Friday, March 16, 2007

A Message From The Hegemony's Head Office. . .

Finally got around to looking at our infiltrators' report from the Canadian Peace Alliance conference where the decision was made to trespass upon our High Holy Day of Feile Padraig with counter-parades of marching teetotallers. It's an excellent report. Maith thú, comrades!

The CPA's official account of what happened omits mention of its decision to stick with its 2004 resolution on Darfur and continue to oppose any military intervention to staunch the slaughter there. But let's get to the official business. There were 14 resolutions, which can be summarized thusly:

1. Sully the Feast of Saint Patrick with counter-processions of miserable old nuns, windbags, dupes and scolds carrying placards that say Down With This, Long Live That, Canada Out Of This, Canada Out Of That and so forth.

2. This is too funny (ní féidir a shéanadh): Right after the resolution calling for "anti-war" rallies across Canada, delegates voted to urge all CPA member groups to attend a conference of "the global anti-war movement" in Cairo later this month, which is really a strategy session with the well-known pacifist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

3. Resist the United Nations' nefarious plans to prevent the Iranian theocracy's attempts to develop weapons-grade uranium. 4. Destroy Israel. 5. Give Haiti back to the street gangs of Port-aux-Prince. 6. Demand that the Canadian government pay for public meetings where we can shout our slogans. 7. (Obligatory motion to placate vegetarians from the Slocan Valley who still think we're a peace group). 8. (Obligatory motion to assuage our guilt about Native people). 9. Clear the field of Canadians soldiers in Kandahar as a favour to the Taliban. 10. (Obligatory motion to assuage our guilt about Native people #2). 11. Destroy Israel. 12. Drag the New Democratic Party down below the Greens to single digits in the polls. 13. Destroy Israel. 14. Make the National Film Board pay for some old American hippie movies.

Our secret plan, as you can see, is working on time and under-budget. And our stranglehold on the news media is coming in handy too. Here's Ian King, from today's 24 Hours:

It's deeply ironic that Woody Guthrie, troubadour of the old Left, painted "This Machine Kills Fascists" on his guitar to remind all what the message was meant to accomplish. Sadly, the modern anti-war left has turned to supporting fascists.

Tomorrow, the so-called peace movement marches mainly in opposition to Canada and the United States, and in support of governments and movements, however brutal, that oppose them. Not everyone marching to the Vancouver Art Gallery will hold those repugnant views - but the movement's leaders do.

Réitím leis an tuairim sin, Ian. I'll be toasting you with one of these.

14 Comments:

Blogger Blazing Cat Fur said...

Okay I am linking to this, I am also sending it to friends - great post, had me in stitches, thanks.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Ian King said...

Thanks for the toast, Terry. Responded in kind down at Pub 340 tonight.

The only response I've got to those making a mess of Fhéile Pádraig with the "US/UK out of this, Canada out of that" chants is to respond with a "Michael Douglas out of Catherine Zeta-Jones!" (substitute to taste) on the way between one boozer and the next.

This is two years in a row they've interfered with St Patrick's. Last year, we were treated to Sunera Thobani's tortured reasoning that any progress for Afghan women and girls since 2001 was illegitimate as it had come as a result of war, which is, uh, bad, or imperialist, or something. Listening to too much of this stuff will ruin the Feast of Saint Patrick -- and if that happens, the terrorists (or at least some sourpusses, hypocrites and blowhards) have won.

12:26 AM  
Blogger SnoopyTheGoon said...

CPA marching on St. Patrick day? Gee. I wonder, would they accept a brew from a normal person?

Nah. They should be pumped full of Liffey water.

7:44 AM  
Blogger Dirk Buchholz said...

my,my what cynicism.
I heard a saying once,I believe it goes something like this "cynicism is the refuge of the brokenhearted"
But back on topic.
Resolutions in support of the rightful actions of FN peoples is some how about assuaging our guilt?Who's guilt?
Back in the day,I thought that was called solidarity...
I thought many of the resolutions were pretty reasonable(though some are debatable).
Nothing much there,that has not been said over and over.
Even back in the day of that mystical "left" that you always talk about or hold up as an example, as opposed to the "left" of today. Which has been corrupted or led astray by the machinations and clever ploys and twisted logic of a leadership so adept at pulling the wool over the eyes of so many ordinary Cnd's.
A movement that is in "fact" not about peace or war in general but in "reality"supports fascist and dictators...
I always find it very interesting that many soldiers and officer who have been to war usually come back convinced about the ineffectiveness and inhumanity of military solutions no matter the good intentions of those who initiate the action.In the end such tactics usually results in more bullshit and suffering that the locals have to deal with.
There is nothing humanitarian about war,innocents is the first and the majority of the victims.(I am no pacifist,I do believe people have a right to defend themselves if they are being invaded).Indeed I find it a very reasonable position for many to be opposed to war or military solutions.
Now if one where to question some of the tactics of the CPA and some of it members well that would be very understandable and a very valid criticism.
But to tar the whole org and all its various members with the same broad brush of scorn,is just sour grapes,and "lazy" thinking to boot.
Also if one was to question the purpose or effectiveness of resolutions(yawn) and demonstrations(yawn) in general that would also be totally understandable.
But hey each to his own,just my thoughts on your longggggg rant.

12:05 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I would be vehmenently opposed to any resolution that says "destroy Israel". I'm not a big fan of CPA these days, but can you please point out which resolution, and which phrase in said resolution suggested that? I was unable to find it.

3:46 PM  
Blogger Incognito said...

Dirk, you say that "many soldiers and officer who have been to war usually come back convinced about the ineffectiveness and inhumanity of military solutions no matter the good intentions of those who initiate the action.In the end such tactics usually results in more bullshit and suffering that the locals have to deal with."

Would you consider WWII ineffective? How about sending troops to Bosnia? That too bullshit?

7:11 PM  
Blogger Transmontanus said...

Stephen: Get some specs, buddy. Each of those three resolutions would destroy Israel. That's what they're there for. You should be able to see that without my help.

The first would expropriate Israel's right to its own immigration policy. The second would ultimately disarm the IDF. The third would prevent Israel from defending itself from attacks from Gaza.

My point: This is not about peace. This is about opposing Israel, and it is about more war, more suffering, more death.

I know it's often unpleasant to see things for what they really are. But we have to do it anyway.

In solidarity, etc.

T

7:56 PM  
Blogger Dirk Buchholz said...

The resolutions would destroy Israel?
Perhaps you need a few specs.None of the resolutions outlined by the CPA differ much from what many Jewish people have said and say ever day in Israel.In fact the resolutions of the CPA are just that resolutions.
I would think one would be more concerned with the policies of Israel that have real consequences for real people.Words are words ,actions speak louder than any number of words.And Israeli actions are every thing but the actions of a defenseless people,but are the actions of an occupation force.A country that has been in violation of the UN,International law,and basic democracy for decades.
The solution is just to simple,withdraw to 67 border,allow the Palestinians a state with E.Jerusalem as their capital.Hammas(the democratic choice of the majority of Palestinians) has come out in the past week and openly stated it would be willing to accept a Palestine within the 67 borders
Here are some facts from Israeli citizens Jews to boot,but hey what would they know...

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/arabsinisrael.htm

12:24 AM  
Blogger Dirk Buchholz said...

Then there are these guys also,but hey what would they know.No me thinks the CPA resolutions on Israel are not all that extreme in the least...
http://www.seruv.org.il/english/combatants_letter.asp

1:20 AM  
Blogger Transmontanus said...

Dirk: You're not doing yourself any favours here.

Your comments are irrelevant to the post you're commenting on. For one thing, if you couldn't tell that the post was tongue in cheek, you're even more humourless than I thought. For another, that there are Jews who criticize Israel is irrelevant to substance of the CPA resolutions.

A person's nationality or religion is irrelevant to a criticism's validity. If it was relevant, I would have pointed out that the CPA's Palestine resolution was opposed at the convention by the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians, the Jewish People's Order of Canada, and other Jews who were there.

8:36 AM  
Blogger thebookmistress said...

Aisde from the obvious, Dirk is missing the other point. Out of 14 CPA resolutions, 5 were Israel-related. Come back when CPA proposes resolutions are based on peace or lack thereof (rather than the presence of Israel), and we'll talk.

Or as my sainted husband said, when I told that there is an alliance that wants to make our lives more peaceful, "What, by destroying the CPA?"

9:18 AM  
Blogger Transmontanus said...

P.S. I'll be addressing this and related subjects on the Calgary radio station CHQR ("The World Tonight" program) shortly after 8 p.m. Calgary time today.

12:19 PM  
Blogger Dirk Buchholz said...

Well actually I was responding to this,you brought it up,
you said......................
"The first would expropriate Israel's right to its own immigration policy. The second would ultimately disarm the IDF. The third would prevent Israel from defending itself from attacks from Gaza.

My point: This is not about peace. This is about opposing Israel, and it is about more war, more suffering, more death.

I know it's often unpleasant to see things for what they really are. But we have to do it anyway.

In solidarity, etc."....
..................................
I was just pointing out the fact that the resolutions were,nothing that has not been said by many including Jewish citizens of Israel,and where in fact not about opposing Israel(as you asserted) but about speaking out against certain practices and policies of the Israeli gov.
And I did notice some Jewish orgs that belong to the CP alliance voiced their opposition.The CPA resolution made that very clear.
As for why CPA would bring up Israel,well it is a peace alliance,it is opposed to war.The Middle East is or seems to constantly at war,of which Israel plays a huge part.So again its not about opposing Israel
As for my humor,trust me Terry I appreciate satire just as much as the next guy.Indeed satire in my opinion is the most affective way at cutting to the crux of the matter.
As for your post being tongue in cheek,perhaps that was your intention but it did not come across as such.Perhaps if I knew you on a personal level,I might have seen it as such.But I only know you from your writings(of which many I agree with,your articles in the Van Review related to whaling and the environment are first rate).
But you will notice my first response was fairly tongue in cheek.I only brought up Israel,because of your comments on the CPA resolutions pertaining to Israel.

2:10 PM  
Blogger SCAW said...

Transmontanus puts forward a misleading and distorted account of the CPA's Palestine motion.

Opposition to the motion was not absolute. The motion was opposed by the Jewish groups because of the inclusion of the specific mention of the right of return. They agreed with the rest of the motion's content, including even the mention of 242, but debated the specific mention of right of return.

That "other Jews who were there" opposed the motion is simply not true. The only Jewish opposition came from the delegates from the groups in question. Other Jews who spoke as individual observers or other delegates voiced support for the inclusion of the right of return.

Just to clarify another matter, Glavin's "report" quickly glosses over the debate on Darfur, indicating that either his mole fed him incorrect information or he had no mole at all (or did Glavin simply distort his mole's report?). Not mentioned is the fact that the Darfur question was not in fact resolved (hence a lack of resolutions) and left at a stalemate, most people being undecided on the matter. Due to time constraints (which also affected the Palestine debate, which was lengthy nonetheless) the Darfur question was not fully addressed.

The rest of Glavin's piece is a pathetically contrived account of what happened, but that's par. Even so, it's even worse that his drivel is a poor derivative of his Eustonite counterparts in Britain. Too bad Glavin is too old to sign up or I'm sure he'd be doing his patriotic duty. With any luck, maybe the age limit will be raised.

11:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home