Monday, July 18, 2005

Matt Good: A.K.A. I-D-I-O-T
If we review the winning combination
Body at work and a mind on vacation
--The Hives

Matt Good, the unthinking and humourless drivel machine of Canadian "celebrity" bloggers, is unfortunately back from hiatus and is drunk on anger from the Hypocrisy! Of the White Man! And the West!

His latest offering brings new meaning to words "incoherent pseudo-intellectual":
For many in the West, terrorism has a singular face. It is a non-white, non-Christian, foreign face. It is the face of those that live in nations in which the division of church and state is a fundamental principle, but who were never properly made to understand its necessity. Most come from countries in which church and state are not separated, even if not pure theocracies.

Wow. I think each of these sentences should have an optional "like", "dude", or "man" at either the beginning or end.

Let's see, the Irish were terrorized by the Irish...ditto the British. The Italians had the Red Brigades. Canada had the FLQ. The US has suffered from the Unabomber, Timmy McVeigh and the Weather Underground. Germany had the Red Army Faction. Spain? Basques.

All these terror groups are from Western, White, "Christian" countries, and are definitely from societies that were "properly made to understand" the seperation of church and state.

What's the term I'm looking for? Oh yes, projection.

It *ugh* continues....
Upon arriving in a country in which the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle, a highly warped and elitist version of multiculturalism is thrust upon those that are not Christians. While many Western nations hold fast to the maxim that church and state are indeed separate, and champion that fact with vigor, many tend to bend, if not completely crumble, in the face of pressure from national Christian elements. In my opinion, this largely ignored reality is responsible for alienating foreign communities within Western countries.

Multiculturalism is warped and elitist according to this leftie. Wow. This is a shock, since last week he was so pissed about the big M being given a rough ride.

Getting back to the subject here, let's just summarize this paragraph: In western countries, where ethnic minorities are encouraged to maintain their cultural identity by their governments, these same minorities are simultaneously under attack by crafty Christian crusaders who have infiltrated these same governments. Don't let that multi-culti crap fool you: those Christian infiltrators are trying to convert those minorities. Don't let the fact that most of the West is chalk full of apathetic atheists and non-practicing Christians fool you...Oh, and the public service is almost completely non-religious.

Oh yes, and those crazy covert Christians who have of course infiltrated the western power structure are to blame for the alienation of foreign communities. *Yawn*

I don't know how many ex-pat communities Matt has joined, but I can tell you that generally its considered poor form to piss on the rug of your host nation. It's also unthinkable to kill a boatload of their nationals. Call it western civility.

Bleh, it keeps going:
That said, the definition of terrorism itself must be examined. Is there a difference between loading a car with explosives and driving it into an area frequented by military personnel and, for example, pushing a button hundreds of miles away and launching a Tomahawk missile at that same location? If strapping explosives to ones body and blowing up a building is deemed a cowardly and murderous act, then why isn’t dropping bombs on civilians from 30,000 feet?

What is the connection between these paragraphs? Nevermind.

Let's see, what's the difference? Terrorists are aiming for civilians, and allied military personnel are not. Why does this need to be said at this stage? I'm not going to get into something so obvious....
There is simply no way to ‘civilize’ murder. Many have attempted by claiming themselves, and their causes, noble, but if the end result is death in the name of that nobility then what is nobility besides a warped term co-opted by those with enough power to promote their own definition of it? If it is noble to forcefully inflict Western ideologies on others then it can be no less noble to die for one’s beliefs to the contrary, no matter how radical or warped. Ultimately, if the murder of 3,000 people by a handful of radicals is an act of terrorism, then so is the murder of ten times that number at the hands of the world’s most sophisticated military power. In fact, Shock & Awe, which the United States based its Iraq strategy around, promotes the use of an immense display of military force to break the public’s will. Now – how, exactly, is that not terrorism?

Ahh, relativism. If the end result is death, then all results are equally as noble. Self defense? Protection of innocents? It's all the same as dying to kill innocents. See because they're all noble in the killer's mind. Each perspective is just as valid as the other, and any *objective* standards of morality are just a debate of semantics away from being irrelevant.

I mean what are these terms "murder" and "collateral damage" anyways? Death = death. Intent? Context? Who Cares?

Terrorism is not a Middle Eastern phenomenon. It was, without question, perfected by White Europeans long before it became synonymous with the Islamic world. From Cortez’s bloodbaths in Central America, to Stalinist Gulags, to the carpet bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia, terrorism has always been a reliable tool that has served both totalitarian and democratic world powers alike (which might explain why its definition has been altered to focus on those 'terror tactics' that are radicalized rather than products of national policy).

White people invented killing and mayhem. Everything was better before honky decided to commence murdering people and now what? Everybody's doing it.

Last night, while signing some things after the show, a fan, and member of New York’s National Guard, informed me that a suicide attack in Iraq had killed in excess of sixty people. This morning, according to Reuters, yesterday’s attack has now claimed the lives almost 100 Iraqis, injuring a further 150 plus. What can one say? This absolute madness will continue until we confront in ourselves the roots of this problem. But the person who told me about it best encapsulated our collective frustration when, after telling me, he hung his head and said ‘we should have never have…’

He didn’t say anything after that. He just walked away

Deep. If only the white man hadn't started killing people so long ago those jihadis would have had the choice of not killing little children eating candies. Those insurgents don't need a bomb to be shoved down their throats-They need a hug and they need for whitey to do some soul searching. Their murderous rampages can only be solved with Dr. Phil looking into our souls, and maybe some Springer type confessionals.

I have a pretty good idea who we should start with.

UPDATE: I have tried to find the link for this post ("Louder Than Bombs") by Matt, but it appears he has taken it down in light of the criticism he has encountered.... but he explains:
I am, for the record, not against dissenting opinions whatsoever. In fact, the more diverse a discussion the better.

...which is why his blogroll of MSM and blog sources is exclusively the domain of liberal media outlets and bloggers (besides Stephen Taylor).

Soooo diverse.

UPDATE: Found it here.


Les Mackenzie said...

This guy is an liberal asshat of the highest caliber - he shall be honored accordingly.

Shamrocks! said...

He's a trafficker in pure verbal diarrhea. It's a good thing only his fans take him seriously.... their judgment is already questionable to start, so they're generally beyond saving.

Tory Matt said...

This guy needs to stop developing his asinine and contrived beliefs based on Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore books. I suppose all we need to do is collectively flagellate ourselves 1000 times while apologizing for our bellicose whitey ancestry and the terrorists will embrace us as brothers.

We should send him over to Afghanistan as our special envoy for formal apologies and see how the terrorists respond.


The Arabian Knight said...

What a Moron!!! OMG I could'nt stop laughing the whole time I read this! You know what? I'm pretty sure the guy must have been stoned or something at the time he wrote this.

Shamrocks! said...

Heh. I'm pretty sure he writes his blog with aspirin and water at his a fit of guilt and self-righteousness after a long night of partying.

Cynical, humourless, illogical and sour- and not terribly creative. I guess that's why he's only a "big time" Canadian star.

Matt, I wouldn't want this guy representing Canada overseas ;)

Babbling Brooks said...

Nice smackdown. Wish I'd written it.