see the great danger “to liberal values,” and indeed to civilization as we know it, issuing from the few “fanatical Muslims” that you see is due to your lack of imagination. This is an asymmetrical conflict or war in the context of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and nuclear ones and one doesn’t have to see a myriad of fanatical Muslims to perceive the mortal danger to these values.
And do you consider within this context, that the professionals of HUMINT(Human Intelligence), not amateurs and dilettantes like you, who warn that in the near future there is a high probability that these few fanatical Muslims will be armed with WMD and nuclear ones are disconnected from the “real world” and “are seriously impaired” by “the diseased fears of the neurotically terrified,” to quote you? Who in this case is “seriously impaired” in one’s sense of reality? And in your continued inveterate sickly sarcasm you degrade and make a vaudevillian mockery of this stupendous danger by turning it into a protection of the “hides” of the rich.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
What is the Message of Massachusset's Call?
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The Massachusetts result showed pellucidly that the American electorate-whites in large numbers-has turned into a shoal of piranhas threatening to tear the flesh of Obama and the Democrats. What it craves for is economic and political stability, the preservation of conservative values, not the ostensibly unstable progressive left-wing policies of a picaresque president. In this context, any implementation of progressive economic policies by the Obama administration will solely employ the gravediggers that will dig its grave.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The Massachusetts result showed pellucidly that the American electorate-whites in large numbers-has turned into a shoal of piranhas threatening to tear the flesh of Obama and the Democrats. What it craves for is economic and political stability, the preservation of conservative values, not the ostensibly unstable progressive left-wing policies of a picaresque president. In this context, any implementation of progressive economic policies by the Obama administration will solely employ the gravediggers that will dig its grave.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Liberals Favour Show Trial for Mastermind of 9/11
By Con George-Kotzabasis
“The administration has long” wrongly “argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.” Clemons of course would be loathe to admit that Obama’s administration might have realized its great mistake politically and strategically to prosecute Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and is ready now to be corrected for its stupendous error by “the dark side,” to quote Clemons, methods of former vice-president Cheney and chief of staff of the Bush administration David Addington, which politically and strategically were always on the correct side.
Liberals who tend to support a civilian prosecution for the mastermind of 9/11 are fugitives from reality and are impresarios of a burlesque show trial, since members of the administration like Press Secretary Gibbs and Attorney General Holder already publicly declared him to be guilty. And as Nadine hints to the critics of military tribunals, among who is Clemons himself, and who are in favour of a show trial for Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the way to hellishly bankrupt arguments is paved with good intentions.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
“The administration has long” wrongly “argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.” Clemons of course would be loathe to admit that Obama’s administration might have realized its great mistake politically and strategically to prosecute Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and is ready now to be corrected for its stupendous error by “the dark side,” to quote Clemons, methods of former vice-president Cheney and chief of staff of the Bush administration David Addington, which politically and strategically were always on the correct side.
Liberals who tend to support a civilian prosecution for the mastermind of 9/11 are fugitives from reality and are impresarios of a burlesque show trial, since members of the administration like Press Secretary Gibbs and Attorney General Holder already publicly declared him to be guilty. And as Nadine hints to the critics of military tribunals, among who is Clemons himself, and who are in favour of a show trial for Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the way to hellishly bankrupt arguments is paved with good intentions.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Political Frolics of American Liberals
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Maureen Dowd is merely an ‘avatar’ of many other top commentators such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, of The New York Times, etc. who claimed that President Bush told lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.
No lies “about Iraq’s involvement with Al-Qaeda.” Saddam was aware of the increasing influence and appeal of Al-Qaeda in the Arab world. It takes little imagination to see that for this political reason alone he had an interest as the most powerful leader of Arab Sunnis to have al-Qaeda on his side, and for the purpose of controlling it. That is why his Intelligence agents had contacts with representatives of bin-Laden from early on during the short domicile of the latter in Sudan and providing his jihadists with training in Iraq.
As for serious argument you shoot yourself on the foot. The Bush administration did not tell “lies about WMDs”. It presented partly its case for war to the American people on false intelligence information. And as you well know, all the other Intelligence Services of the West, including that of France and Germany, believed that Saddam had WMDs. So if Bush was telling lies, so were doing President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. To transform false information into lies as you do, and so many others from the Liberal intelligentsia continue to do, is to do so at the expense of one’s intellectual integrity.
And to compare “home accidents” with the ceaseless deliberate killing by the jihadists of innocent civilians, reveals how much out of your depth you are.
As for your support of the political frolicking of Spain under Prime Minister Zapatero as a serious way to fight global terror, shows your own credentials as political ‘frolicker’ par excellence.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Maureen Dowd is merely an ‘avatar’ of many other top commentators such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, of The New York Times, etc. who claimed that President Bush told lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.
No lies “about Iraq’s involvement with Al-Qaeda.” Saddam was aware of the increasing influence and appeal of Al-Qaeda in the Arab world. It takes little imagination to see that for this political reason alone he had an interest as the most powerful leader of Arab Sunnis to have al-Qaeda on his side, and for the purpose of controlling it. That is why his Intelligence agents had contacts with representatives of bin-Laden from early on during the short domicile of the latter in Sudan and providing his jihadists with training in Iraq.
As for serious argument you shoot yourself on the foot. The Bush administration did not tell “lies about WMDs”. It presented partly its case for war to the American people on false intelligence information. And as you well know, all the other Intelligence Services of the West, including that of France and Germany, believed that Saddam had WMDs. So if Bush was telling lies, so were doing President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. To transform false information into lies as you do, and so many others from the Liberal intelligentsia continue to do, is to do so at the expense of one’s intellectual integrity.
And to compare “home accidents” with the ceaseless deliberate killing by the jihadists of innocent civilians, reveals how much out of your depth you are.
As for your support of the political frolicking of Spain under Prime Minister Zapatero as a serious way to fight global terror, shows your own credentials as political ‘frolicker’ par excellence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)