Suddenly the world is waking up to the horrors of multiculturalism. It is as if the veil has been lifted, and much to our surprise, the bride is a disgusting monster. We suddenly find ourselves married to a beast and are seeking annulment. "til death do us part" might have some resonance.

Great articles are here", here, and here. No longer is it verboten to discuss the failings and great dangers of multiculturalism.

I have written previously about this vile and pernicious ideology, which truly is one of hate. It masks itself in the feel good vibe of tolerance for all, but in reality, it is a thinly guised ruse to tolerate hate. In this case, it's hate towards anything western.

Anyone non-western, non-white, non-Christian, non-male has a grievance, and under the multiculti talisman, they are free to hate. But the proponents will argue, it's hate borne of frustration, from years, decades, centuries of oppression. It's justifiable and in some, most, cases warranted.

Typical to the relativist mantra, everything is equal, judgement illogical, and imbalances the result of malevolence. Thus, why is Africa starving? Racism and slavery. Why is Latin America suffering? Yankee imperialism. Why do jihadists attack us? Cultural hegemony and lust for oil. See, it fits so nicely one needn't even consider the vacuousness of such inanity.

In fact, it's brevity is what makes it so astute. Rather than a long dialogue, summation into a sentence is the height of intellectual acumen. Any views to the contrary are clearly inferior, the only judgement allowed in relativeland.

Now we see the backlash, and I might add, not a moment too soon. For we too have large unassimilated masses that likewise bear the burden of low wage, high labor, low skill employment. And though we would be hard pressed to compare ours to Europe's, it is nonetheless an enlightening contemplation. But that is not the actual point here, which is rather to dissect multiculturalism and debunk it.

Now, before we continue, we must separate race from culture. How sad that the two have become synonymous for they are in fact opposites. I would gather that there are two groups of multis, those that are ignorant of this, and those that are cognisant but care not at all.

Race is the physical and ethnic features one is born with, cannot be altered (except for a certain pop star), and passes on to one's progeny through the DNA. Culture is what we do, language, religion, customs, traditions, etc. It is everything we do, how we do it, and why we do it. (Silly example: handshakes versus bows. Enough said.) It is highly mutable and infact passes on only through conscious and concerted effort, most notably through state-run education. (Example: I know several people who have adopted babies from China. They will always be ethnically/raciall Chinese, but culturally they will grow up in America and (if kept away from public schools (ha ha)) thus will be culturally western.)

Now one would think it necessary to make sure the adopted child recieves Chinese teaching so as not to lose thier identity. A simple question that nobody wants to ask, let alone answer, is "why". It is certainly not racist as how could that be possible when they've been adopted and cared for in the most loving manner by people of different race. No, the reason is simple, "western culture" is not good enough.

Before the attack dogs get unleashed, let's examine for a moment the bedrock of multiculturalism: that all cultures are equal and none are superior. We know this is not even what they believe, as the evisceration of western history and civilization courses across college campuses attest to this fact. Clearly the multis truly feel western culture inferior and worse, evil. So they seek to replace it with superior ones in their view, only hidden under the mask of equality.

So, let's put the cards on the table and say it as it is. Not all cultures are equal, and in fact some are superior. But first, let's take another example from my home turf, the classroom. We all place a high value on education, which is thusly a moral and cultural judgment. (i.e. education good, ignorance bad.) In order to achieve this education one must do certain things such as read, take notes, listen in class, ask questions, etc. So, some actions are better than others. (i.e. customs, what we do, how we do it...) Thus in the school culture, we have defined a comparative relationship of outcomes and behaviors. When expanded onto the macro, we can do the exact same thing.

It needn't be too hard to see where this leads. Clearly, we in the west have a superior culture, and even the most ardent multiculturalists tacitly agree as well. Lest anyone think this is a racist statement, and thus divulge their ignorance, review race versus culture. Also, consider the tangible results of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and a rapidly growing China. Do we find the rigid, autocratic "Asian" society in Japan or Taiwan, or a bustling market oriented, democratic, and liberal (classical) society of equality of women, free expression, individual opportunity, rational inquiry, and tolerance? Thus culture is defined only by one's willingness to adopt which is irrelevant and wholly unrelated to one's race. And this is how it should be.

