September 16, 2012

Invade the World, Invite the World, Gag the American Public

The implicit lesson the elite media are drawing from the Libya Brouhaha is that, because empire abroad and multiculturalism at home (not to mention Obama's re-election) are beyond questioning, a future item on the national agenda must be to hold a Courageous Conversation about how to keep American citizens from posting unwelcome and unapproved stuff on the Internet.

109 comments:

Anonymous said...

The implicit lesson the elite media are drawing from the Libya Brouhaha is that, because empire abroad and multiculturalism at home (not to mention Obama's re-election) are beyond questioning

The elites would rather bring the world to nuclear armageddon before giving up globalism and multiculturalism. That's where the neocons come in.

Anonymous said...

Your title says it all. They will invade. They will continue to invite. And they will gag.

The real dilemma will come when the Muslims want creationism taught in public schools. What position will the NYTimes take?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

As "Speaking Truth To Power" has come to mean "telling your friends what they want to hear in a safe environment" in the mouths of liberals, so has "Courageous Conversation" come to mean "cowardly monologue."

Freedom is Slavery, after all.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times, and other like-minded rags like the Guardian in Britain, will discover that they always were for Creationism, polygamy, arranged marriages, and stoning adulterous women.

And they will also discover that they always were against abortion, female literacy, homosexuality, and women displacing men from employment.

And as for homosexual marriage....WELL! Just how could anybody even think of such a thing.

Anon.

Anonymous said...


The real dilemma will come when the Muslims want creationism taught in public schools. What position will the NYTimes take?


There is no dilemma. Christian Creationism bad, Muslim Creationism good.

Mark Mallarde said...

The media is prepping us for speech controls similar to Europe. No one even says how the film is worse than, say, Life of Brian by Monty Python.

Here is the White House press secretary telling the press that Obama will issue an executive order to restrict anti-Muslim speech. He really steps in it though and might cause more rioting. http://www.lightlybraisedturnip.com/obama-stops-anti-islam-speech/

Steve Sailer said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

Anonymous said...

How about inhibit, as in to inhibit free speech?

David Davenport said...

And they will also discover that they always were against abortion, female literacy, homosexuality, and women displacing men from employment.

Check this:

Did Hillary Clinton send a gay ambassador to Libya as intentional provocation?

Anonymous said...

interdict

inhibit

Harry Baldwin said...

Thank god that here on isteve we can still engage in Courageous Conversations. Only thing is, we have to go by pseudonyms so we don't lose our jobs.

Government will soon make our conversations more courageous by banning internet anonymity.

Anonymous said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

inhibit, maybe

Mark Mallarde said...

I think that that hilarious moment at the DNC -- when Mayor Villaraigosa could not get that voice vote passed without lying -- was a shining embodiment of this clash of values on the Left. Their embracing of Islam eventually will create a schism too great to ignore. They idealize Muslims and got stung at the DNC and then in a larger way in Libya. (Yes, yes, there are some nice Muslims.)

Anonymous said...

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/09/city-journal-claims-northern-cities.html

Anonymous said...

I get the point Steve, but if the Wikileaks fiasco didn't end internet anonymity and trigger the blogger holocaust, this sure as hell won't.

Mark Mallarde said...

How about "injuct" as in an "injunction" in a court order to stop someone from doing something?

Inscrutoroku Japamoto said...

how about "...inveigh analysis."?

Mark Mallarde said...

On censorship, Google made the White House look bad by refusing to pull the film off the U.S. YouTube after the White House asked it to see if it violated YouTube's standards. (Amazing.)

It is interesting though that a film review that my website published on Innocence was pulled by Google. It was searching on the first page of results for "film review" or "movie review" plus the title. It still ranked #3 on Bing.

Now it does not exist on Google. You can put in the website name even, and other pages show up but not that one.

The review might have been too positive for the movie and a little too irreverent. You can judge for yourself with iSteve's blessing: http://www.lightlybraisedturnip.com/review-innocence-of-muslims/

Anonymous said...

Intimidate.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

"intimidate"?
Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

America is the Roman Empire 2.0 by this point in History...

Silver said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

No, I can't, but what about "inveigle"? It's accurate and it's got a ring to it.

Anonymous said...

The great red herring of America's decline is Obama's re-election.

A incompetent mulatto socialist probaly will be re-elected and there is the demographics...

Andrew said...

Agreed. It looks like the government is out to get this Coptic fellow, but they already have him by the you-know-whats because he's on parole.

