1,043 words
With any big news story, there are three kinds of people in the audience: fools, cranks, and skeptics. Fools believe the establishment line as soon as they hear it, without needing concrete reasons. Cranks doubt the establishment line as soon as they hear it, without needing concrete reasons (then they often tell lies to persuade others to doubt it too). Skeptics realize that both the establishment and the cranks are highly motivated and unscrupulous liars, so nothing they say can be taken at face value. Therefore, the skeptic tries to make up his mind based on known facts and knowledge of human psychology.
The trouble with democracy, of course, is that ultimately only the fool vote matters.
I am a skeptic, and I am reasonably convinced that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Bin Laden is dead, because the Obama administration would not have faked his death if they knew that he was alive somewhere and could make fools of them simply by releasing a video of him holding the latest issue of the New York Times. So we know that at some time in the recent past, the Obama administration received solid evidence that Osama Bin Laden is dead. The only question is: when? Was it May 1, or some time before then? Bin Laden could have died any time during the near decade that has elapsed since the 9/11 attacks, and his death has been reported many times.
The quick disposal at sea of a body we are told was Bin Laden’s means that we will never know for sure who was killed in that house in Abbottabad. The release of pictures might convince some. But since pictures can be faked, it would convince only those already inclined to be fools. It will never convince rational skeptics. (And there is no point in even trying to convince the cranks.) This should come as no surprise to Obama, given the reaction to the recent release of a scan of his purported birth certificate.
Well, if Bin Laden was not killed in Abbotabad, who was? I don’t know. It could be virtually anyone. Time may tell, and the truth may be acutely embarrassing to the United States. The home could have been occupied by Bin Laden family members, Al Qaeda operatives, or just an unfortunate family, one of many such families to become collateral damage in the “war on terror.” (Now that the tongue-tied George W. Bush is not in the White House, can we have the last syllable of “terrorism” back?)
If the home was not Bin Laden’s, the most likely explanation is that the residents were at least connected to him or to Al Qaeda. It would be very unlikely that the US would have launched a fake assault on the home of just anybody, and if they were choosing just anybody, they would have chosen a house in a remote area in Afghanistan, not near the heart of Pakistan’s military and governmental elite.
The best evidence regarding the identity of the main victim of the Abbottabad raid will come from the people in the house who survived. They are now in the custody of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Others may be in US custody. Eventually, their stories will come out.
I am inclined to believe that Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, and that the subsequent handling of his death — including the constantly shifting story — can best be explained by stupidity, incompetence, weakness, and arrogance.
If the Obama administration knew that Bin Laden was dead and launched a fake assassination, what would be their motivation? It is folly to speculate, given how feckless and chaotic this administration’s foreign policy has been.
Would it be an attempt to get an ephemeral bump in the polls? The risks seem too high and the rewards seem too low. The timing is off as well. If the whole thing was fake, they could have chosen the time and place. The place would not have been Abbottabad, and the time would be October of 2012.
Would it be an attempt to “declare victory and go home” from Afghanistan and Iraq? That seems unlikely, given that the predictable result of the Abbottabad raid will be an increase in conflict between the US and the Muslim world.
Would it then be precisely an attempt to stir up more conflict? But isn’t the administration doing enough of that already?
We don’t know how or when Osama Bin Laden died. But we do know that enough people in the Muslim world now believe him to be dead that he has been transformed from a legend to a martyr. The predictable result of this will be increased hatred of the United States in the Muslim world, the formation of new terrorist organizations, and increased recruitment for existing groups.
Al Qaeda has been quite inactive in recent years (which is consistent with an organization whose titular head was long dead or alive but in retirement). But Barack Obama has now breathed new life into Al Qaeda. All this will lead to the death of more innocent people around the world, which will lead to a cycle of retaliation, which will deepen America’s involvement in fighting Muslims. Thus the idea that the events in Abbottabad will hasten our exit from Afghanistan and Iraq is naive.
Savages mutilate and destroy the corpses of their enemies. Degenerate and cowardly savages then concoct after-the-fact rationalizations for this behavior. The reason for dumping Bin Laden’s supposed corpse in the ocean is the same reason that Adolf Hitler’s remains were scattered to the four winds: the burial places of famous men become shrines and pilgrimage sites.
