We received a refreshing email yesterday from a Canadian reader named Rier, who is not entirely in agreement with our political opinions, but is nonetheless a staunch supporter of our Counterjihad stance.
One of the despairing criticisms that is sometimes leveled at us and other right-wing blogs is that we are preaching to the choir, living in an echo chamber, etc., and that we have no effect on the larger world outside our own parochial corner of the blogosphere.
Rier’s email indicates that this is not entirely true. With his permission, the entire text is posted below:
Baron and Dymphna:
I am a Canadian viewer who for the vast majority of my voting life (nearly 30 years now) has voted consistently on the Left. Nonetheless I have tremendously enjoyed your website because I have come to agree, especially in the last couple of years (although the background of my “conversion” goes back over many years), with many of the criticisms that you and other conservatives make of things like immigration policy and our governments’ inadequate responses to Islam and its Jihad against the world. I find the present Left in my own country and around the world deceitful and treacherous in attempting to deny, cover up, or simply ignore these issues.
Undoubtedly I do not always agree with your perspective — though I probably do more often than not these days — but I commend you and other conservatives for at least being willing to state the obvious. For that reason I was heartened to see the Social Democrats defeated in Sweden defeated a couple of years ago, and I have concluded that in the upcoming Canadian federal election I will be voting for the Conservative party.
I think that a good long period of Conservative majority rule in this country — and the re-election of the Republicans in the U.S. and the Right elsewhere in the West — may be the only thing that can reset the political spectrum by forcing the Left to reconsider its pathological policies. I mention all of this as a means of encouragement, as you, and other bloggers tackling these issues, may be having an influence in places where you don’t always expect to.
Regarding your own current election campaign in the States, a little while ago I watched some CNN analysis of the Friday evening presidential debate, in which someone (perhaps posing as an expert in this field but maybe just some reporter — sorry I have to be so short on specifics as I didn’t consider the important of these details until long after the fact) used analysis of body language and facial expressions to critique the performance of the candidates. Listening to this guy made my blood boil! His conclusions seemed highly questionable at best as far as I could see — at times clearly ridiculous, in fact — and definitely biased against McCain.
– – – – – – – – –
The commenter was using things like the set of McCain’s eyes when he was smiling to suggest that McCain was suppressing anger when that was clearly far from evident, and at one point the commenter accused McCain of “showing disdain” for Obama.
CNN portrays the two candidates and in their desperation to find whatever evidence that they can (sound or not) to discredit McCain and promote Obama. I note that in making his point about his vision of negotiations with Iran he referred angrily to McCain’s interpretation of his policy using the term “ridiculous”. This was the angriest language that I had noticed anywhere in the debate to that point. And again, CNN did not seem to comment on this surliness on the part of Obama, but only on McCain’s, regardless of how desperately they had to read things into his “body language” to pull it off.
Similar conclusions were being drawn about Sarah Palin based on (if I recall correctly) the tautness of the facial muscles around her lips. Ironic, isn’t it, considering that most liberals would probably condemn that kind of “behavioural profiling” as an “unjust intrusion on privacy” and tantamount to “police state” tactics?
CNN, and possibly other left-wing liberal MSM sources, seem to be trying dishonestly to use their reporting function to skew the real story — and not, I think, doing a very good job at it, I must say, assuming that viewers are observant — but it does concern me that gullible persons among the American electorate may fall for it.
I hope that American audiences will find ways to hold them accountable and work to destroy the “edge” that they are trying to give to the Obama campaign. To that end I have written this in the hope that I can alert you and, through you, others of like mind to something that hopefully the conservative blogosphere can respond to.