Once a Serf…
U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib is making news once again, and once again she is doing it by calling into question how she is not in permanent and willful violation of the minimal qualification for being a U.S. Representative.
Here is Tlaib’s response to a New York Times report that supposedly “blames” the recent Gaza violence on Palestinians:
When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free? Headlines like this & framing it in this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress & target Palestinian children and families. #FreePalestine https://t.co/p3X3j8WtwM
— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) May 5, 2019
Can someone explain to me how a woman who refers to Palestinians as “our Palestinian people” can claim to represent a U.S. congressional district? If she had said “my” Palestinian people, then I might have thought she just meant to express sympathy with her ethnic homeland, equivalent to an American of Italian descent saying, “We Italians love our wine,” or one of Chinese descent saying, “I hope my people finally free themselves from the Communist Party.” But instead, Tlaib says “our Palestinian people,” which clearly shows that she is not merely identifying herself ethnically, but rather that she is representing herself as speaking to Palestinians, which seems to be the only sense in which “our,” in this context, may be understood.
Why is she acting as a spokesman for Palestinians, and addressing herself to them as such, rather than acting as a spokesman for American citizens in her Michigan congressional district, as her job title would seem to demand?
I suppose the one other possibility is that she is addressing herself to a wider audience which she wishes to represent, a category within which Palestinians could be regarded as a subcategory, and hence as “our Palestinians.” That wider audience, of course, could only be Muslims in general. Tlaib would be serving, then, as the U.S. Congressional representative of Islam, which would seem slightly outside the meaning of the words she spoke at her swearing-in ceremony.
Might Tlaib, then, also be the talented songwriter who produced the lovely smite-the-infidels tune recently performed by Muslim children in Philadelphia?
A British prince who is not in direct line for the throne, along with his wife, who happens to be an American B-actress, have had a baby, and the entire Western world is supposed to be enraptured.
Sorry to all my monarchist readers, but seriously, why in the world does Great Britain continue to support and foster this obsolete absurdity? Great Britain is not a country anymore; it is a theme park and tourist attraction. A theme park with terrorist training centers and a death trap healthcare system, to be sure, but a theme park nonetheless. Does anyone remember the last British monarch who had any legitimate political function? And no, acting as an official quasi-moral spokesman and nostalgic rallying point is not a legitimate political function. That the once great people of one of history’s most consequential nations should be reduced to hanging on the every word of, and drooling at every insignificant item of gossip about, a bunch of inbred morons, playboys with their revolving door of arm candy, and progressive globalist propaganda tools who became politically superfluous more than a century ago, is a sad but sadly appropriate symbol of the death of the West.
Is it any wonder that even America, which emancipated itself from the control of the British monarchy back when that entity still had a purpose and some nobility about it, is perennially, slobberingly obsessed with news of “the royals”? Hasn’t American electoral politics basically reduced itself to the same kind of obsolete show-regime? Does any sensible American believe his elected representatives are really making the decisions in Washington anymore, in any practical sense of the word? The elected representatives are merely the spokesmen — “the talent,” as they say in show business — for this or that faction of progressive authoritarian billionaires, bankers, and bureaucrats behind the scenes.
On that point, Donald Trump — the puppet king to end all puppet kings — has weighed in on this weekend’s Kentucky Derby controversy. Why should a U.S. president think it his place to comment on such things, let alone to take sides in the “debate”? More importantly, why should anyone care what the President of the United States thinks about a sporting event, and the manner in which it applies its peculiar rules?
We all crave a monarchy, live for popular idols, and divert ourselves with titillating gossip and angry shouting, while civilization swirls swiftly down the drain.