But of course, such measures are futile. The material elements of a body can be scattered but not destroyed. To the Hitlerist, the absence of an identifiable body and grave simply means that the whole world is now the shrine and resting place of Adolf Hitler. Now, in time, as nature works her way, the whole world will become the shrine and resting place of Osama Bin Laden too. The destruction of their bodies, moreover, merely means that their followers must strive for a more inward and spiritual form of devotion. But in the end, it is the spirit that rules this world anyway.
35 Comments
Good observations. I like the occasional foray into currents events here on CC to hear what you and CCs many quality contributors have to say about them.
I have a question: do you accept the 9/11 official story? Do you think Muslims were responsible for 9/11?
Technically, you have two distinct questions. My answers are No, not entirely, and Yes, but not entirely. I believe that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes, crashing one of them into the Pentagon and two others into the towers of the World Trade Center. I believe that the government of Israel and perhaps elements in the US government had prior knowledge of the plot and allowed it to unfold to provide a new “Pearl Harbor” to mobilize the US into wars on Israel’s behalf.
You’re pretty funny with which comments you let through and which you don’t. You’re a moral and intellectual coward and you know it. Can’t have me around punching holes in all your dumb ideas, can you?
You’re a lot like Hunter Wallace: a petty narcissist and mediocrity who managed to get a surprising number of talented people to write for your blog. I doubt it will last.
Have fun chasing all the smart people away from your site and letting the comment threads fill up with the ramblings of fuckwits like Fourmyle of Ceres and Chechar. I guess they’ll make you look good by comparison.
Whoops, you let me other comment through too. It didn’t show up at first. Well, sorry about that. I’m still a little sore about a rather long comment I spent several hours on in the Covington debate that you decided to delete.
Correction. This will be your last comment here.
This will be your last comment here. Go hump someone else’s leg.
@ “…the ramblings of fuckwits like Fourmyle of Ceres and Chechar.”
Thanks for proving my point. Just like the true believers who cling religiously to interpretations of the 1947 Roswell UFO incident as being a massive, governmental cover up for an actual extraterrestrial visitation—a cover up involving several republican and democratic presidencies, from Truman to Obama!—9/11 truthers resort to insult when confronted. Obviously, what we are dealing with is a childish faith, not cold reason. Too bad that white nationalism is plagued with this disease.
If meta-politics is paramount at this stage of the struggle, I’d venture to say that we badly need lots of Bugliosis and books like Reclaiming History, but this time about 9/11, in our (still embryonic) movement…
The Onion ran a piece that cracked me up, because it described something that I did years ago. The story was about an open-minded guy who realized how many years of his life he has wasted putting up with other people’s bullshit. Life is too short, and the cause is too important, to suffer kooks.
You wrote:
Please.
Rockwell and Oliver would be here.
We’ve chosen effectiveness over impotence, the Northwest Republic over Charlie Brown, and creating a new nation versus playing “Lucy’s Rules Football.”
Most self-identified WNists live in hamster wheels, never asking, “If I get what I want, THEN WHAT?”
“Hugh,” of VNN/F’s “A Better World” thread, and Harold Covington, show us how to be better, and THEN, WHAT to do.
That’s a start – off the hamster wheels, and in the best direction.
This Time, The World
Focus Northwest
As some of you know, like Tanstaafl I came to the racialist camp from the counter-jihad movement. But before I entered counter-jihad I subscribed the Skeptical Inquirer magazine; read lots of books published by Prometheus, and learnt how to think critically about crank claims.
In my previous comment at another C-C thread I implied that Occidental Dissent was not a very sane site. But now that in recent Majority Rights and Occidental Observer threads 9/11 truthers seem to outnumber the skeptics, I find it rather comical that at least OD has not succumbed to this nonsense.
But this is not the place to explain why some psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism; and that the development of conspiracy theories (CTs) violate both Occam’s razor and falsifiability. Suffice it to say that the conspiracy paranoia I see among those nationalists who are also 9/11 truthers is analogous to the denial of the genocide perpetrated in 1942-45 (I’d never use the word “holocaust” because I tend to avoid newspeak terms). It is also analogous to other CTs such as the assassination of JFK (Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History is must reading here), the “staged” Apollo Moon Landings, or the sightings of Elvis Presley—a CT suggesting that (like some CTs on bin Laden) he is still alive.
Yes: Western elites lie to us 24 hrs/day. There’s no question about that. However, instead of denying the genocide of Jews I prefer to point out how Stalin’s Jews murdered more civilians than Himmler. Similarly, instead of blaming Mossad for 9/11 I would criticize the US government, both Bush’s and Obama’s, for its deranged Islamophilia.
