Dispatches from The Camp Of The Saints

by Robert Belvedere
[DHS-Certified Rightwing Extremist / White House Certified 'Fishy' /
Carter-Certified Raaaaacist!]


Thursday, December 3, 2009

From Accuracy In Media, L. Daniel Glover reporting, we learn:

Rep. Henry Waxman trekked from Capitol Hill to Federal Trade Commission headquarters today to deliver a message to journalists and news consumers: All of you need to reach a consensus about working with the government in order to bail out the struggling news industry.

The California Democrat, who chairs the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't say it quite so bluntly, but his point was clear. "Government's going to have to be involved, in one way or the other," to save journalism from an ongoing "market failure" that will only worsen without intervention, Waxman said.

He spoke at the second day of an FTC workshop on how journalism can survive in the Internet era.

Waxman bemoaned the demise of newspapers across the country, including in Denver and Seattle, and warned that the troubling media trends will continue. "This recent depression in the media sector is not cyclical," Waxman said. "It is structural."

"Congress can't impose a solution" to that structural problem, he said. But the government should partner with the media industry to ensure a sound future for journalism. Waxman praised the record of "independent" reporting in U.S. history and said it has implications for democracy.

"There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves" before the government acts, Waxman said. "We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting."

Spoken like a true fascist [and I mean that in the actual sense of the word, not in the deceitful way the Left has thrown around the word for years (see TERM #6 below blog postings)].

Anytime, anytime, the government forms a partnership with a private business or industry it holds the figurative majority stock in the company or companies. It has the power to force the private businesses involved to do whatever it wants done [as Ayn Rand so eloquently put it 'at the point of a gun']. And the company or companies can do nothing about it. This is most especially true when the government is holding the purse strings. Once the weed of government germinates inside of a company or industry, it feeds off them and its growth is uncontrollable because they've got might on their side. All controlling power eventually and inevitably accures to the government and the employees are absorbed into the Borg-like Collective.

And those working or owning the private businesses involved in such an arrangement who are in favor of the 'collaboration' all end-up becoming enslaved to the government. Many are willing to do this [see the rest of the AIM report and read their sheep-like comments]. And, I suspect, because, in this case the vast majority of people in the news business are Leftists, they will happily sit there while their shackles are applied. They will be overjoyed morphing into apparatchiks.

Tip of the fedora to Dan Riehl for bringing this report to my attention. After he justifiably labels this whole specific situation as repulsive, he comments:

We can not allow this to happen. I'll give them my keyboard when they take it from my cold, dead hands. And it won't be the only thing I'm carrying if they try to come for it! It's time to start drawing lines in the sand around our freedoms and our Rights. It isn't only felons and degenerates that have them. That's the America the progressives want, not an America for us. We need to stand up against what's going on in Washington now more than ever and turn things around beginning with the mid-term elections in 2010.

Hear, hear, Dan. The rubber is meeting the road and we, if we want to call ourselves 'Americans', have to act, and act quickly over the next year. Or else we may have to ask ourselves Questions We Can No Longer Avoid.

Stacy McCain, as you would expect, is up-in-arms over this as well:

Sad as it is for an old newsman to see the industry circling the drain (especially the worsening woes of the Washington Times) I'd go back to driving a forklift before I'd work for a newspaper dependent on bailout money swindled from the taxpayers.

This "gimme" attitude -- that government has an obligation to support us at the expense of our fellow citizens -- is antithetical to liberty....


Want to tell Henry Waxman to shove his newspaper bailout up his notorious nostrils? Just support your favorite bloggers, and we'll make sure he gets the message.

Bailout? We don't need no stinkin' bailout!

When they kick in your front door
How ya gonna come
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?


The Camp Of The Saints

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

I may be moving the DISPATCHES blog from my main site to here.

