Hey, Where's My Jorge?

Well, no doubt I am behind in postings. Let's just say that hiatus was taken, as well as some large game (Jorge is such a macho, deer hunting, meat eater).

Did I call it or what? (that "it" being the reaction from democrats) I just was overwhelmed by the response from them to the election results. I knew that there would be no attempt to reassess, or even any, ANY, attempts at self-inspection. No, instead there was the lowering of discourse by insulting those who disagree with them. Take Jane Smiley, famous seemingly only for her cute assessment of blue and red state dichotomy. For her, red state resistance to the centralization of the government is not traced back to the conservative movement of the mid-twentieth century-- oh, no. Somehow it goes back to violent pioneers in, er, Kansas. Oh, well. Can't blame her for trying.

No, the real lineage of red and blue states should probably go back to the French Revolution and the Terror that Robespierre created. See, the French were inspired by the American Revolution, but said, "Ahh, zey deed not go fahr enuff, no?" and proceeded to slaughter the nobility. Conservatives like Edmund Burke looked at the bloodletting and the empty phrases and drew conclusions that are still tenets of American conservativism.

In fact, our terms of "left" and "right" come from the French government, where the blood-thirsty elements, settled in among the progressives that spawned the revolution, sat to the left while the conservative or reactionary forces sat to the right (of the king? can't remember for sure--post me if you remember).

Those elements easily took to the taste of the boots of other elements, namely the fascist and socialist factions that gave us the twentieth century's holocausts, and found their way to American shores in the guise of "progressive" politics. Pardon the "Ann Coulter" impression, but that history, however fuzzy and simplistic, is far more realistic than Smiley's.

There's your real history, Janey. I suggest you put down the Cosmo and pick up a history book.

WHOOOOO-HOOOO!!!!

Don't know what else to add besides that. Very few people saw the election results coming, and sadly very few people will recognize the results for what they truly are: a watershed moment, a defining event, and the death knell of pseudo-progressive politics in America. Take a look around the web and you'll see the leftist blogs either quiet or full of spite. No recollection, no revision, and certainly no attempt at assessing the reality of the situation.

Instead, there's back and forth chatter about "evangelical Christians" (as if they have no right to vote on the fate of their country), or about "spreading fear" (that's my favorite-- who was it that said that Bush would start a draft? that Bush would create more terrorists? that Bush would 'disenfranchise' minority voters? That's right, the party that does not rely on fear to motivate voters). The list goes on, and trust me, I will be adding to it, documenting and destructing such nonsense. But for now, here's a cute little Photoshop expression of my glee.



Bush's election message

Swing on, Proud Apes.

From an American lecturer in England comes a couple of odd observations about being overseas. Actually, they are quite comforting in light of Bush not really passing that whole "global test" thing. First, of course, the author admits to becoming the target of the ususal "why are Americans such uncultured pigs?" type of questions, along with being barraged with statements of shock at America's supposed contempt for "multilateralism, class inequities, and violent street culture." Apparently, the Brits gather their knowledge of America from satellite feeds of MTV, local American news, and Carville on Crossifre.

But right along with the belief that we have dragged the world down by (zut alors!) fighting terrorists without any UN bureaucracy to clusterf**k things, stands that familiar specter of anti-semitism. The author writes:

"I have been shocked to discover that anti-American sentiment--clearly intensified by the Iraq war-- is often laced with the kind of subtle, dinner-party anti-Semitism that once pervaded Ivy League universities at home, and that hostility toward Israel, the United States, and Jews-- across space and time--often get jumbled into one general argument."

As Striding Lion has documented, this breed of anti-Semitism is here in American universities as well. But what is interesting to note here is the hatred of Jews coupled with an air of superiority, with their notion that America is a bunch of apes with cowboy hats swinging through Wal-Marts, oscillating between shooting and fornicating each other in their spare time. Now, this criticism and paranoia comes from what are supposed to be highly educated people.

So, according to the cultured, educated elite, what is America's real downfall? We are run by Jews, of course. The author of the above adds that "even in polite conversation one is apt to hear smart people speculating about the pervasive influence that Jews exercise over the American media and foreign-policy establishment."

That's culture and refinement? That's elegance, internationalism, cosmopolitanism?

"I say, chap, wos with all those Joowish fellows ruh'in the media? And how can you let that Bush bostud be a puppet to Israeli int'rests? Rather bad show there, rather bad show."

Keep in mind that the British newspaper The Guardian recently had a campaign to influence Ohio voters, to make sure that they vote for Kerry.

Let me restate that.

Keep in mind that anti-Semites in bowlers and bad teeth are trying to infuence the election tomorrow.