Behold a comment I pulled from a blogsite that is not explicitly racial but that conveys what do I think of the current media affaire:
Not accepting the establishment line by default does not make you a “crank”. In fact, not rejecting the establishment line by default on all issues relating to the “War on Terror” (on which the establishment has provably lied again and again and again) basically makes you a total sucker.
There are a lot of things that make cranks cranks, and one of them is always already knowing in advance that certain people are lying. That is different from skepticism. The skeptic thinks that the claims of proven liars should be examined critically, but they cannot be rejected in advance without looking at the claims themselves and weighing their evidence and plausibility. There are cranks, there are fools, and then there are rational people: and rational people are skeptics when it comes to the claims of the existing regime.
I must side with the ones you call cranks. Not because they’re usually or even occasionally right. But because knowing the details isn’t the important thing. The important thing is that there be more “cranks” every time the government makes a claim. It’s the government’s credibility that ought to be in the cross hairs at every opportunity. Once the cranks reach a sufficient number all remaining credibility will pop like a mortgage balloon. And I’m not referring only to this specific type of claim. At a point everything uttered by somebody connected with the government, including the media, will be laughed at and derided. I see it building, don’t you?
Whether Obama killed Osama or Osama killed Obama….. the comic strip.
Your position basically amounts to “burn baby, burn!,” and I have to say that I share such feelings from time to time. Yes, I want to see the system fall. But ultimately, I want to create something better, and you can’t create anything positive with cranks: bitter, irrational, mendacious, cynical, self-absorbed kooks. Yes, complete cynicism rots the system. But it rots everything else too, including any movement that would replace it. That is why I shun people if I get one whiff of crankiness. The biggest mistakes I have made in my time in this movement is being willing to overlook crank warning signs. Never again.
I agree, but you’ve got to choose your battles. If you get caught being wrong over and over again about the government in the cases where it doesn’t happen to be lying, you’ve destroyed your own credibility rather than theirs. You forfeit the capacity to credibly challenge their credibility.
Greg, I think this is the most balanced piece I’ve read on the recent bin Laden affair that I’ve read anywhere and it also comes the closest to reflecting my own view of it. Like you said, both uncritical acceptance of the facts as they are presented and the need to see conspiracies in everything regardless of the circumstances result in stupidity, one way or another. I suppose that, like you, I tend toward the facts as presented simply because the idea of this being a part of some vast conspiracy seems untenable to me. I also agree that I see a possibility that Israeli/U.S. intelligence knew about 9/11 but let it happen, but in order to believe that the entire attack was managed by the government requires that one attribute to them virtually supernatural (and infallible) powers. Similarly, there seems no particular benefit for the U.S. to stage bin Laden’s death at this particular moment. Most people stopped caring about him long ago and whatever popularity boost Obama gets from this will be long dissipated by the time of the next election.
I suppose this is all rather irrelevant anyway. Al Qaeda’s attempt at sparking a revolution never really got off the ground except among a handful of similarly-minded radicals around the world, and in recent years they had practically vanished into obscurity apart from the occasional failed attack carried out by one of their subsidiary franchises. The future of the Middle East will be determined by the new, populist uprisings taking place there, and it would seem that the outcome will be neither a new US puppet regime or an Islamist super-state. Of the rise of a Taliban-esque “New Caliphate” such as bin Laden believed in there has been no sign.
Thanks, John. I cut out a few lines about how inactive Al Qaeda has been in recent years, because it was more an impression than anything based on hard data. But I have been doing some reading, and it seems to be correct. When a hornet’s nest goes quiet, I guess that is the time to kick it to see what happens. Yes, I am sure that’s how they do things in Kenya.
I believe the worst thing White people can do is not to stick together. The success of the jews comes mainly because they stick together as a group. I don’t think we can afford to be too picky right now.
May I ask why you printed I’s comment just so you could publicly get the last word and reject him and shut him out? You have the power to post or not post any comment. You certainly don’t have to prove that to anyone. You defeated him but you did it by shutting him out which is a hollow, empty victory.
A lot of the comments at TOO and here seem lame to me. But I understand where people are coming from because the idea is to engage with other like-minded people and take part in discussions and feel like your doing something even if its a lame comment like “I agree with this article, great content, thank you for that”.
