RIP Diana: Symbol of Western Decadence & Decline

If she were Catholic, she would have been (at least) beatified by now: a symbol of “goodness”; “tolerance”; “caring”; the ultimate in multi-cultural openness ..blah ..blah ...blah..

In fact, she is a symbol for (the epitomy of)

1. The triumph of mediocre celebrity; before Paris Hilton, there was (and is) Diana.
2. The triumph of facile righteousness: “right thinking” and “right action” at no personal cost; achieving easy “moral” victories that require no real personal sacrifice. She was the prime example of the current Euro-American intellectual fashion that holding and promoting a politically correct idea is an end in itself and that actually examining the truth and consequences of a particular idea is not required, as long as that idea is “sincerely” held and fits the currently accepted view by the “progressive” social set.
3. “Multiculturalism Gone Wild”: Her penchant for pursuing, and giving herself to, Muslim men became the final hall mark of her presence on this earth. Whether she actually “loved” any of these slimy men or she did it mostly to shock and embarrass her former husband’s family (much as white girls who openly went with Black men did in the old American social order, when THAT had shock value) is really immaterial. The fact that she would so debase herself and her position (the mother of the future “Defender of the Faith”) made her a hero to the advocates of the “multicultural enterprise” (as it is sometimes grand-eloquently called). In fact she is now the patron saint of all English shop-girls whoever aspired to catch a rich Arab for fun and profit. Sadly, conspiracy theories about her death that posit the idea of an “honor-killing” by the British establishment are really farfetched because the sense of honor that would be required to carry them out has been lost in the debased Britain that she so eloquently symbolizes.

Burying the lede

As always, the NYT, in its relentless commitment to "diversity", buries important stories relating to the negative consequences of having an extensive Muslim presence in America . Two articles: "New York City Police Report Explores Homegrown Terrorism" (buried: page B3) and "Muslim Groups Oppose a List of ‘Co-Conspirators’ " (buried: page A19) get the standard Times (and most other Liberal media) treatment. One wonders why these articles which, respectively, represent an official NYC police study and US Justice Department action, and both point out (implicitly if not explicitly) the dangers posed to America by having unintegratable Muslims running around freely in this country, with the usual "rights" assertions, don't get more play in the media.

The 1st article is about an NYPD study about how Muslim immigrants can and do get "radicalized" in America (the usual BS about alienation ...blah ...blah). Not discussed, of course is why it is only Muslim immigrants who get radicalized and not immigrants from a myriad other backgrounds do not succumb by the same logic. Of course, the "game-changer" here is Islam itself: It is a doctrine of fanaticism and violence. Nothing more ... nothing less.

The 2nd article is about the US Government naming a slew of Muslim "charities" as "un-indicted co-conspirators" in a Texas terrorism trial. As expected, the usual suspects in the "civil liberties" industry and, of course, the Muslim groups themselves are howling about how this "could ratchet up the discrimination faced by American Muslims" and stigmatization of Muslims (can someone who is guilty really be stigmatized?) Again, any counterarguments are not presented (they "didn't do it", etc. etc.?), probably because they can't be. So it is all the usual obfuscation about discrimination; "diversity" of views; whatever. Again, no discussion of why no other ethnic groups have these "issues" with their charities.

Seems to be a pattern there, right?

Tancredo For President

According to the Times, "During a debate in Iowa on Sunday and in other recent campaign appearances, Mr. Tancredo said that the United States should reserve the right to bomb Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, in retaliation for a major terrorist attack on American soil."

Hooray for Mr. T. Along with his stellar position on immigration, his approach to the Muslim barbarians clinches my vote for him.

Unfortunately, his non-PC positions means he will have no chance to be nominated and, just as sad, people who can't vote in Republican primaries will never have a chance to register their support for him.

Naturally, all in the political establishment were "shocked" by his forthright positions ; a State Department spokesman called his statement “absolutely crazy.” He is the only sane one who understands the mentality of Muslims: They only respect force and brutality that is equal to their own.

Too bad.

But TANCREDO IS RIGHT and all the others are cowards and fools.