If they're the alternative, swing on my fellow apes, swing on. And see you at Wal-Mart.

jorge's pic 

Ron Silver, 9/12 Republican

Ron Silver's politics first caught my attention during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandals. He came across as a really truculent partisan, seemingly refusing to acknowledge anything but Republican perversion of decency. I would sneer if I saw him on tv, and avoid him if he was on the big screen. But after 9/11, he was one of the few on the loud left who would speak out in a non-partisan way on the necessity of stopping terorism with force, since terrorists only understand force.

Now, thankfully, he seems to have come out as a brand new "9/12 Republican." God bless him. I would like to say that the courage he shows is remarkable, that his speech at the Republican convention was inspiring, compelling, and revealing, and that finally, he has won my admiration and gratefulness through his actions and words. Not because he roots for my team now, but because he recognizes the serious crisis of terrorism, and the futility of pursuing the defeat of terrorism through pre 9/11 methods and sentiments. If after the terrorists are defeated and he reverts to his former party, I will still appreciate him, though his recent comments on the left's hypocrisy when it comes to actual human rights lead me to believe that any "return" is unlikely. Like Christopher Hitchens, he sees neo-conservativism as the best chance for human rights in our world today. I agree. Rape-rooms are rape-rooms, terrorists are terrorists, and it shouldn't matter who leads the troops to liberate others.

Apparently, Hollywood, in its oh-so tolerant and open-minded ways, has turned its back on Silver, and he hasn't worked in many months. I completely sympathize with him, and as I have noted in the first post, I am in the same situation, though I refuse to "come out" to my colleagues. Am I gutless? Perhaps, but a conservative who is starving and unemployed is not as useful as one who is entrenched behind the lines, reclaiming territory bit by bit.

At least that's what I tell myself . . .

I say the next time you see Ron Silver in anything, support him, be it a lame Julia Roberts movie or even a toothpaste commercial. Mel Gibson showed the "profit" of proclaiming unfashionable beliefs, so why not show Silver the same?

Why don't you hear these points being made?

Funny how the Democrats and the left as a whole feel about war. They oppose war at every turn, obviously, but one of the "reasons" to be against the war in Iraq is that the Bushies did not "plan" and "conduct" the war correctly, and the evidence is the number of mistakes, skirmishes, terrorist attacks, etc. Also, there's no "exit strategy."

The problem is twofold. First, there's no such thing as an "exit strategy," and any military planner who conducts any action without an eye for contingencies and corrections, which will of course lead him off of any "exit strategy," should not be in charge of anything. The phrase was created to criticize any military actions, and no military man would ever use it. Second, if the Democrats could conduct such "perfect" wars, why don't they? I mean, if we could conduct perfected military actions against tyrants all over the world, why don't they push for that then? Wouldn't that be the moral thing to do? The answer lies in the fact that an ethereal "better way" is asserted to exist, and the current administration has to basically argue against "specters" and "phantasms."

The second "point" that should be made came to me while dining with some leftist idiots (just nod and keep drinking, and you'll get through it alright). Michael Moore's movie came up, and inevitably shock and horror came up when someone mentioned that they have relatives who refuse to see it based on its lies and deceptions. "How can they say that without seeing the movie?" was stated, as it always is, even by Jabba the Michael Moore himself. Just see it and all the lies will suddenly become powerful truths, if not in fact at least in emotional outlook.

How they hell is that a defense of lies? The next time you hear people defend the movie on this basis, ask them if they have read Hitler's Mein Kampf. If they haven't, and most likely they haven't, ask them how they can possibly be against Hitler's ideas about world domination and eliminating the Jews if they haven't gone through the trouble of reading the book. Or, ask how they can be against child molestation without having read NAMBLA pamphlets. Quite simply, I can dispense with absurd lies if they are abusrd lies. Morality really doesn't need a taste test, so no further point need be made.

Blurring the lines between political bias, paranoia, and stupidity

I'm not even sure what to say about Walter Cronkite's statements about the bin Laden tape. He said that Karl Rove "probably set up bin Laden to this thing." Not that Rove released the tape, or that Rove orchestrated Al-Jazeera to release the tape, but that Rove called bin Laden and got him to send out a tape this weekend. He's a busy man, that Karl Rove. He's accused of everything from sign stealing to forging flyers and attributing them to Democrats, but this is the first I have heard of Rove contacting terrorists to booster votes for Bush.

Try to step into that mindset briefly. That would mean that Rove and the terrorists are in league, that their actions somehow benefit Rove and the boys, or that Rove and the boys benefit terrorists. Jeez, even Michael Moore would shrink away from that statement, I'd bet. Now, I'd expect Cronkite to have his preference for Kerry, but come on. He said the above statement with a straight, solemn face. No pause for a rimshot, no wink at the camera, and no smell of irony in the air.