We don't see all facets adopted in for instance China. But this change will take time, and once free markets and more individual autonomy occurs, the rest is assured over time.

I as well as everyone I know want all students to succeed in school. Yet, we would never seriously propose that one race learns differently than another. Oops, the multis do. They mask it in niceties like "African-American culture" when they mean to say "black", which only makes themselves feel good and assuages their conscience, while allowing, in fact encouraging, another generation of kids to fail. How sick they are. How racist as well.

Now, how do the multis tacitly admit that the western way is superior? For one, they have taken up residence in the belly of the beast so to speak, and have no inclination to leave. What is truly more western than the university itself, the bastion of free thought and intellectual pursuit. (Though in recent times, I find this description somewhat trite.) For another they impose upon us the mandate of their views: tolerance, equality, secularism, etc. What could be more western than the imposition of one's views upon another? Surely they would find room for the intolerant, the segregationist, the pious if they were practitioners of their preaching.

I rather suspect, as in most self-flagellating gestures, it is guilt and shame coupled with self-hate that motivates them. They are ridden with the guilt and shame of knowing they espouse an idea they themselves cannot bear to endure. Much like I have written previously, the jihadist is a product of self-hate, that he cannot or will not be able to create the very societies he supposedly despises under the rules of the one he loves. We are what he could never be and what he would never allow. Thus it is we who must be destroyed, to mask his shame and guilt, not to revenge or recoup.

But let us get back to the original idea, that finally this dangerous frivolity is finally being addressed. It is due time for such discussion. In fact, it is long overdue that we acknowledge that what caused the London bombings, what permits the ideology to brew in foreign lands be exported is the west's affinity for multiculturalism. Isn't about time that we accept that free and tolerant societies, liberal democracies, promotion of the sanctity of the individual, and respect for all is not only the best, but the only path to peace and prosperity. And if that's what we wish for everyone, every race and every ethnicity, then isn't it time we drop the farce and the miasma it has created, and acknowledge that what works is also what's right, morally and ethically.

Forget all the Rove/Plame/Wilson/Miller/etc. questions. There's a few simple questions that nobody has bothered asking, and I think somebody should.

Netcraft.com is a wonderful site that does website host analysis, tracking host providers, operating systems, uptimes, etc. Here's something that few people have bothered to look at and I think they should. (by the way, for those who don't know, I am a part time computer geek, and in do some web development programming with php and mysql, as well as app development with java.)

From netcraft:

johnkerry.com
IP Address:69.20.74.244
DNS admin dnsadmin@kerrytech.net
Reverse DNS johnkerry.com

restorehonesty.com
IP Address:69.20.74.244
DNS admin dnsadmin@kerrytech.net
Reverse DNS johnkerry.com

Restorehonesty.com was Joe Wilson's site which was hosted on Kerry's site until the senate investigation proved him a liar and a fraud, after which the site was taken down. If you click on restorehonesty.com, it will automatically redirect to johnkerry.com.

Now here's the simple question that nobody is asking. What is John Kerry's role in all of this?

Let me explain briefly what IP addresses are, what a reverse DNS is, etc. Every computer on the internet has a unique numerical address (though some are techically behind a firewall/router which masks its true number, but the router's is unique) much like a street address. It is called a dotted quad, with numbers ranging from 1-255 separated by dots. Thus, an ip address can look like this: 23.45.67.89 or whatever. Every computer's is unqiue. A DNS (domain name server) is basically a way of turning 69.20.74.244 in to johnkerry.com. See, it's a lot easier to remember names than a long number, and if you think about it, it makes alot more sense. If we had no way to changes names into numbers, the web would be a mess. What the DNS means is that both johnkerry.com and restorehonesty.com are translated into the same unique address. They're both in the same house.

Somebody ought to be asking what is John Kerry's role in all this mess. There's more here than meets the eye. Given the preceding information, I have proven that there's more than a casual link between Joe Wilson and John Kerry. He had a definite interest in promoting the story when it would help him, and more than that, hurt Bush, during the campaign.

It'd be one thing if Wilson had come out and said "I support Kerry" during the campaign. Fine. He's a proven liar, he vanishes like dust in the wind (sorry, couldn't resist).