-Bob Belvedere



Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Paco states what a lot of us are thinking these days:

At this stage, I would not be surprised to learn that Obama collects string, holds imaginary conversations with W.E.B. Dubois, fervently believes that George Bush is the Anti-Christ, and secretly puffs on coffin nails jammed into an extra-long cigarette holder a la FDR while he delivers the latter’s “Four Freedoms” speech in front of a mirror every Saturday night.

He is a strange fellow, this president of ours, with an outlook that is oddly alien to the American traditions and culture that most of us seem to take in with our mother’s milk, and whose forward-looking vision is, in reality, an unending gaze into the rearview mirror (shopworn leftist panaceas may be closer than they appear). And perhaps even more strikingly, he has the temperament of a loony-bin Napoleon, strutting about with a supreme (and supremely unjustified) self-confidence in his ability – an act that is wearing thin even among his fellow inmates, and that is growing positively alarming to his keepers. I mean, even something as otherwise unsurprising as hypocrisy in a politician takes on overtones of weirdness with Obama. In fact, in his abrazos with leftist caudillos, his bowing (can scraping be far behind?) to desert despots and ageing emperors, his shameful apology tours, his dog-like return to the vomit of Iranian “good faith”, the president has managed a feat unique in my experience: he has turned hypocrisy inside-out by redefining it as the tribute that virtue pays to vice.

Barack Hussein Obama is the worst kind of spoiled brat. All his life he has been told that he is special by people either taking pity on him and his situation or by those who have sought to indoctrinate him. For whatever reasons, he has never been put in his place and told that he is not the Golden Child—that, ultimately, he's not that special. Consequently, Mr. Obama is not a fully-formed adult.

He is also not very smart or creative. Oh, he is profoundly skilled, sly, and able to absorb facts like a superior sponge, but it is pretty clear now that he has never really questioned the premises of the ideas that have been fed to him. He merely spouts tired old discredited Leftist bromides from a failed philosophy.

Such people as him are convinced that they are above average in a unique [key word] and outstanding way. This feeling gets repeatedly re-enforced by the teachers, mentors, friends, relatives, and allies around them. This type of person has not been challenged nor has had his intelligence questioned in any serious way. Therefore, faced with no challenges to justify and defend what he believes in, and constantly having his image of himself as something special re-enforced, he comes to believe of himself as near-omniscient—a classic narcissist, lacking empathy for others, having an inflated self-image, 'characterized by an unusual coolness and composure, which is shaken only when the narcissistic confidence is threatened, and by the tendency to take others for granted or to exploit them'.

Now that Barack Hussein Obama is finally facing real and determined opposition at home and abroad, his first reaction has been rage and anger at those who challenge and question his actions or motives. This is the kind of reaction one gets from a spoiled rotten brat. In a child it is hard enough to control, but in someone with the access to such power as the Presidency of the United States confers, it is near impossible to control.



Saturday, November 21, 2009

In a posting over at The Other McCain this afternoon, after citing several recent examples, we get some very thought-provoking ruminations from Smitty:

People in positions of trust seem increasingly criminal in their approach to their tasks. Worse still, and this is the question I'm throwing out here, is the only remedy for honest people to engage in increasingly lawless behavior, with break-ins here and feigned criminal activity there, in order to support reform?

These were non-violent acts. One hopes that the reasonable, honest and sane can generate sufficient revolution at the ballot box to preclude worse.

This has been on my mind, as of late, as well. As I wrote yesterday in the final paragraph of my posting on Obamacare:

If we lose this battle, then we must work even harder to throw out each and every member of the Congress who voted for this power grab next year and neutralize the Executive. If we fail at those two things, then it would appear our only recourse will be, shall we say, a more 'active' resistance.

We may be facing many of the same choices that the Founding Fathers did. I think that each and everyone of us who loves America must be prepared for this scenario. One has to ask oneself: how far are you willing to go to preserve, protect, and defend the United States against all enemies domestic?

