Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Cuties in Combat

I was never really in the hard-core Army. Basic, NCO school, and Intelligence school, and I spent the rest of my hitch at a desk. But Basic was enough to teach me what combat soldiers mainly do. They carry stuff. Big, heavy stuff. Indeed, the ability to carry heavy things through rotten conditions is probably the main qualification for a combat solder, and has probably been since before Sumer. A soldier who can't carry stuff is almost always pretty useless, because other soldiers have to carry his stuff for him.

And that is why, alas, ladies can't be soldiers. Oh, many of them could do what I did, I'm sure, but when it comes to combat, they simply can't do the job. (And remember, while I did indeed sit at a desk doing intel analysis, I was expected to be ready to go into combat at any time, which is why they gave me a set of injections about once a month so I could fly off to disease-infested combat areas at a moment's notice.) And there's more to it than carrying stuff, though that's one of the main things. While I was at a desk, Fred Reed was actually in Vietnam doing soldier things, and is infinitely more qualified than I am to rule on the question of ladies in combat. He writes:

A Petticoat Military
Comedy in Uniform

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

NAP or ZAP? — Nah, the NSP!

In answer to my last post about the NAP/ZAP [link], I got this reaction from a reader. He makes something clear that I've been trying to formulate a way of describing. I've put it this way: Differing cultures have differing ideas about what constitutes aggression, so if you could ever have an effective NAP, it couldn't be in a multicultural country, which of course is what open-borders libertarians (as well as open-borders everybody else) are advocating for, whether they realize it or not.

But the reader goes further and deeper, demonstrating that even within a homogeneous culture, or even between two family members, (anybody with kids can confirm this — hell, anybody from a family can confirm this), there can be enormous disagreement over whether a given act is aggressive or not. From the reader:

...As far as how to argue against the NAP, I prefer to take it from its most fundamental logical foundation. Non-aggression policy. So what is aggression?

There are innumerable definitions for aggression, but they all come down to one thing - the assumption that aggression is an objective quality. NAP with a subjective definition of aggression is useless. It's like having the NUP, the Non-ugliness principle, banning all art that is not beautiful.

The problem becomes immediately clear: What is beautiful to one person may not necessarily be beautiful to another. In order for the statement " is aggression" to be truth-apt, aggression must be defined in such a way that it is -independent- of individual perception. If it just comes down to the point of view, then there is no singular right answer as to whether something is or isn't aggression, and no decisions can be made as to the proper course of action.

There is no possible way to define aggression in a way that avoids individual perception. Aggression depends upon perception and intent. Aggression MUST be a subjective quality, as perception and intent are subjective qualities. Let's say you're walking down the street and see what appears to be a rape occurring in an alley. Who's to say whether or not it's rape? She may just have a rape fetish and is in fact enjoying herself immensely. It comes down to the victim's perspective. If she likes it, it isn't rape/aggression. If she doesn't like it, it is rape/aggression.

Here's another example: Bob trips and falls into Adam, pushing him to the ground. From Adam's point of view, he was smashed into by Bob, an aggressive act. He then retaliates against Bob, to defend himself, because he perceived Bob's actions as aggressive and felt threatened, so he socks Bob in the jaw. From Bob's point of view, he did absolutely nothing aggressive, and suddenly here's Adam, aggressing upon him. Bob doesn't believe he was aggressive, so he defends himself against Adam. We have two individuals, both believe they were aggressed upon by the other and are 100% justified in retaliating. Who is right and who is wrong comes down to a determination of intent. We could say that Bob didn't mean to hit Adam, but how is that at all able to be determined? It can't be.

All the necessary qualities in the determination of aggression are subjective - intent, perception, consent.

No evidence can exist that any third party can observe to determine whether or not the 'victim' is enjoying herself. Aggression is purely a subjective quality, and cannot be objective. There is absolutely zero way for the NAP to work, even if we were all 'immortal Greek philosophers without spouses or children'. We'd have to prove that everybody perceives the same thing the same way, and that's impossible to do.

Another aspect of the NAP is this consideration of 'proportional force'. After all, no NAPist will say it's legitimate to bomb a store that used a little dishonest selling tactics to move product. Defense/punishment against aggression must be proportional to the magnitude of aggression. Having an objective measurement of the magnitude of aggression flies in the face of the subjective theory of value. The only person who can determine the amount of disutility suffered is the individual who felt it in the first place, and there's nothing stopping them from believing that it is in fact 100% justified to bomb a store that pushed a product just a little too hard.

Often, NAPists will do their damnedest to come up with an objective definition of aggression. Sometimes it's fun to poke holes in their flimsy definitions, but really what works is to do a necessarily-follows. Just give it to them, and say "Ok, let's say there IS an objective definition of aggression, what must follow given this being true?"