But Kerry's campaign hosted his website, and even now the link redirects to Kerry's website. And mind you it's not his senate.gov site. That's more than an endorsement, that's a working relationship. We need to know more. Who'll ask, and what will we find out?

Ask all the questions you want Chucky, just when the day is done, there must be a vote. Denying the vote via the fillibuster is tantamount to a senatorial coup.

So go ahead and ask the one searig question, "Will you vote to overturn Roe?" Ask it. Then vote. Fine. But anything else destroys the constitutional balance.

And becareful Chucky, you will reap what you sow. One day there might be a democrat in the White House. People have long memories.

Speculation alert here:

From Centcom: OPERATION SCIMITAR CONTINUES

CAMP BLUE DIAMOND, Iraq -- Marines from 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team-8, detained 22 suspected terrorists during targeted raid operations near Fallujah.

Now, here's what I'm curious about.

One is the reduced number of forces. 600 soldiers is a much smaller force than for either Matador or Sword, both conducted within the last two months.

It seems that the operational footprint is getting smaller and smaller. I am going out on a limb here (and see a later point) but it would seem that the smaller the force, the more rapid and effectively it can deploy and accomplish the mission. A smaller force would most likely not be bringing in artillery, mortars, and other heavier equipment. The swiftness and size of the operation must mean something, probably much better intel.

Two is the absence of casualties. This would indicate to me that there were few if any firefights which means our forces knew exactly where to go. Again, this must mean much better intel.

Three is the number of prisoners versus dead. There were 22 taken captive but none reported dead. Again, this leads me to believe that there wasn't much in the way of shooting. This must mean the insurgents were probably surprised or at least caught off guard. Again, this must mean much better intel.

Now, here is where I really speculate. If the number of forces are reduced, and the casualties are light or none, and if there are no dead enemies only captives, than there has to be a reason. This mirrors Operation Matador where resistance was light and many prisoners were taken.

I do think it's safe to conclude were getting much better information from the locals. This was the case in Matador:

Capt. Jeff Pool, a Marine spokesman in Iraq, confirmed that Iraqi informants contributed to intelligence gathering for Matador but said there was no effort by the U.S. military to incorporate local tribes in its assault plans. He said he couldn't verify that al Goud or others had contacted Marine officers at Camp Fallujah.

(hat tip Bill Roggio)


I imagine this was the case in Scimitar as well, and unlike Matador, where much damage was done to the town and some ill will generated, it seems this time the op was much cleaner.


Let's face it, a dead terrorist is great, but a live one has information. The locals don't want the jihadis in their town any more than we do and given the recent infighting between rival insurgents, it's a fairly safe bet that they're getting ratted out rather quickly. So, we get good intel, assemble a highly mobile and rapid strike force, take down an insurgent stronghold, round up a bunch of prisoners, do so with little if any shooting, and get away without causing much damage. And if all goes well, we get invaluable information, probably as important as removing the two dozen insurgents.

It is also a salient point that Scimitar was conducted in a Sunni region, just 30km SE of Fallujah, supposedly the insurgents' base of support.

I don't know exactly what all this means, but it is safe to say that public opinion has turned remarkably away from the insurgents throughout Iraq. Again, there are reasons for this. In the "hearts and minds" campaign being waged by both sides, Zarqawi's side has lost. The thought of living under his dominion is far worse than living under Shia majority, especially when you've been offered many olive branches. The insurgents are the losing horse. The ship has sailed, so to speak. The momentum is now all with the Iraqi government and coalition forces. The elections, the government, and the constitution are all indicators that the country is moving forward and will not easily be derailed.

When you combine the total number of US KIA so far in July, with the successes of Sword and now Scimitar, a pattern is I think slowly emerging. More Iraqi forces are participating, more Iraqi citizens are assisting, and less impact is being created. If we look back just several months, the latest operations contrast starkly with Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul, all large scale operations against entrenched insurgents.

The question remains however, is this a temporary adjustment or the beginning a much larger emerging trend?

just tap the glass with your finger a few times. Should work fine.

I said that we're fighting two enemies, one foreign and on domestic, today Powerline provides more proof.

