Roger L. Simon: Annals of the Mainstream Media

The New York Times seems to accept that Iran had a real election and that the "reform movement" was actually a reform movement, not another branch of the Mullachcracy. I don't know the extent that they are incorrect (there are nuances, of course), but not to explore this strong possibility--and that the entire election was a charade--strikes me as the sloppiest of reporting... and almost willfully shallow.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

“In his campaign, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who rose from frugal origins as a blacksmith's son to become mayor of Tehran in 2003, spelled out a domestic agenda that might be described as Islamic socialism, where the core values of the Islamic revolution are to be protected while using state resources to provide a financial safety net for all Iranian families, especially the poor.”

Bingo. This dude claims to be a committed socialist. Nothing more needs to be added. Such sentiments alone are enough to guarantee him something of a free ride.

He sounds more like a committed religious fanatic than committed socialist to me. Marx, who said religion was the opiate of the masses, would be anathema to such a person

“He sounds more like a committed religious fanatic than committed socialist to me.”

You are probably correct---but it doesn’t matter. The very fact that he advocates the sharing of the wealth is enough. Egalitarianism may be the number of one value embraced by the “elites.” Just remember how much slack was cut for Stalin, Mao, and even the early Hitler.

The rape of the english language to promote political or social goals is the greatest crime of the MSM. Rasfanjani is now a "moderate". George Wallace could have been called a moderate when compared with Bull Conners but only if you have abandoned the idea of reality. Iran is a democracy because they have an election. Only if you ignore the fact that the Guardian Council has almost total control and can freely ignore whatever law the elected body passes.

Iraqi PM Jafari was interviewed on Hardball the other day. He was asked about the insurgency. He politly explained to the questioner that the term insurgency was improper, that these thugs were terrorists. He was asked again about the insurgents. He explained once more that they were not insurgents, they have no right to be called insurgents or rebels, and that to use that term for them ignored the truth of what they are. Finally the talking hairdoo spit out, "terrorists, insurgents, whatever you want to call them."

Truth and accuracy has been abandoned for agenda and the PC ethic. Fascist theocracies are called Iranian Democracy. Definitions of words are abused to draw fuzzy curtains over the ugly truth.
Kevin Peters

Such gloomy guses. Have you no faith that, with the proper blend of socialism and Islamic fundamentalism, Iran can emerge from its current doldrums to become the exemplary, advanced and powerful nation of which the president-elect speaks so eloquently? A nation without rivals, with justice for all and malice towards none? When did you get so cynical? The people have spoken. Surely this signals the dawn of Renaissance in Iran.

Instead of grousing about a democratic election just because you don't like the results, calling it a sham, a charade (and sounding, may I say, like a bunch of sore loser Dems), take a leaf from my book. To celebrate Mr. Ahmadinejad's election and the great future it portends, I've arranged to have some pigs fly over and drop congratulatory snowballs from hell.

There's nothing new here. He who controls the language controls the mind. It's all about politics, i.e., power over other people. This has been known since at least the Russian Revolution. Orwell brilliantly characterized it, and the current crop of coffee-shop would-be dictators are following through on the same pattern by more subtle means, only casually raping the language instead of blatantly raping it. The rape is more effective that way, dontcha know. Language is not reality ("The map is not the territory."), but it mediates reality and is mistaken for reality by the gullible.

The only problem here is the assumption that the NYT is objective, is the "newspaper of record", prints "all the news that's fit to print", or however one wishes to phrase the concept. Drop that assumption and all is well, everything is clear. The NYT is simply the foremost organ of the Democratic party, a party which has slowly but inexorably turned itself into a pro-socialist, pro-world-government, anti-American party. Socialism and world government seem like noble concepts until one thinks through the consequences. Which most people don't care to, because people generally believe what they want to believe. As David Thomson says, once a group can pass itself off as "socialist" then it has become the "good guys" in the pages of the NYT and that is that.

The NYT is never going to admit that it is a mere party organ; to do so would lessen its raison d'etre, which is its self-importance. And it would lessen its influence among the gullible. Moreover, its writers and editors, like all true believers, are utterly convinced that there is no distinction between their political agendas and reality. All right-thinking people should be pro-world-government and anti-American, pro-UN and anti-Bush. To believe anything else is the clear hallmark of insanity. The only path available to those who are bound and determined to view reality as it really is is to ignore the NYT completely and move on with life.

Somebody must be bucking for the Walter Durnanty chair in defense of the indefensible.

Does anyone really take the NYT seriously? I mean REALLY? Don't we all know it's a sham?

Yes, control of language is aprt of politics. Which is why increasingly I no longer refer to "terrorists" (too vague), "insurgents" (to have an insurgency you have to have a coherent agenda), "islamists" (too easily confused), or any of that.

Here is the simple truth: fascism is not always secular. Saddam's fascism was secular at first although he added religious trappings after the first Gulf War. But if you read the definition of "fascism," it simply means oppressive, dictatorial control, usually from a strong centralized government with strong socioeconomic controls, largely unelected leaders, and brutal suppression of all opposition.

The taliban was religious fascism. Religious fascism is what the bin Ladens of the world want. So do the mullahs in Iran. Meanwhile, the likes of Saddam and Assad are simply more secular fascists.

And it is fascism which many so-called "anti-war" or "liberal" people defend or apologize for. Which is why they are NOT liberals. Let's just call them exactly what they are: fascist sympathizers and fascist apologists.

June 25, 2005: Annals of the Mainstream Media - Iran

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post