The Leftists in power seek nothing less than an overthrow of EVERYTHING America is and stands for. They want nothing less than to make everyone subservient and enslaved to their version of the state. And they are willing to do so by any means necessary. We have no choice now but to take the time and contemplate what we are willing to do, how far we are willing to go, as the situation gets worse. And signs indicate that it WILL get worse.

I had hoped that it would not come to this, that we would be forced to ponder such questions. But our hand has been forced because we let the cancer that is Leftism gain a solid foothold in America.

In the first sentence of his posting, Smitty asks: 'Are we moving into a new stage in the struggle for liberty?'

The answer appears to be a resounding 'YES!'.

The Founding Fathers warned us that everyone must pull guard duty in the fight to retain our freedoms and liberties. A final question: will you shirk your duty?

A final thought: How friggin' sad that it's come to this.



Thursday, August 6, 2009



Thursday, July 30, 2009


About This Blog

The title is taken from a biblical passage in the Book of Revelation, 20:7-9:

"...Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the Camp of the Saints...and the Beloved City: and the fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them...."

I first heard of the phrase as the title of a book of the same name by Jean Raspail. Ferociously denounced by the Left, it is the story of how the West would react if boatloads of the poor from the Third World suddenly decided to come to the lands of milk and honey. The West, having lost the will to preserve all that made it great, lets itself be overrun. One of the many stories woven in the narrative concerns a small, but determined group that decides to resist the invasion. They know full well that they will suffer death, but with the courage and good humour that made the West great, they fight. While Raspail may have intended the title to refer to the whole of once was called Christendom being overrun by the barbarian non-Westerners, I always think of that small group as the true Camp Of The Saints: Those of us who are resisting the decline of the West, who are doing what they can to preserve, protect, and defend it—its traditions, ideas, and culture—are the inhabitants of The Camp Of The Saints and The Beloved City. We may not triumph, but we must resist the forces, within and without, that seek to destroy what is the glory of this world.

No Guarantees
In The
Western World


—No advertisements, this site is privately funded by Mr. Belvedere.

—This is a site for adults, not children—every child should be left behind.


Let us make precise and clear-cut the terms we should be using.
Aristotle wrote that A is A; you may also call it B, but it always remains A. A thing is what it is and, to say it is something else, is to deny reality. There is a lot of denial of reality going around these days.

As John Adams wrote: 'Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence'.

POINT 1: There is no "War in Iraq" or "War in Afghanistan". Like the Pacific and Europe in World War II, Iraq and Afghanistan are just parts of a larger war. Unlike them, they are not separate from each other. Therefore, they are part of the Middle East Theatre of Operations [METO] as the Pacific was the PTO and Europe the ETO.

POINT 2: Many on the Left and some on the Right want to "end the War". There are only two ways to end a war: (1) by achieving Victory or (2) by being Defeated. A pullout, before Victory is achieved, is Defeat. They want Defeat. Pullout may be the best policy―I am not arguing that here―but, leaving without achieving our objective is Defeat.

POINT 3: We are engaged in a War Against Islam. The term is more correct than "War against Islamo-Fascism" or "War On Terror".

Islam has been at war with all non-Muslims since the time of its founder, Muhammad [his name be cursed]. Like the Hundred Years' War, there have been periods of peace in this long conflict, but the Muslim has never stopped believing that he is at war with all non-Muslims. He can't: Allah commands that all of the world be conquered in his name and he must submit, in all things, to the will of Allah [the word Islam means "submission", sometimes rendered as "surrender"]. Any periods of peace we in the West have enjoyed have only occurred after we have dealt them such a devastating blow that they have not been able to wage their jihad and then have pursued polices that have kept them subjugated. This began to fade in the latter half of the 20th Century as we forgot the dangers posed by this militant religion and as they regrouped under new and committed leaders.

