Dreadnought Manifest
Below is my first attempt at a post containing words. It was written a while ago but it sets out my basic views. It will serve by way of introduction.
Dated: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:32:51 +1000
"Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." – George Marshall, 1945
I am perturbed. On the one hand I am disappointed with Bush. I am angry that his handling of post-war Iraq has been so terrible. And perhaps here it is not even the military/nation-building handling, all the information I receive indicates the on-ground stuff is going much, much better than the media lets on (it is expensive to keep reporters in Baghdad and even more so to have them in the Sunni Triangle, so any news becomes bad news to sell papers and justify costs), but rather what might be called the PR side of things. This mighty, sweeping thing has been couched in the most mundane language, often even a semi-silence. Bush should be making speeches like Reagan. We are, let us make no mistake, involved in empire-building here, at least in the sense that we are deliberately altering the social/political fabric of an entire region to suit our own (and hopefully their) purposes. New colonialism indeed, with no Yankee who wants to live in Qatar...
On the other, he is doing well in terms of my conservative values. On the family, faith-based initiatives and God generally, Bush is awesome. Particularly important to me, as a Catholic, is Bush's anti-abortion position. It might be visceral, and I am certain the Greeks would have me beat it out of myself (or perhaps drink it down) but whenever I entertain a Kerry Administration I see Whoopi Goldberg marching down some urban street holding a coat-hanger aloft (she murdered her unborn child in Central Park with a similar hanger before she became famous).
Conversely, Kerry has the gravitas that Bush lacks. He has that x-factor that would go some way to restoring America's prestige. Is it enough to vote for a man because he looks like a President?
But then there is this http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto and so many other such sites. Kerry is the anti-war candidate par excellence, but by some strange, Nixon-esque twist he is trying to label himself a 'war-hero'. Indeed, he out army'ed Wes Clark during the primaries while managing to unseat Dean and his ranters at the same time. Something in this smacks of Clinton: looks extraordinary on paper, but his record and his personal weakness blight the man. We are sick of the tragic Presidency; it is time once more for the simpler narrative of the farm and wheel.
Which takes me back to Bush. If I were to vote, I think I would have to vote for W. My support is not as whole-hearted as it was when he faced Al Bore. There was something urgent about it all back then, urgent and fun. Now it is deadly serious. Only Bush can fight the good fight overseas, even when the UNSC votes it down (as it will continue to do until it goes the way of the League). Only Bush can protect the silent Innocents. But so too can Bush uniquely raise the ire of the world.
Ironically, the hatred of Bush mirrors the Patriots' hatred for GRIII during American independence. It is non-specific, he has not really created that much of an outrage, it seems to be a conglomeration of mis-trust and ill-favour. So too, amongst the Moore-watchers. Most of the film must be nonsense, it is apparently (I cannot bring myself to go, even with free tix, it bores me) even sloppier with the facts than 'Columbine', and I am certain it will rank eventually with propaganda films made during Hitler's ascendancy as an example of pure political hatred channelled into mediocre film-making.
But the mood of a large number of people is so fixed. One sees them at parties. There are entire inner-city suburbs stuffed with them. They are the rapidly aging baby-boomers and their slavish children, those most radicalized of cohorts who have become the main bulwark of resentment (yes, it is an inherently adolescent attitude, from Moore's whining to the pseudo-intellectual undergrad elitism of the set) against the anti-terror peace project. In a stunning reversal the Republicans, the Liberals, even Blair's internationalist/centrist Labor party are the new radicals and the dying Left has atrophied and thrown up an incredibly conservative final generation.
This is witnessed by the fact that leftist parties all over the globe are characterised by what they oppose, whether it be globalisation, trade, new policies on border protection, nation-building, reform of the UN, on and on. The pinnacle of this movement is the vanguard that supports 'Gay Marriage'. If one needed an idea that best encapsulated the absurdity and sudden conservativism of the dying Left, it is this one. Forcing my pierced, muscled, free gay brothers into grey cardigans and wedding bands and shipping them off to the suburbs is as terrible as it is sad.