I can think of two methods the American government could use against criticism of Islam: 1) Prosecute these individuals for provoking violence on the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" theory. 2) Encourage the relatives of the victims of this violence to sue the filmmakers or even Youtube.

Number 2) actually seems pretty likely to me.

Of course we're already here in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy

Anonymous said...

"There is no dilemma. Christian Creationism bad, Muslim Creationism good."

The absurdity makes me want to laugh, but I'm sure that there are constitutional "penumbras, formed by emanations" that will validate this as an official stance.

Anonymous said...

And when the Muslims go after perverts (ie gays) then what do the media and Hollywood do?

elvisd said...

"Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?"

OK, what's the punchline, Steve?

Seriously, though, I'm having my son read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language",so he can understand my rants about the decline of our language, like the way the word "censor" got tossed in favor of the word "redact" by that supposedly vigilant MSM. Redact, what a nice bloodless Franco-Latin lexical papering over of something sinister- it sounds like someone just did a little proofreading/editing job, rather than strangling speech and the truth. Orwell points out that when a Saxon word is tossed for something Latinate, don't be surprised when your bullshit meter goes off.

Anonymous said...

WE should be marching in the streets but people are too busy watching football.

Mr. Anon said...

A courageous conversation about sitting the f**k down, and shutting the f**k up.

elvisd said...

Followup to previous comment: Yes, "censor" isn't a word of English origin, but there was no need to toss it, all the same. "Cut out" would do the job as well, but "redact"? Worthless as "ameliorate" and "altercation".

Mr X said...

What about, invade the world, invite the world, invalidate criticism?

Nah.

invade the world, invite the world, investigate American citizens?

I like this one too but I wouldn't know how to use it.

invaginate |inˈvajəˌnāt|
verb ( be invaginated) chiefly Anatomy Biology
be turned inside out or folded back on itself to form a cavity or pouch.

Anonymous said...

Hum, to gag, shutup, how about:

interclude - To shut off or out from a place or course, by something intervening; to intercept; to cut off; to interrupt.
injunct - to issue a legal injunction against (a person)
injoin - To direct or impose with authority and emphasis; To prohibit or forbid. (old enjoin)
inlapidate - To convert into a stony substance; to petrify.

incapacitate
incarcerate
interdict
intimidate
invalidate

insense - To make to understand; to instruct. -
insentient - Devoid of sensation or consciousness; inanimate.

institute, institue -
instill -
instruct -

Anonymous said...

How come the bipartisan testing mania sweeping schools never applies to people writing these Courageous Conversation books and running diversity programs? If I was a superintendent I'd randomly assign half my schools to this program, if it significantly raised NAM test scores they'd get a long term contract, and if it didn't I wouldn't spend any more money on them. With so many failed interventions in the past, so many ongoing in the present, and schools tight for resources, why not just cancel these programs until someone else shows meaningful progress on closing the achievement gap? To do otherwise would be like a hospital administrator relentlessly experimenting on patients to try to fully cure cancer instead of keeping up to tabs on medical journals.

medvedev said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

I am thinking that "intern" would work?

jack strocchi said...

Inhibit

Auntie Analogue said...

Mr, Sailer, in response to your invitation I vote for the word...Inquisition.

Silver said...

Invade the World, Invite the World, Inherit the Wind.

eah said...

Yes, forget the 'achievement gap', the twitter prosecution gap must be closed.

Anonymous said...

Incest?

Anonymous said...

Neuter the American public.

resisttherulingclass said...

I recommend the term "ruling class" rather than "elite". "Elite" implies they deserve their position.

"Ruling class" implies they are illegitimate and can be overthrown.

Anonymous said...

"Gallup: 70% of U.S. Jews support Obama"

"Romney backing similar to that given McCain"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4281750,00.html

"The Jewish public in the United States seems to have taken Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel, as well as his dramatic statements about Jerusalem, in stride, as a recent poll revealed that the majority of Jewish voters in the US still support US President Barack Obama.

A recent Gallup poll released Saturday found that 70% of US Jews still support Obama, while the GOP’s candidate has only 25% support – similar to the support given to John McCain in 2008.

The Republicans have been vigorously courting the Jewish vote – as well as that of Israelis who hold dual nationality – during the 2012 presidential campaign, including sending several top GPO senators and congressmen to Israel."

Anonymous said...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html

Lizard Grin said...

There will be a big push to restrict freedom of expression under "hate speech" laws here in the US, like exist pretty much everywhere else. Of course, these restrictions really only apply to anything that might empower Whites.