See, the same mindset which says that Rove contacted bin Laden is the same mindset that refuses to acknowledge any connection between Hussein and any, any, any terrorists. This same mindset which says that Bush created the Iraqi war to help Halliburton, refuses to acknowledge anything fishy about Dan Rather throwing out forged documents as legitimate news. I could go on, mind you, but you get the point. Walter and the rest simply live in a bizarre, alternative universe, refusing to observe reality beyond its fermentation of their paranoia, and the further they get into power, the more dangerous they become.

Breaking: Molly Ivins reveals that Bush was never anointed by the Lord

This is sad. First, Ivins asserts that "without fear of contradiction, I can say that George W. Bush has turned out to be a divider, not a uniter, for the past four years." This, folks, is the excuse of an abusive spouse. "Damn, girl, you get me so angry sometimes, I just lose control. You make me want to hit you." To which, the beaten woman is supposed to say, "I'm sorry, baby. Will you forgive me?" Bush didn't force people to compare him to Hitler, and he didn't force Jabba the Michael Moore to create lies out of whole cloth and put them on film.

But wait. This one's even better. Apparently, Bush mentions God, causing paroxysms among the left. Ivins points to an earlier speech to the Amish, where Bush said "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." Now, that's different from Ivins' statement that Bush "claimed that God speaks through him" earlier this year. He actually admits that he "trusts" that God is speaking through his actions, meaning that this man of faith admits not to knowledge, but to hope, that he is doing the right things. Humility. Ivins, however, says that she has known Bush since high school, and she is sure that Bush is not anointed by God. She says "I've yet to see the first sign of it." Arrogance.

Get it? You're not anointed until Ivins gives the green light, until she sees the signs that, as an avenue of prophecy herself, she will interpret to reveal God's presence.

Now That Bill O'Reilly Has Settled That Lawsuit . . .

I'm wondering. Now that Bill O'Reilly has settled his lawsuit for sexual harassment, will Al Franken go out and get a lawsuit of his own in yet another sad attempt at parody? Not a stupid question given that Franken has been rather unoriginal in his recent titles. There seems to this envy at the heart of his hatred for conservatives, so I am wondering if he will go out and fondle a woman just to get a lawsuit like O'Reilly. And once again, it will fall flat like his other parodies.

LET'S BEGIN, SHALL WE?

And why not with the obvious question: who is Jorge? Well, he's my 'nom de plume,' a singular name I created, used to throw out jeremiads, mockeries, and overall harassment wherever it is needed or warranted. I've used it for a while now, but now it's high time that Jorge went high tech. Why the subterfuge? Well, that answer leads into the next issue: what is a fifth column conservative?

A fifth column conservative . . . well, the definition of a "fifth column" is "secret sympathisers and supporters of the enemy, engaged in espionage, sabotage, and other subversive activities within defense lines." Being a conservative, you can guess just where Jorge's at-- right where he shouldn't be. Academia to be exact. I am an overeducated professor in the humanities, but I am a conservative. Unrepentantly so, before I ever became a professor. If academia, especially the humanities, is so hostile to conservatives, why am I there?

Quite frankly, I am not going to let those other sunsabitches win. I will keep my head down so I can research and teach the discipline that has given my life so much meaning, but I have a hard time restraining myself from popping up now and then, and popping off. But I don't want the inevitable repurcussions-- ergo Jorge sum. The pseudonym has got nothing to do with failing to stand up for the courage of my convictions, mind you. I have other, more devilish reasons for Jorge.

First, there's the march through the institutions, per Gramsci's writings, whereby those who were communists or sympathisers infiltrated the ranks of power and culture, through government, journalism, the artworld, universities, etc. Well, let's just say those leftists and progressives left their playbook out in the open. Or better yet, consider me Jon Gruden in the 2003 Superbowl who, because he had been with the other team, the Raiders, for so long, he knew all of their plays and strategies, assuring his Bucs victory. (Yeah, I know, not a very powerful metaphor given their current season-- but hey, how about those Red Sox? Maybe Curt Schilling will join my little movement now that RS managment stymied his stumping for Bush).

Second, I know I am not alone, either as a conservative in enemy territory, or as one who would invite retribution if he were to "come out" ideologically. So, Jorge is here to spout off, to hear from other conservatives in enemy land (as well as from the enemy, be they brave enough), and to convert others to my cause. The only way to get that enemy territory back is to go into the territory and take it.

Who's with me?