Not posting comments that you believe are “bullshit” is one thing. But posting those bullshit comments and then responding in kind to someone who has verbally abused you seems like bullshit to me.
Lots of commentators attack and abuse others which is unfortunate but people feel passionately about issues and get frustrated and unable to express themselves any other way so they let loose with personal attacks and abuse. I think people who read the internet forums are used to this.
It something else again when someone of Greg Johnson’s stature engages in such behavior. Its unnerving somehow.
I’ve noticed a lot of mean spirited comments about who is welcome in the northwest and which White people are not good enough and will not be allowed in the homeland there and that kind of thing and its disgusting.
At some point you start to think, who the heck would want to live among you jerks anyway.
If you are so superior then why did you let the jews take our country in the first place. The blame certainly cannot be laid at the feet of the bullshiters. We are simply forced to live with the failures of our elites.
Those who read sites like this one are people who will not tolerate jews acting like our masters. Do you think we’ll put up with Whites who abuse us and behave as though we’re not free to express our own opinions but must march in lockstep with whatever YOU say?
My ideas and thoughts might be lame but I will express them if and when I please and I will respect the rights of others to do the same. I will tolerate the bullshiters and I hope to be tolerated.
Nobody sets out to talk bullshit. We are doing the best we can and since you have encountered so many bullshiters in your lifetime we may be all you’ve got. No doubt non bullshiters do not have to put up with your superior, abusive attitude.
Dr Phil says you get back what you put out there. If you show respect for others they will respect you in return.
My local newspaper, the Knoxville News Sentinel, has a Muslim columnist and a Mexican columnist. They are free to urge Americans to let more of their kind into my country but the paper has blocked me from posting online and will not publish my letters to the editor opposing more immigrants or making negative comments about jews.
I wrote Jack McElroy, the editor, and told him that he has a press. I don’t. Its very frustrating when others have the means to express their opinions but I don’t.
We are all sensitive to the power and control jews have over us that results from their control of all major media.
Because of that I’d think that we could show more tolerance for free speech.
I disagree. Free speech on these message boards and discussion threads is just an invitation for alien trolls and indigenous kooks to take over, creating a repugnant, madhouse atmosphere that drives away intelligent, thoughtful, and rational readers, who are the only people we are trying to reach anyway. My political philosophy is basically “libertarianism now [demanding as much freedom as possible from our current masters], fascism later.” Here, it is fascism now.
I posted that jerk’s abusive ranting as an example of what does not fly around here. Sorry if it does not seem high-minded enough for you. But I am through with high-mindedness, open-mindedness, and indeed any other moral or mental posture that detracts from single-mindedness in the pursuit of what is right.
I disagree. I’m glad Greg published that comment. I was under the impression “I” was worth reading until he called Greg a coward and mediocrity. “I” is obviously a damn fool and exposed himself as such, and now I and probably others know not to waste time reading his comments anywhere in the WNist blogosphere.
Also, if the comments here strike you as lame, perhaps you should stop by more often and show us your work and what non-lame comments look like.
Barbara said:
In reply:
Dr. Fool is wrong; you don’t, and they won’t.
Another board had numerous great posters. They were driven away from WN/2 – “White Nationalism, Western Nationalism” – by the low ratio of signal to noise in the poster’s comments.
The issue is quality, not quantity. Great Men light the Path with the Right Answer. Lesser men fear this Light, and his One Question: “And then what?”
This Time, The World
Focus Northwest
Obama should forever bear the epithet, “The butcher of Abbotabad.”
Well obviously the elites lie big, and they lie small, and they lie often. The lie by commission, they lie by omission, and they mix lies with truth. And sometimes they probably just tell the whole truth when it’s in their interest to do so. Compounding the problem is the fact that the US elites and the global elites are far from monolithic. Within these elite oligarchies, there are many factions and subfactions with overlapping and interlocking interests but not always perfectly aligned interests. Often they share goals in common, but sometimes they dont’t. Thus, depending on the situation, each subset of elites might spread lies, disinformation or truth depending on their specific agenda.
For example, Pakistani intelligence claims OBLs daughter saw her unarmed father executed in cold blood in front of his family. The US government claims this didn’t happen, although they have changed the story so many times who knows. The US government has a new story out today claiming the SEALs thought OBL was reaching for a gun (a claim that strikes me as laughable). So who’s lying? It’s impossible to know. I don’t regard Pakistani intelligence as any more credible or trustworthy than the US government.
So Greg is exactly right. The best one can do given we live submerged in disinformation and lies is analyze a situation, apply logic with reasonable skepticism. It’s possible to do those things becoming a CT theory crank. And cranks are what they are.
@ “…alien trolls and indigenous kooks to take over, creating a repugnant, madhouse atmosphere that drives away intelligent, thoughtful, and rational readers.”
Of those skeptical of the Northwest idea, both Trainspotter and John Morgan presented constructive critiques here last month. You can only compare them with the ad hominem, character assassination attacks on HAC in the relatively recent OD and OO threads. Yes: only by not letting pass the trolls could a sane discussion become, at last, possible.
@ “The Onion ran a piece that cracked me up, because it described something that I did years ago. The story was about an open-minded guy who realized how many years of his life he has wasted putting up with other people’s bullshit. Life is too short, and the cause is too important, to suffer kooks.”
Twenty years ago I subscribed parapsychology journals. Since the contributors to these journals are usually people with PhDs, you cannot imagine how difficult it is to address the scholarly claims and find holes in the parapsychologists’ methodology.
Debunking crank claims demands incredible amounts of research and energy. This is why I believe that CSICOP’s approach is worth reviewing.
Individual CSICOPers usually focus on single fields of fringe claims. For instance, there are one or two researchers who spend their time researching, say, the pseudoscience known as UFOlogy (when I attended CSICOP conferences they were Phil Klass and Robert Sheaffer). In the case of parapsychology, the skeptical researchers were Ray Hyman and James Alcock, both psychology professors.
The same could be said of conspiracy theories. Bugliosi spent twenty years of his life researching and debunking the John F. Kennedy CTs. Obviously, however smart Bugliosi was, he could not handle, in addition to that field, parapsychology—however pseudoscientific it may also be. The same with Klass or Hyman: they could not have handled JFK CTs: they used to focus on either UFOs or psi claims respectively. Sometimes it even takes a single researcher to debunk a single “paranormal” case, e.g., Joe Nickell on the Turin Shroud. In my own case, I spent my time researching the Bélmez Faces. I started as a believer in 1991 and ended skeptic in 1995 (see my research mentioned, e.g., here).
Noam Chomsky complained about the amount of energy that it would take to debunk 9/11 CTs. He simply, and wisely, dismisses the preposterous claims. Of course, WNists cannot waste their precious time “putting up with other people’s bullshit”, as you say. When I wrote that we need lots of Bugliosis I meant that sooner or later it will be pretty handy to get, under a single cover—like Bugliosi’s book on JFK—, a comprehensive and definite account on how silly 9/11 CTs were in the past.
I look forward for a definite, skeptical book on 9/11 (the one by Popular Mechanics was published in 2006).
“The home could have been occupied by Bin Laden family members, Al Qaeda operatives, or just an unfortunate family, one of many such families to become collateral damage in the “war on terror.””
Interestingly, just a couple days before, several members of Ghadaffy’s family were killed, again, by US bombing.
“But of course, such measures are futile. The material elements of a body can be scattered but not destroyed. To the Hitlerist, the absence of an identifiable body and grave simply means that the whole world is now the shrine and resting place of Adolf Hitler.”
“I am Malcolm X!” — various children at the end of Spike Lee’s bio-pic.
i m fully convinced with ur opinions.usa doing things inthe manner of writting a magical realist story.so,people are allowed to guess things as they pleased.it is democracy and we need not to worry about truth because we are allowed to think as we wish.at least media lie is having multiple options.
“I am inclined to believe that Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad…….”
Not me. The timing seems too coincidental what with Obama’s birth certificate controversy still a hot news item, and increasing anger at the Obama administration’s inability to fix the economy after more than two years. Obama’s approval ratings were in a free fall with every voting bloc except blacks and leftists and popular support for our foreign misadventures was also waning.
The American boobs, when not watching American idol, were becoming way too focused on the goings on of our criminal syndicate in D.C., so some sort of epochal event was needed in order to distract the masses and get them fired up and mindlessly waving flags. But the momentary jubilation will be short lived as painful realities will set back in until the next big stage managed event.
Of course, I could be wrong and Osama very well could have been killed on May 1, but the U.S. government lies so often and so brazenly about virtually everything that’s it’s easy to become a “crank” and instinctively doubt all information emanating from the district of corruption and its captive press corps.