Dated: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:32:51 +1000
"Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." – George Marshall, 1945
I am perturbed. On the one hand I am disappointed with Bush. I am angry that his handling of post-war Iraq has been so terrible. And perhaps here it is not even the military/nation-building handling, all the information I receive indicates the on-ground stuff is going much, much better than the media lets on (it is expensive to keep reporters in Baghdad and even more so to have them in the Sunni Triangle, so any news becomes bad news to sell papers and justify costs), but rather what might be called the PR side of things. This mighty, sweeping thing has been couched in the most mundane language, often even a semi-silence. Bush should be making speeches like Reagan. We are, let us make no mistake, involved in empire-building here, at least in the sense that we are deliberately altering the social/political fabric of an entire region to suit our own (and hopefully their) purposes. New colonialism indeed, with no Yankee who wants to live in Qatar...
On the other, he is doing well in terms of my conservative values. On the family, faith-based initiatives and God generally, Bush is awesome. Particularly important to me, as a Catholic, is Bush's anti-abortion position. It might be visceral, and I am certain the Greeks would have me beat it out of myself (or perhaps drink it down) but whenever I entertain a Kerry Administration I see Whoopi Goldberg marching down some urban street holding a coat-hanger aloft (she murdered her unborn child in Central Park with a similar hanger before she became famous).
Conversely, Kerry has the gravitas that Bush lacks. He has that x-factor that would go some way to restoring America's prestige. Is it enough to vote for a man because he looks like a President?
But then there is this http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto and so many other such sites. Kerry is the anti-war candidate par excellence, but by some strange, Nixon-esque twist he is trying to label himself a 'war-hero'. Indeed, he out army'ed Wes Clark during the primaries while managing to unseat Dean and his ranters at the same time. Something in this smacks of Clinton: looks extraordinary on paper, but his record and his personal weakness blight the man. We are sick of the tragic Presidency; it is time once more for the simpler narrative of the farm and wheel.
Which takes me back to Bush. If I were to vote, I think I would have to vote for W. My support is not as whole-hearted as it was when he faced Al Bore. There was something urgent about it all back then, urgent and fun. Now it is deadly serious. Only Bush can fight the good fight overseas, even when the UNSC votes it down (as it will continue to do until it goes the way of the League). Only Bush can protect the silent Innocents. But so too can Bush uniquely raise the ire of the world.
Ironically, the hatred of Bush mirrors the Patriots' hatred for GRIII during American independence. It is non-specific, he has not really created that much of an outrage, it seems to be a conglomeration of mis-trust and ill-favour. So too, amongst the Moore-watchers. Most of the film must be nonsense, it is apparently (I cannot bring myself to go, even with free tix, it bores me) even sloppier with the facts than 'Columbine', and I am certain it will rank eventually with propaganda films made during Hitler's ascendancy as an example of pure political hatred channelled into mediocre film-making.
But the mood of a large number of people is so fixed. One sees them at parties. There are entire inner-city suburbs stuffed with them. They are the rapidly aging baby-boomers and their slavish children, those most radicalized of cohorts who have become the main bulwark of resentment (yes, it is an inherently adolescent attitude, from Moore's whining to the pseudo-intellectual undergrad elitism of the set) against the anti-terror peace project. In a stunning reversal the Republicans, the Liberals, even Blair's internationalist/centrist Labor party are the new radicals and the dying Left has atrophied and thrown up an incredibly conservative final generation.
This is witnessed by the fact that leftist parties all over the globe are characterised by what they oppose, whether it be globalisation, trade, new policies on border protection, nation-building, reform of the UN, on and on. The pinnacle of this movement is the vanguard that supports 'Gay Marriage'. If one needed an idea that best encapsulated the absurdity and sudden conservativism of the dying Left, it is this one. Forcing my pierced, muscled, free gay brothers into grey cardigans and wedding bands and shipping them off to the suburbs is as terrible as it is sad.
by DREADNOUGHT at 2:20:00 AM
<< Home