I guess this is what the WWII generation fought for right?

Anonymous said...

"Gallup: 70% of U.S. Jews support Obama"

SO, HOW'S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YA?

Anonymous said...

WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS NOW.

heartiste said...

invade the world, invite the world, invert the truth.

DYork said...

Steve Sailer said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?


infantilize?

The combination of Idiocracy trash pop culture mixed with a "children-be-quiet-or-no-dessert" attitude toward critical discussions about what our Mommy and Daddy overlords are up to.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/senator-links-violence-to-multiculturalism/story-fn3dxiwe-1226475829414

Anonymous said...

Gallup: 70% of U.S. Jews support Obama

Romney backing similar to that given McCain


When will the idiot Republicans stop pandering? All the pandering and Hispandering gets them nothing.

Anonymous said...

How about "inure"?

inure - to accustom to hardship, difficulty, pain, etc.; toughen or harden; habituate (usually followed by to ): inured to cold.

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, inquisition the heretics?

I say leave it as is though. "Invade the world, invite the world" really skewers the lunacy of current US policy.

Anonymous said...

Funny how you mention Libya and the blasphemy angle.
If the lefties had their way, any questioning of the taboos surrounding 'race' or even 'gender' would be treated in exactly the same way as the militant islamists treat anyone who dares blaspheme their faith.

The Wandering Who said...

re: WE ARE ALL PALESTINIANS NOW.

You'd like Gilad Atzmon a Jew who says that exact thing. Similar, is Israel Shamir. Both highly smart and nail it mercilessly.

Anonymous said...

"D.C. police put out a lookout Sunday night for an unusual robbery suspect: a black male roughly 6 or 7 years old."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/16/dc-police-seek-robbery-suspect-6-7-years-age/

Frankfurt S. Kuel said...

I'm typing this slooooowly, because I know it will take time to sink in.

1. Free speech is too precious to be given to people who abuse it.

2. You abuse it.

3. Therefore (by 1) you shouldn't have it.

Just obey your wisers and betters: life gets so much easy.

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, indict the truth.

eah said...

Speaking of gagging, they really don't mess around in the UK:

Supporters involved in tasteless chants at football matches should be banned for life, according to former Manchester United player Joe Jordan.

Shanghai Bob said...

Invade the World, Invite the World, Intimidate the American Public

Aaron in Israel said...

Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

How about, "Jumped the shark"?

Anonymous said...

inter: to place in a tomb or grave, bury

This business with the film feels like a cut-rate 9/11 to try and bounce US support for an attack on Iran.

Stone said...

The book you link to is an interesting little spin on reality.

They admit that the liberal explanation of the achievement gap is that socioeconomic causes are the roots of the gap, and that this is wrong because poor white kids do better than poor black kids. Also, that they even do better than middle class black kids.

So they move to damning the conservative model:

The 'sociopathological' model- black culture is to blame, blacks need to return to traditional virtues and a traditional work ethic. "The problem, however, with this approach is that the White critics are- in essence- asking the Black community to just "act White"."

(Got it? We can't possibly expect blacks to have a decent work ethic or behave in a civilized manner because that is 'acting white'.)

The next is the genetic model, where the gap is due to heritable traits. They state this has been debunked, but in reality, not so much- I checked into one of the references and what it showed is cherry picking a timeframe where some states show a modest narrowing of the gap while others show it widen. They don't indicate how many points the average widens, and don't give a frame of reference as to how wide the gap is, or how big these changes are. Or what happens over other years, trends, etc. So they consider this to be a thorough debunking.

They come flat out and say next that the schools are for educating whites so that is the problem, it must be re-created towards educating minorities.



Default User said...

Invade the World, invite the World, in debt to the World, and intimidate any who complain.

eah said...

poor white kids do better than poor black kids

Some data indicates that poor white kids do better than rich black kids.

Anonymous said...

Muslim winter setting in?

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tjRUZxRMlw&feature=g-u-u

Anonymous said...

Liberals support pussy riot but condemn anti-Muslim video.

Anonymous said...

invade the world,
invite the world,
interdict me.

interdict: Middle English entredite (in the ecclesiastical sense), from Old French entredit, from Latin interdictum, past participle of interdicere 'interpose, forbid by decree', from inter- 'between' + dicere 'say'. The spelling change in the 16th century was due to association with the Latin form(O.E.D)

Anonymous said...

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/09/14/why_do_swedes_in_america_earn_far_more_than_swedes_in_sweden

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/who-tolerates-anti-american-preaching-from-muslims/

NOTA said...