And what it comes down to, is the victim is able to be -wrong-. That is to say, a NAPcop comes across some aggression, detains the aggressor, and punishment is decided. What if the victim believes it is not aggression? In an objective definition of aggression, the victim is flat-out wrong. Comes out meaning that even a voluntary transaction between two consenting parties can be declared involuntary and aggressive, completely disregarding what the individuals in question say, because if aggression is objective, then there is only one right answer as to whether or not something is aggression or not, and it -cannot- hinge on perception of the victim.

tl;dr - aggression is subjective, rendering the NAP meaningless, and an objective definition of aggression leads to the ability for a NAP court to pass ruling on situations, disregarding the beliefs of the party involved. 

Quibcag: I found the logical girl on the net here:

More NAP (or ZAP) Crap

The Non-Aggression Principle (or Zero Aggression Principle) seems to be all Ten Commandments to a certain breed of libertarian. There are a lot of problems with it. First off, you absolutely cannot have a government without violating it, and it is therefore an anarchist principle, not a libertarian one, because if anarchists are libertarians, so are minarchists. So, basically, those who insist on the NAP are stating that the minarchists aren't libertarians.

Second, if we were all immortal Greek philosophers without spouses or children, it might work. Maybe. But just try bringing up children without violating the NAP. It'll take a lot of sophistry to explain why you can use force to keep your toddler from running into the traffic without being in violation of it.

Third, NAP aficionados really have to stop threatening me physically when I disagree with them. It really makes them look stupid.

Fourth (and this is the clincher) all these NAPers tell me that borders are imaginary social constructs yadda yadda yadda, and that it's a violation of the NAP to prevent people from immigrating across them. Even the flakes over at the Libertarian Church, Ayn Rand Synod, want some restrictions on immigration. So, if you'll think about it, the NAPsters are in total agreement with Hillary and Jeb and all the other candidates (except Trump) that it'll be perfectly fine if a billion Africans and Asians move in right away. Oh, the NAPistos will say that they of course don't want these new immigrants to vote themselves freebies to be paid for by present-day actual Americans, but that's of course what they'll do anyway. And like all other liberals, NAP libertarians care only about intentions. Results are completely irrelevant.

Fifth, it assumes that the whole human race is just like libertarians and their friends, (i. e., Whites of Christian or secular Christian background, of Northwest European origin), and automatically value ideas like individualism, justice, fairness, freedom, etc.  Of course, most members of the human race don't understand these ideas and would reject them if they did.

Finally, as I've said many times before, the NAP is at best the sort of thing people mutually agree to abide by, not some kind of law of nature. And you're a fool to try to live the principle around people who intend nothing of the sort... Like those billions of immigrants.

I found this over at. LNARS - Libertarian Nationalist American Robot Socialist. Since it's bound to be shot down by Disney pretty quick, look at it now and maybe save it for yourself.

Quibcag: The girls of Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina) demonstrate how the Non-Aggression Principle usually works out in real life.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Rape Culture as a Voodoo Chant

Yes, there are a lot of rape cultures in the world, but the culture most often accused of it, i. e., Western culture, our culture, is probably the culture most hostile to rape and rapists. Acceptance of rape as normal behavior is common in parts of Africa and India, but elsewhere, as far as I can determine, it's considered criminal by practically everybody.

But when did facts ever slow liberals down? Especially the most liberal of liberals, the feminists? If the idea of a 'rape culture' makes them happy in their fantasy world, then it exists by proclamation.

Actually, in the West, rape is considered really bad behavior, and it's the sort of thing you can get killed for. Unlike other crimes, like burglary or vandalism, it is often punished by death after the fact, instead of only during commission. Stephen W. Browne has this take on it:

