Pitching For More Dead Americans: A Neo-Con Fetish
Pitching For More Dead Americans: A Neo-Con Fetish
The Ward Churchill of the demented right-wing has a deathwish for terror in order to unite the country Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 10, 2007
[align=left]Another feverish Neo-Con has come out of the closet and admitted to enjoying the fetish that he shares with scores of other Administration apologists - a deathwish for more terror and more dead Americans in order to unite the country behind Bush.[/align]
[align=left] "ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America," laments Stu Bykofsky in his
Philadelphia Daily News column.
"Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
[/align]
We knew who the enemy was then.
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
Bykofsky is disappointed that 600,000 plus dead civilians along with thousands of slain troops in Iraq isn't enough to convince Americans that the war should be prosecuted with more vigor, so he's yearning for a kick up the backside in the form of thousands of dead Americans at home.
One could be forgiven for being cynical and thinking that Bykofsky, a plodding Neo-Con hack who nobody had heard of before last night, was just pushing the boat out in a desperate ploy to get a link on the Drudge Report, but reading his previous frenzied Bush administration boot-licking columns it becomes clear that Bykofsky actually means it. [/align]
[align=left](Article continues below)[/align]
[align=left] Bykofsky screeches about the perils of "global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children," and then invites them to slaughter more Americans - and even helps pinpoint the targets they should attack!
"The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system," gushes Bykofsky.
Perhaps he should volunteer to send his own kids into those targets as jumbo jets are slammed into them, since Bykofsky is so eager to witness more American blood spilled in the name of the empire.
Or is there a greater threat? If Bykofsky has the courage of his convictions behind him, would he be willing to strap himself with explosives and run into a crowded shopping mall for the good of the country?
Obviously not, but only in using such extreme examples as a parallel can we begin to fathom the vulgarity of Bykofsky's remarks.
Heroes and villains - The brave firefighters that ran into burning buildings on 9/11 to save those that perished with them, and Stu Bykofsky - a morally repugnant Neo-Con slug who yearns for more scenes like this to rescue the reputation of his master, George W. Bush.
Bykofsky's warped logic is not confined to the domain of attention seeking hacks - the yearning for terror is a shared fetish amongst Neo-Cons, policy wonks and academics alike.
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, recently told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago." [/align]
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
Last month, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.
And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
An army of Neo-Cons secretly share the same fetish - they would exploit a hollow opportunity to say "I told you so," even at the expense of thousands of dead dads, moms, sons, daughters and babies.
Bykofsky and his cohorts are so aghast that the majority of Americans now take them for what they are - maniacal devotees to a blood soaked and failed neo-conservative doctrine - that they'd rather see innocent people be blown to bits than admit they're wrong.
In some countries, this kind of demented rhetoric is illegal - it's classified as glorification of terror in Britain, and their rants are no less volatile than some of the propaganda spewed by Muslim clerics who have been arrested and deported for advocating violence.
These rabid blowhards should be thankful that America still clings on to its first amendment - in the face of a terrorist assault that they encourage - otherwise they would soon find out that openly pitching for mass murder doesn't sit too well with the authorities.
Bykofsky has just written himself into history as the Ward Churchill of the delirious right-wing and the two share a lot in common.
Both express the uncanny ability of being able to match the ignorance of their comments with the depth of their depravity.