In all of the liberal huffing and puffing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame--as though she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley, and as though she hadn't posed for a photo shoot in Vanity Fair, dressed up as a spy--I've seen no liberal criticism of a more recent, real outing of a clandestine CIA operation. In this case, those who outed a CIA operation exposed secret agents operating in the field, in circumstances of great personal danger, not a civilian desk employee. The outing of the CIA operation undoubtedly forced the CIA to terminate or change what had been an effective means of protecting the nation's security, and likely did endanger the lives of real covert agents.

Read the whole thing. Remember this about Joe Wilson. He's a liar, a fraud, and a partisan hack who worried more about hurting the administration than helping our national security. If he had any credibility at all, why did Monsieur Kerrie' dump him like a bad date. In fact, that might be about the only thing halfway intelligent his campaign did.

The rehashing of the Plame episode exposes as much as anything the depths the Bush haters will go to destroy him, even it it hurts the country. At least the Clinton haters were a fringe element and never made inroads into the Republican party. But the extreme left has become the mainstream democratic party and destroying Bush it's only objective.

But like I said last post, Rove is playing them for fools. They took the bait and ran with it. They're going to get burned by this one bad as people are reminded who and what the Joe Wilson story is all about. This is going ot be fun to watch.

Karl Rove has to be greatest political genius of all time. First, he adeptly reminds voters it's liberals who wanted us to act with restraint regarding terrorists. The democrats took the bait and swam with it, crying up and down about how awful he was for saying such things. He never mentioned the democrats only liberals, yet they exposed themselves again to being weak on terrorism. Pure briliance.

Now, the left is giddy thinking they got him, but once again, it's going to bring up that nasty Joe Wilson problem. See, anyone who has a memory will recall that Wilson's site was being hosted by Kerry's official campaign site. Once we found out Wilson was a liar, it was removed from Kerry's site. (Proof: click on this link. Notice it redirects you to, drum roll please, johnkerry.com.)

So now we're going to be rehashing the Wilson story, which once again will show him to be a hack and a liar, as well as the democrats who supported him. Pure brilliance.

instapundit link.
It turns out there was Iraqi/Niger contacts, and yes, Wilson's wife did recommend he go. Wilson lied about both of these and was uncovered in Senate hearings. Do the democrats really want to replay this incident. If they do, either Rove's a genius, or he's just dealing with morons. He's in the major leagues, they're in A ball.

Sadly, this is the best the democrats can do. And they think they can govern?

I will probably jinx this, but here's something that you probably haven't read too many places: CENTCOM July Casualties.

As of July 11th, there have been 4 US servicemen killed in action.

This must be taken as good news. I don't want to say the casualties have dropped or that the "insurgency" is waning, but it is striking to say the least, and there are probably a few reasons for it.

1) No momentum.
The insurgency was always the battle of a small minority of people, displaced ba'athists and local jihaidsts (yes liberals, there were many in Iraq pre-war), as well as the influx of foreign terrorists. Yet, the vast majority of Iraqis were happy to be free from Saddam and the terrorists were operating in a very small network.

That network has been compromised by sevevral factors. One, the insurgents have competing interests. Some are there to fight the Americans, some to reclaim their power, some just for a few dollars from the local shiek or terror cell leader. Now we see them fighitng each other and others willing to make a deal to end their resistance. Calls to the police and military have increased tremendously, and now it is the terrorist's location that gets ratted out, not the coalition's.

Having boycotted the election, the Sunni are now actively participating in the government. Clerics who called for the boycot are now calling for unity. Since Fallujah, we have had an almost non-stop campaign against their strongholds. Towns now know what harboring terrorists mean, and they want them out.

The targeting of civilians, especially women and children, has had the opposite effect. It destroyed any legitimacy they might have had in most Iraqi's eyes, and turned even those who detest us agaisnt the terrorists. Lastly, the election, the forming of the government, the rebuilding, and the steady progress has left them fighting an obviously losing battle. bin Laden was right, pepole will side with the strong horse.

2) Iraqi readiness
On every mission, more and more Iraqi units are taking part. They gain an invaluable level of experience and more importantly, confidence. Just recently, they comprised the entirety of the forces cordoning off Baghdad. If the Iraqi forces are taking part, fewer coalition troops must, thus reducing the number of American casualties.