If you doubt that Islam is at war with all non-Muslims, keep in mind this:
Islamic apologists often point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion among the different Islamic schools of thought. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad. When it comes to matters of jihad, the different schools disagree on such questions as whether infidels must first be asked to convert to Islam before hostilities may begin (Osama bin Laden asked America to convert before Al-Qaeda’s attacks); how plunder should be distributed among victorious jihadists; whether a long-term Fabian strategy against dar al-harb is preferable to an all-out frontal attack; etc.
[Source: Gregory M. Davis, Islam 101, section 4g, found at http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/]

They have been at war with us for centuries and we, therefore, have been at war with them. We are engaged in a War Against Islam whether we want to say so or not. In an interview with a Pakistani TV network on 23 July 2008, Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, Al-Qaeda's No. 3 man and top commander in Afghanistan, has this to say: “Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam”.

[Source: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200008]

POINT 4: The term "Islamo-Fascism" seems to have been created by Leftists. Since (1) they wrongly place fascism on the Right, (2) they believe [rightly] Muslims want to establish a theocratic regime on Earth, and (3) anything political that has any connection with religion is bad and emanates out of rightwing thinking, the term makes sense to them. Therefore, the term is nothing but a way to associate Islam with the right-wing. Muslims believe in a totalitarian way of governing; in submission [that word] to an all-powerful Islamic leader or leaders.

POINT 5: As to the term "War On Terror", it is just plain silly: how can you wage war on a thing?

POINT 6: What is fascism? It is when a government allows private property to exist, but controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms. Citizens retain all of the burdens and responsibilities associated with property ownership, but are not allowed to control and shape its use.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
[Source: Sheldon Richman, The Concise Encylcopedia Of Economics, Liberty Fund, found at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html]

On the political spectrum, therefore, it is located between modern liberalism and socialism.

POINT 7: What is socialism? It is when a government allows no private property to exist, and controls and manages the use and disposal of property in all its forms. Citizens are not allowed to control their lives and are subject to the whims of bureaucrats and officials. If they retain freedoms and liberties, they do so at the discretion of them. On the political spectrum, therefore, it is the next logical stage after fascism; some would argue that it lies between fascism and communism.

POINT 8: What is pragmatism? It is a tool used by Leftists, or those operating under the influence of Leftist logic, to achieve Utopian ends—heaven on earth through social, political, cultural, and spiritual engineering. It is merely a tool of ideology, part of the means to an end.

POINT 9:The Big Lie - When confronted with truths that reflect unpleasantly on them, the Leftists deflect it buy claiming over-an-over ad nauseum that these truths apply to and are products of the Right. This practice is known as The Big Lie. It has been successfully practiced by the Left since, at the very least, the French Revolution. Thus, we have the now-widespread belief that the Nazis and the Black Shirts of Italy were right-wingers when the reality-the truth-is they were both people of the Left. I suspect the violent objections from the Left to conservatives use of the term 'fascist' arise from the fact that they have spent well over seventy years trying to convince the world of The Big Lie that it is not and never has been a Leftist ideology.

How does one practice this distortion truth and why is it effective? In a report issued during World War II by the OSS, the author provided an explanation for all practitioners by describing how Hitler practiced it:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

By repeating their lies over and over, the Left creates a false reality that supplements the real world. In this false reality, the lie is the truth, the truth is the lie. A is not A. [But we know that A must always be A.]

The Left also practices a variation of The Big Lie that I like to call The Big Deception which involves a Big Deflection away from the reality of the situation. None of their policies or actions can survive direct questioning, so the Leftists must turn the tables on the questioners and make it seem as though the inquisitors have bad or evil intentions. Overtime and after constant and unrelenting hectoring, the Left's way of thinking triumphs. They successfully infect enough people so that this diseased mode of thinking becomes chronic, deep-rooted, instinctual. If the Devil's greatest triumph was that he convinced people he did not exist, the Left's greatest triumph has been to convince people that the Leftist way of thinking is normal. It is not. It is a perversion of reason and a horribly mutant form of logic. It is antithetical to human life. Nothing but decay and destruction are left [pun intended] in it's wake.

Our Blogger Templates

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP