Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is visiting the U.S. and he charms the politically correct Western journalists with his charisma and his ability to abuse their own idiocy and the West's own weaknesses. For example, in a freshAssociated Press interview,they're impressed how "calm and self-assured", "being in command of himself and prepared to deflect questions" he appears to be. This is the kind of worship that the journalists wouldn't dedicate to any proper conservative Western politician. ;-)
Is it really so shocking that a leader of a rogue state, chosen primarily for his arrogance, appears self-assured if he is visiting a portion of the world that has deliberately stripped itself of its manliness and the determination to physically defend its core values such as freedom? No one is even contemplating the assassination of Ahmadinejad - and yes, someone certainly should.
If it is so, what should he be afraid of? He is facing a horde of impotent irrelevant sissies and the media that have been pandering exactly the same kind of lies and the destruction of the Western values that he represents in the Middle East - and maybe beyond the Middle East.
In the interviews, he knows how to use his own physical weakness to his advantage. That's exactly the kind of a weapon that works in the West. Should it work? Well, it shouldn't. Why should it matter that it is a frail chimp who is leading this regime? If such superficial things should matter at all, they should matter in the negative way.
Much like many other, very similar demagogues such as Lee Smolin and thousands of others, Ahmadinejad is a double-faced jerk. He is fundamentally adjusting his speeches according to the audiences.
Lee Smolin tries to be subtle when presenting his fog e.g. about the finiteness of string theory or its background independence when he is talking to the experts because he knows that they wouldn't buy a self-evidence nonsense - but he uses 100% of the ignorance of the laymen and journalists when he is talking to them and offers them the cheapest and most obvious lies.
In the very same way, Ahmadinejad impresses his Iranian listeners with ambitious and detailed plans to remove Israel off the map and with a straight denial of the holocaust. When he is talking to the Western media, he doesn't do it. Instead, he offers the kind of "subtle undermining" of the basic moral values by "mere questioning" of the existence of the holocaust. And a "subtle undermining" is something that the politically correct Westerners learned to love.
He only asks: Why does the set of 6 million Jews killed during the war get such a special treatment? Didn't the war kill 60 million? A wise journalist may get ingenious for a while - and he actually provides Ahmadinejad with the answer. It's because the Western ethics appreciates the striking difference between warfare and genocide. But of course, Adhmadinejad asks again: did all the non-Jews die in a standard warfare?
You can continue such analogies and counter-analogies indefinitely and you get get drowned in the miles of confusion. But you must be stupid not to see the statistical difference between the methods and events that has led to the death of the Jews and the death of the non-Jews during the second world war. Of course, one needs some kind of quantitative thinking and decent "instinct" to reach a sensible conclusion.
Does the double-facedness belong to the cannon of a good politician? Well, a good politician - or a good speaker - may adjust the tone to increased the effectiveness according to the audience. But if his speeches contradict each other, he's simply dishonest.
And the people who are not able to catch the most obvious inconsistencies, despite the accessibility of the information in the modern world, are just stupid and we should work as hard as we can for these stupid people's influence on the real world to be minimized (e.g. the influence of imbeciles who vote for Ahmadinejad or those who read Smolin's books as a source of information, to enumerate two structurally similar examples from vastly different contexts).
Ahmadinejad, much like other far left-wing demagogues, always loves to benefit from the weakness of his group and himself personally, and to "merely get to the level of others, which is fair, isn't it?", but when he gets there, he will do anything to suppress the opposition and use his newly gained power as an argument to extend the power. In other words, the egalitarian values are only cherished when he is the bottom dog - but once he gets higher, the new bottom dogs have to be suppressed. It's all about the consensus, isn't it?
The Western leftists and other radical movements are doing the very same thing all the time (just think about the Nazis, communists, or environmentalists who have evolved from whining fringe groups to aggressive defenders of their dominance) - so why can't the Western media see through these cheap tactics?
Well, it's because the bulk of the contemporary Western media themselves have become a part of this dishonest game. As long as Iran - and its clique of leaders - are just another country, it's surely being oppressed by the "Devils" and "Zionists" and it deserves the same rights as the Western countries. But once this strategy succeeds and moves Iran or Ahmadinejad higher in a hierarchy of power and influence, the language abruptly changes. Quite suddenly, he is a representative of the majority and others have no right to reach his status, have they? They're just a f***ing minority that should be spitted upon.