Perhaps you need another set of three:

"Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world" actually describes a lot of our policy in practice. What's the domestic end to the same policy?

You need a catchy phrase for spying on the people, silencing the dissenters, and locking a lot of them up. Some nice catch-phrase for the credit-fueled empire abroad/police state at home that our ruling class seems to want for us.

Anonymous said...

Romney has no counter.

NOTA said...

There were a whole lot of "small-government conservatives" during the Clinton administration who were worried about too much state power, dubious of our foreign interventions (like bombing Yemen and Serbia), and worried that the federal government was in general too big and powerful. And then, George W Bush came into office, and it turned out that about 90% of the most vocal small-government conservatives really didn't have any problem with pointless nation-building exercises, or massive expansions of state power, or widespread domestic spying, or unfunded expansions of expensive social programs. They were using those issues as clubs to attack the other side, but they mostly didn't believe in any of them. By contrast, there were people who kept on objecting to those things, even when someone on their side was in power. Many of them were called traitors or liberals or whatever other names worked to shut them up or discredit them. The conservative movement made an effort to push antiwar conservatives out. And yet some people stuck to their beliefs. Those people probably really did and do believe in small, limited government.

Something very similar happened when Obama came to power. About 90% of the liberals complaining bitterly over the Bush administration's executive power grabs and domestic spying and war on terror excesses suddenly found that all those same actions, done by a Democrat, were simply prudent measures taken to Keep Us Safe. And a small fraction of the people complaining about Bush continued complaining about Obama. Again, I think that gives us some notion of what left-leaning pundits and politicians actually believe the ideas they mouth, and which ones are just looking for clubs with which to attack the other side.

The lesson from all this: If you care about individual liberty, some people widely labeled as liberal are probably your allies long-term, but others are only your allies when the Republicans are in power. If you care about limited government, similarly, some people widely labeled as small-government conservatives are your allies long-term, but many more are only your allies when a Democrat is in the white house. The Kuciniches and Pauls are rare, but valuable. We can make common cause with them, even when we disagree with them, because they actually believe something and act on those beliefs even when they're costly.

Torn and Frayed said...

Invade the World, invite the World, invoke the World to suppress American dissent.

Anonymous said...

I was reading the Courageous Conversations reader reviews on Amazon. Warning: you will need a sick bag ready to hand.

divine right of meritocrats said...

Invalidate the social contract

Anonymous said...

Quit with the "in-"s. How about this for America's new motto?

"Siege and solicit the other; silence and insolve your brother"

David said...

How about "Invade the world, invite the world, INFLAME the world" ... leading to ... "Invade the world, invite the world, INFLAME the world" ... in an endless cycle, until Israel's enemies are destroyed?

NOTA said...

Stone:

One interesting path to pursue wrt the black/white gap in outcomes, health, IQ, etc., is the way that Africans, living with technology, medicine, education, media, nutrition, etc., developed mostly by and for Europeans (with some recent Asian contributions) might just be living in an environment optimized for someone else. Perhaps if an African civilization had developed this technology, they'd do better, because the whole thing has evolved in ways that have worked relatively well for Europeans. That's plausible given biological differences--maybe there are some nutrients or environmental stimuli that work very differently for Europeans than for Africans, and this is driving some or all of the gap in outcomes.

This doesn't seem all that likely to me, but it does seem like a kine of questioning worth pursuing. But even asking the right questions requires accepting something few people want to acknowledge right now--that blacks in the US (and I think in the UK and France) have lower average IQs, shorter lifespans, and other differences that seem like they may be rooted more in biology than in culture or discrimination.

Anonymous said...

invade the world, invite the world,

incarcerate Americans?

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, indict the dissenters

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, incatenate the American public.

It means enchain.

Other possible ones: inculpate, inquinate, or inviscate.

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, inhibit the inhabitants.

Anonymous said...

So, there are really two reasons the Obama admin are scurrying around claiming "it's the video, stupid."

1) Yes, of course, they aren't about to admit that the Obama doctrine of do-nothing except expect Muslims to like Obama because....well, because he's, after all, Obama and he has told everyone how wonderful he is but also

2) The admin is panicked that some media source will go ahead and announce what those who read know, that Ambassador Stevens was gay and that our enemies knew that

Yes, they are panicked, but no matter, the msm will protect them, yet sooner or later this stuff leaks.

I'm from Northern Ca. Stevens attended Berkeley and...hey, it was no secret.

ben tillman said...

Infringe.