We'll not be able to know the true efficacy of Iraqi forces for some time, but I think it is arguable that they are better than is being reported. In addition, the Iraqi police units have been a rather effective force. Iraqis are still joining up in large numbers and morale is high, and desertions, which plagued the Iraqi forces last year have been unheard of as of late.

3) The best are already dead
In WW2, the Japanese pilots that had so successfuly carried out the Pearl Harbor raid had pretty much continued their mastery of the skies throughout 1942 and into 1943. But the advent of the F6 Hellcat, veteran American pilots training new ones stateside, and steady losses deteriorated the Japanese fighter corps. The best Japanese pilots had all been killed by the end of 1943 as they stayed on until either they were killed or the war ended. In all cases, the former was the rule.

The exact same situaiton happened with German pilots. By the end of the war, Luftwaffe pilots had as little as ten hours solo stick time before they were sent against P51's and thier pilots, many with ten times the flight hours. It wasn't even close.

In Iraq, what must be happening is very much of the same. Before the war, there were a large number of terrorists that had been trained in Iraq (yes liberals, terrorists trained in Iraq), Afghanistan, Iran, and other places. They would have to be considered the very best, as they had the training, the backing, and the connections. Now, by and large, they are all dead. Even if a few remain and are leading the cells, they have no training facilities, no financial support, and must live a very difficult dual life.

Consistent pressure by the coalition combined with heavy losses have taken their toll on the terrorists. We'll never get an accurate body count but suffice to say, we have killed many thousands of them and wounded many thousands more. Confronting the Americans is a guaranteed one way ticket to see if the virgins are waiting.

4) They've lost
Let's look at the insurgency history.

They tried to fight the Americans and lost. They tried car bombs, IED's, and other terror tactics to make us withdraw and we didn't. They tried taking hostages, cutting off heads, and making videos, all of which failed. They tried to blow up infrastructure and it was rebuilt. They tried to destroy the new Iraqi forces and failed to stop recruits from joining. Howard, Bush, and Blair were all re-elected. They targeted civilians and tried to start a sectarian civil war which never materialized. They failed to stop the elections and the forming of the new government. Their only supporters, the Sunnis, are now joing the government, have mostly disavowed the terrorists, and are trying to be a part of a new Iraq. Throughout the insurgency, whenever they faced American forces, they are killed en masse and inflict very little of their own.

Given their string of utter failures, their only hope has been the left in Europe, the press, and the democratic party here in America. But even that can carry you so far. All but the most ignorant or committed have to know that it's over. Sure, they know they can still inflict pain and death, but their cause is finished.

And so with that must go their morale as any military operation can only succeed when victory is either certain or at least somewhat possible. We have no way of knowing the number of desertions from their ranks nor the number of them that have been killed for attempting. It is unfair to speculate on that, however what we have seen is that the numbers have to be replenished from the outside as there's no (longer at least) homegrown supply of fighters.

There are certainly other factors as well. I presume that their stock of munitions has to run out sometime, and surely the latest round of bombings in Baghdad last month had to deplete their resources. We have destroyed so many weapons caches and condensed the insurgents into a tighter and tighter ring that the one thing that every army needs, supplies, must be dwindling.

One problem that we have in this war is that unlike most others in there is no leader to surrender, sign a treaty, and order the troops to stand down. So what if we captuse Zarkawi, there are still cells operating and will do so for some time. We expect nice, neat outcomes to things. We like everything perfectly wrapped up like a frozen dinner entree. When the microwave rings, it's done and it's time to eat.

It could very well be that for years a bomb here or beheading there will still plague Iraq, and this will appear to some as war ad infinitum. This of course is absurd as one would have to base that on the belief that Iraq was all little children flying kites before the evil American cowboy invaded. The truth is that Iraq along with much of the middle east is and has long been a very violent place. But none of that will matter to critics who will always look for anything to discredit the profound and positive changes that have taken place.

So, we're playing in a time frame that's considerably different from our enemies. We're also being graded on a test whose standards are remarkably different from our enemies as well. Both of those factors give each bomb and each day a hope it would otherwise not have.

But if we are to draw anything from the level of US deaths so far in July, we can probably conclude that more profound changes are taking place than are otherwise being reported and discussed.