So in his interviews, he is saying a lot of garbage about his desire to have a world that is free of nuclear weapons. He doesn't want any nuclear weapons, we are told. Of course, he is saying these crazy things to the gullible Western audiences in order to inflate the Western impotence even beyond its current, already bloated dimensions. And Iran is also a great democracy with lots of freedom, he mentions. It's just that the majority has to decide - which is what he is guaranteeing for Iran. (Some minorities are completely absent in Iran, such as gays - Ahmadinejad told us: the fa**ot in the presidential palace is the only exception.) Is a country of this kind a democracy?
Well, obviously it isn't. If this kind of a "rule of the majority" were enough for a country to be democracy, than Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union would have been democracies, too. A democracy is not a country where the leadership describes itself as the ultimate reflection - and the ultimate spokesman - of the majority and where it works hard and arranges the institutions in order to preserve this situation. Quite on the contrary, a democracy is a country where the people choose - without any intimidation - who the spokesman will be in the few years to come and where the right answer to such questions is simply not clear except right after the elections and where no institutions with a direct power are being arranged to produce one answer or another.
Once someone intimidates the opposition by saying that the opposition is doing possibly undesirable things because they contradict the majority's will, he is no longer acting democratically. That's one of the many ways to see that Hitler, Stalin, or Ahmadinejad have not been democratic politicians and that railway porn kibitzer Pachauri is no representative of the evolving insights of the climatological community.
In democracy, the opposition simply can't be de facto annihilated or constantly demonized for its being a voice of a minority. Democracy is a system where the will can always change and where no power or status is forever guaranteed. Needless to say, this dynamical character of values applies to science, in an even more essential way.
Because he is talking to the politically correct, morally and intellectually degenerated Western journalists, he may also boast all the time. The future belongs to Iran, we hear, aside from all this incredible crap. Everyone has to accept that they're a power.
Well, be sure, stupid chimp of Tehran, that I won't accept it - and hundreds of millions of people in the civilized world won't accept it, either. Once you will act in such a way that would indicate that you want to do something counter-productive or dangerous that transcends the boundaries of your once famous and currently pathetic country, I will prefer to nuke hundreds of thousands of the brainwashed sheep and allahs who live there (and who give you a part of your power to emit your arrogant pronouncements) over taking the risk that the freedom will be removed or reduced in our civilized world.
Iran's is just a pathetic regime that may ventilate its self-confidence in front of the Western media because the inconsistent sissies who have a lukewarm relationship to freedom, to say the least, have spread in much of the Western political institutions and the media in recent years if not decades. But the latter fact is not here with us to stay, either. If there were a genuine threat or even a genuine confrontation, be sure that we would replace the rotten elites of the West and the self-assured majority that licks the ass of a chimp named Mahmoud could disappear after a few blasts.
Ahmadinejad, you are the person who should learn that you simply have no power outside Iran and, except for the irrelevant agencies you are currently giving the interviews to, no one is respecting any influence of yours outside Iran, OK? ;-)
Thanks for your understanding.
Avigdor Lieberman in Prague
Meanwhile, the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman is visiting Czechia: Czech public radio. On the picture above, he is seen with the zionist prince, the Czech FM, Karl Johannes Nepomuk Josef Norbert Friedrich Antonius Wratislaw Mena von und zu Schwarzenberg.
It's kind of good to feel that at least our relevant politicians, however secondary their importance may globally be, won't leave an ally just because he faces some trouble. Schwarzenberg has assured Lieberman about Czechia's remaining an ally.
Lieberman is realistic about the impossibility to reach peace in a near future. His plan for a future peace includes population & territory swaps as well as mandatory declaration of loyalty to Israel as a country by all of its citizens, whether they're Jews, Arabs, or others. It makes complete sense to me.
Crazily enough, Czechia is perhaps the only country outside Israel that openly agrees with the self-evident point that the growth of the settlements is natural and, to some extent, inevitable.
Ex-president Václav Havel has joined Spanish ex-PM Aznar's pro-Israel group that will try to improve the image of Israel in the world and suppress the flourishing of anti-Israel boycotts across the world (none of them was ever joined by anyone in Czechia). Not sure whether it may help at all.
Just moments ago, I thought that the exceptionally good Czech-Israeli relationships only began around the war - because of the horrible things done to Jews that the Czechs mostly passively witnessed on our territory, because of the new opposition to the Soviet Union that wanted us to befriend comrade Arafat etc.
But a knowledgeable woman on TV has just explained us that the exceptional relationships go a century back and they include our beloved first Czechoslovak president, "daddie" Thomas Garrigue Masaryk (born 1850), who was a staunch defender of a Jewish state on the "Palestinian" territory. She also wisely says that the Czechs feel that Israel shares "our fate", being surrounded by the enemies.