Mark Mallarde said...

Romney to court Latino voters today. Sigh. No hope left for Romney using the "Sailer Strategy."

Anonymous said...

The 'sociopathological' model- black culture is to blame, blacks need to return to traditional virtues and a traditional work ethic. "The problem, however, with this approach is that the White critics are- in essence- asking the Black community to just "act White"."

How about returning to traditional pre-columbian African values i.e. self-sufficiency with no help from Whitey?

ATBOTL said...

"There were a whole lot of "small-government conservatives" during the Clinton administration who were worried about too much state power, dubious of our foreign interventions (like bombing Yemen and Serbia), and worried that the federal government was in general too big and powerful. And then, George W Bush came into office, and it turned out that about 90% of the most vocal small-government conservatives really didn't have any problem with pointless nation-building exercises, or massive expansions of state power, or widespread domestic spying, or unfunded expansions of expensive social programs. They were using those issues as clubs to attack the other side, but they mostly didn't believe in any of them. By contrast, there were people who kept on objecting to those things, even when someone on their side was in power. Many of them were called traitors or liberals or whatever other names worked to shut them up or discredit them. The conservative movement made an effort to push antiwar conservatives out. And yet some people stuck to their beliefs. Those people probably really did and do believe in small, limited government."

I was hoping that right after Bush left office that mainstream conservatives would do some soul searching over the Bush years. I was sure there would be at least some of this.

Instead they just went right into hysterical personal attacks on Obama 24/7.

Kai Carver said...

> Can anybody think of a word beginning with "in" that means gag, censor, shut up, stifle, etc?

index: a list formerly published by Church authority restricting or forbidding the reading of certain books.

not commonly used as a verb, though.

Aaron B. said...

NOTA, I don't think it's so much that they don't mind it when their own guy does it, as that they don't really believe their own guy is doing it.

When Bush was elected, mainstream conservatives thought he was conservative (at least the "compassionate" variety), so they stopped watching closely for expanding government spending. They just assumed he would try to scale it back, because that's what his side claimed to want. When spending went up anyway, they figured congressional Democrats or the bureaucracy must be to blame.

Likewise, liberals assumed Obama would be anti-war and pro-individual rights, because that's what his side claims to be. So when he took over and increased troops where we already had them and started new interventions, and increased suppression of the civil rights of his opponents, they simply didn't see any of that. He wouldn't do that, because he's their guy. If it happens, it must be leftover evil from the Bush folks, or something he's been forced to do as a compromise with Republicans in Congress to get important things passed.

It's not that they don't mind their guy doing evil; it's that they don't let themselves see the evil he's doing or give him any responsibility for it.

Anonymous said...

> invade the world, invite the world, invert the truth.

Heartiste wins the thread! Brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world, inter the words

Whiskey said...

What invasion Steve ... under Obama? He withdrew from Iraq, is withdrawing from Afghanistan, led from behind in Libya, and gave the Muslim Brotherhood everything they wanted. Besides as many have noted, Denmark, Sweden, and other small countries that have no real role in the ME get nailed too. Cartoon Riots?

Michael Totten links to Youtube where Ed Perez Assistant AG says he won't rule out criminalizing "Blasphemy" ... presumably only against Islam.

Obama is doing everything he can to make the Muslim Brotherhood happy -- he even threw Mubarak under the bus to install them in Egypt. This is how he gets repaid. He's basically willing to talk to death any action on Iran's nukes, and now Iran is saying oil should be at least $150 a barrel, or higher, and upping the ante by saying they'll "track down and eliminate" the Egyptian Copt who made the video and upping the bounty on Rushdie.

A global economy means you get connected, if you like it or not, to Muslims about whom 90% are angry Jihadists who want nothing better but to riot and kill. That's just who they are. You can be tiny Denmark or the US, it does not matter. Only Putin and China have solved that problem.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, most these "in-" words sound too erudite, don't they.

invite the world,
interdict me.

That sounds kinda dirty.

Whiskey said...

We're not invading like say, the British in Khartoum. Back then, a real British Empire would not put up with that stuff, and didn't import a zillion people from the Empire either. Now with the Philippines independent (and reflexively anti-American) we have far more Filipinos than when we ran the place as a colony.

In fact we do a very bare minimum, at that, and have since Vietnam, cautiously husbanding men and money, by historical standards, to the absolute bare requirement to do anything. As long as its kept off the Media and casualties are light enough to be ignored.

Its more accurate to say we have weakness abroad and tyranny at home. And the one requires the other.