The idea that a fake or real Bin Laden assassination had to be cooked up to distract attention from the birth certificate is silly. It is premised on the idea that the release of the birth certificate is somehow embarrassing to Obama, but it is not. The people who should be embarrassed are the birthers, who have invested years of time, stacks of money, and all their credibility in this silly distraction. If anyone is using the Bin Laden assassination to distract the public from an embarrassing predicament, it is the die-hard birthers.
I never said the birth certificate was the sole reason for the real or contrived OBL assassination. But when men like Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan sign on to the “birther” movement the masses take notice.
Birth certificate aside there was and is lingering doubt about Obama’s personal history and academic credentials which was finally being brought to light. Obama probably spent as much time and money to keep his records concealed from public view and scrutiny as the birthers did in attempting to disclose them.
Thosee are simply the facts.
Dr. Johnson,
As you might recall, we have disagreed on several issues and dimensions, both here and on OD. However, with this article, you had me with the first paragraph. Your subsequent stated opinions regarding 9/11 are also mine. I am happily surprised. Kudos.
It’s almost one week later. At this point, they have changed their story so many times this incident has gone from suspicious, to preposterous to baffoonish.
An alternative perspective on the death of OBL.
The late Benazir Bhutto, who was certainly in a position to know, said OBL was dead in 2007, and had been so for some time.
So, one Administration claims OBL is alive, to get us into Afghanistan, and another Administration claims he is dead, to get us out.
Hey!
Works for me!
What’s In YOUR Future
Focus Northwest
La fin de Ben Laden
Pour ceux qui en auraient encore douté, nous en sommes bien revenus aux heures les plus sombres de l’Ancien Testament, barbarie et primitivité en sont les parfums (aujourd’hui, on y ajoute une bonne dose d’hypocrisie), et, corollaire à ce phénomène, la loi du talion règne sur la planète.
Dans cette nouvelle Babel mondialisée la confusion est maîtresse, et, exemple parmi tant d’autres, on y appelle justice ce qui est vengeance. Que l’on nous comprenne bien, nous n’avons aucune sympathie particulière pour Ben Laden ou Mouammar Kadhafi, mais les accuser et les exécuter (que l’on se souvienne du terrible Saddam Hussein et de ses armes de destruction massive) sans autre forme de procédure ressemble plus à un règlement de compte entre gangs ou tribus qu’à une réelle et équitable procédure de justice.
Dans ce monde en déroute, on assume aussi que le crime est héréditaire, et l’on élimine donc sans autre état d’âme enfants ou petits enfants. Ce qui est à la fois absurde et dangereux : on ôte ainsi la possibilité d’une réparation ou d’une rédemption. Rappelons l’histoire du père Théophane Vénard qui fut martyrisé au Tonkin en 1861 par le roi Tu-Duc. Eh bien, ainsi que le père Vénard le savait, son martyr pour apporter la Foi aux Annamites ne fut pas vain, puisqu’aujourd’hui même, entre autres conséquences, parmi les descendants directs du roi Tu-Duc figurent en France un prêtre de la FSSPX et trois religieuses de la Tradition. Que se serait-il passé si l’entière famille du roi Tu-Duc avait été éradiquée ?
A l’annonce de la mort de Ben Laden, les gens sont descendus dans la rue pour fêter l’événement, nous dit-on. On peut s’interroger sur ce que représente une telle manifestation. Le jour précédent Jean-Paul II avait été béatifié et l’on aurait pu s’attendre à ce que des foules en liesse, respectueuses et dignes, se rassemblent en divers points du globe, eh bien non. Elles sont en revanche descendues telles des regroupements d’individus hystériques et infantilisés pour célébrer le sang versé comme une victoire sportive. (Nous n’entrons pas ici dans la question de la validité du processus de béatification de Jean-Paul II, nous ne faisons que rapprocher deux événements médiatiques : la mort de Ben Laden, la béatification de Jean-Paul II).
Le grand héros de tout ceci est, à la mode américaine, le métis Obama qu’on affuble à l’occasion des qualités et des vertus les plus éblouissantes – nul doute que cette marionnette qui favorise la sensiblerie va nous annoncer l’administration de quelques pilules particulièrement dures à digérer.
Le monde est en complète décomposition, la chose s’accélère, ce n’est pas une question du poids des ans que chacun porte, on peut le constater chaque jour, et dans cette spirale infernale nous sommes bien loin de l’esprit de la chevalerie et des idéaux de l’Occident Chrétien