If we really invaded and killed lots of enemies and created fear, would any Muslims dare do the stuff they do now? How many riots, burnings, invasions of the Soviet Embassies happened 1979-1989? Oh yeah, none. Even with Soviet troops shooting up Afghanistan and a jihad against them.

At the very height of Western Imperialism and actual invasion, circa 1880-1910, the average Western person had more personal freedom than now that rested on absolute strength and intimidation abroad.

Mervyn Paice said...

We're not invading like say, the British in Khartoum. Back then, a real British Empire would not put up with that stuff...

True, but we all learned our lessons from the King David Hotel bombing and the Sergeant's Affair.

"The Sergeants affair (Hebrew: פרשת הסרג'נטים‎) was an incident that took place in Mandate Palestine in July 1947 in which the Jewish underground group the Irgun kidnapped two British army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice, and threatened to kill them if the death sentences passed on Irgun militants arrested by the British authorities on charges of illegal possession of arms, and with 'intent to kill or cause other harm to a large number of people',[1] were carried out. When the executions were carried out, the Irgun killed its hostages and hung their booby-trapped bodies in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair)

There's no need to go blundering about the Mid East. Just wall it off, and let the inhabitants go at it and kill each other off till their little hearts and minds content.

The Legendary Linda said...

Invade the World, invite the World, in debt to the World, and intimidate any who complain

How about the 3 Ms: military, multiculturalism, and muzzle

The Legendary Linda said...

Invade the world!
Invite the world!
Impede dissent!

Anonymous said...

Whiskey,,


"A global economy means you get connected, whether you like it or not, to muslims 90% of whom are angry Jihadists..."

WRONG!

It has nothing to do with "global economy" (of which the Arab world, other then oil, has almost zero input), it is all about having a GLOBAL immigration policy, verus a restrictionist one, or none at all. How many muslim bomb attacks are there in Japan? How many muslims are there in Japan? SEE the connection.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I like this one:

Invade the World, invite the World, invoke the World.

And yes, Whiskey is full of it as usual. He wants the economies of scale of globalism--God forbid we have to do things like mow our own grass--and is terrified of American whites becoming an actual nation. Because all that might not work out so well for You Know Who.

Anonymous said...

Not very good, but possibly amusing: Nurse Ratched says "Intubate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracheal_intubation

Tracheal intubation, usually simply referred to as intubation, is the placement of a flexible plastic tube into the trachea (windpipe) to maintain an open airway or to serve as a conduit through which to administer certain drugs.

prawndaddy said...

"There is rumor that Keanu Reeves was considered for the role, and one can see a bit of his persona in the young lead."

I had the same reaction to the young man who plays Muhammed. And really, the actors do a pretty decent job overall; their performances are no worse than most or all that I've seen by Keanu, Ashton K., Ben A., Sandra B., or Jennifer A.

Anonymous said...

The real dilemma will come when the Muslims want creationism taught in public schools. What position will the NYTimes take?


What position would the evangelical Christians take? "Actually, you know what, screw it - we believe in evolution now"?

Anonymous said...

heartiste said...

invade the world, invite the world, invert the truth.



That's by far the best one. "Invert" preserves not only in- but inv- and ends in a dental consonant. Subtly hints at "veni, vidi, vici", too.

"Intimidate" is probably the best word if you really want something that begins with in- and specifically refers to shutting people up.

The Legendary Linda said...

Invade the world!
Invite the world!
Inveigh the whites with Invective!

LOL! This is fun!

Londoner said...

It's en- rather than in-, of course, but 'enslave' may be the most accurate, and in speech it can be made to sound similar to 'in-'.

But as soon as the dungeon doors start slamming and a few causes celebres emerge, you will have an obvious contender in 'incarcerate'. you surely won't have long to wait if Obama and Holder get four more years.

NOTA said...

Aaron:

Yeah, that tracks with comments I've seen from liberals justifying Obama's actions that they condemned when Bush did them. Special pleading is a major part of keeping partisan spirit alive, because you've always got to find a way to feel like your guy is ok, even if he's spent the last four years selling you down the river on every important issue.

Anonymous said...

Inflame the world
incite the world
in Dutch with the world

Anonymous said...

How many muslims are there in Japan?

In the 1920s, Japan has about a million Muslims. Nearly all of them refugees from the Bolshevik reconquista of Central Asia, and guests of the highly anti-communist Japanese government. (Islam is even less popular than Christianity among ethnic Japanese.) None of these Muslim guests stayed for long in Japan.