Modern Witchcraft

by Stephen W. Browne

I have an announcement to make, I am not a rapist.
Wow! Aren’t you glad to hear that?
How about you? Are you a rapist?
“Heck no!” I hear you say, indignantly.
Oh you’re just saying that. Maybe you even believe it’s true, but you’re a rapist and just don’t know it.
“I’ve never raped anyone!”
You were socialized in a rape culture, didn’t you know that?
Well as a matter of fact, neither did I.
“Don’t teach women how to be safe – teach men not to rape!” we are told.
Where are men taught to rape, may I ask?
Well, as it happens in certain cultures yes, men are taught to rape – often by their mothers. But please show me where in the U.S. little boys are taught to rape women who dress immodestly, go out alone, or just get uppity.
Oh yes, in certain third world immigrant communities. But let’s not go there because if you do you’re a racist.
Well we are told it’s a subtle thing in our culture that teaches boys unconsciously without anyone ever actually saying it’s OK to rape. We are nonetheless assured it shapes our society.
In the abstract to “Dismantling Rape Culture around the World: A Social Justice Imperative,” Pamela R. Fletcher, Associate Professor of English and Women Studies, St.Catherine University, St. Paul, Minnesota writes, “Many object to the term rape culture, deeming it an overstatement. Some even consider it an oxymoron, for how does rape and culture really connect? In speaking of culture, we editors of “Transforming A Rape Culture” (Buchwald, Fletcher and Roth 1993, 1995 and 2005) refer to the way in which a society operates formally and informally, based on attitudes, beliefs, customs, and rituals that its members sanction as acceptable and normal. Based on our research and analysis of the high incidence of sexual violence perpetrated around the world, we contend that the term encompasses widespread anti-female attitudes and values, and the resultant oppressive conditions women and children encounter in the global institution of patriarchy. Misogyny and sexism are the cornerstones of patriarchy that enable a rape culture to flourish.”
No, “rape culture” referring to the United States is neither an overstatement nor an oxymoron (the author doesn’t seem to know what an oxymoron is). It’s a lie at best, a sick fantasy at worst.
No, there are no attitudes, beliefs, customs, nor rituals, formal or informal, in the culture I was raised in that give even the slightest hint rape is OK. In fact not all that long ago the specter of rape invoked outrage enough to sanction a temporary set-aside of the taboo against murder.
The author goes on to quote rape statistics from the U.S. compared to third world hell holes and war zones, as if the data collection methods were consistent in each country.
“Women in the U.S. reported that they were raped at an early age: 17.6% said they had been victims of an attempted or a completed rape, 21.6% were younger than age 12, and 32.4% were between the ages 12 and 17. (Buchwald, Fletcher and Roth 2005, 7).”
The rate of rape for persons 12 years and older was 28.4 per 1,000 in 2005, 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013, and 20.1 per 1,000 in 2014, according to the DOJ. That’s roughly three percent in 2005, declining to two percent in 2014.
Oh but they must be using a different and biased set of statistics!
Funny thing though, earlier in the same paper they do cite DOJ stats.
“Although rape is underreported to the police, U.S. Department of Justice studies show that when rape survivors do report, more than 50% of them state that they knew the rapist (Ibid).”
That last fact is not news, but note when they did cite the DOJ they did not use their data for how many rapes occur in the U.S. Instead they got them from a source more to their liking.
I’ve been having a bit of fun with this, but when it comes down to it, it’s not funny at all. Psychologists with degrees from respectable schools insist this invisible force makes all men in America suspect – though rape has always been rare in this country and according to DOJ statistics getting rarer, in spite of a lessening of the stigma involved in reporting a rape to law enforcement which should result in reported rates getting higher.
This paper airily generalizes data from vastly different cultures into a world-wide phenomenon, fudges stats when it suits the author’s purpose and ignores data inconvenient to the narrative such as figures that show men and women in intimate relationships physically assault each other at roughly equal rates,though of course the consequences of a male striking a female are usually far more serious than the reverse, absent a weapon. And though it’s harder for a woman to rape a man, rates of male rape may very well exceed female rape when prisons are factored in. (Now that’s an under-reported statistic!)
The author appears to conclude that the U.S. belongs on the roll of shame because we were late giving women the vote and failed to pass the ERA!
Now where have we seen this before? Subtle forces causing great social ills, with chains of causality invisible to all but a few gifted with a special insight?
“These our poor Afflicted Neighbors, quickly after they become Infected and Infested with these Daemons, arrive to a Capacity of Discerning those which they conceive the Shapes of their Troublers; and notwithstanding the Great and Just Suspicion, that the Daemons might Impose the Shapes of Innocent Persons in their Spectral Exhibitions upon the Sufferers, (which may perhaps prove no small part of the Witch-Plot in the issue) yet many of the Persons thus Represented, being Examined, several of them have been Convicted of a very Damnable Witchcraft: yea more than on Twenty have Confessed, that they have Signed unto a Book, which the Devil show’d them, and Engaged in his Hellish Design of Bewitching and Ruining our Land.”
-On Witchcraft: Being the Wonders of the Invisible World, Cotton Mather, 1692
Quibcag: Sonora Kashima, of Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3, demonstrates setting aside the murder taboo.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

"Gay Marriage" — A Perversion AND an Oxymoron.

It's trite to point this out, but maybe some people still haven't realized that the very concept of "gay marriage" would have bewildered everybody just a few years ago. It would have been literally unthinkable, except as some kind of sick joke. Now, you might get a situation like in the Isaac Bashevis Singer stories, but those were about deception, and the "gay marriage," in them was farcical.

Indeed, if I were in a position to refuse a marriage license to homosexual 'couples,'  it wouldn't be because of my belief in the Bible (I'm not religious), but because of my belief in the dictionary, as in the quibcag. There have been all kinds of marriage in human history. Polyandry, polygyny, etc. Remember The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?  Heinlein describes his Lunar society as quite anarchistic, allowing just about every kind of marriage you can think of. Except gay marriage, of course, which isn't marriage, because it does not allow for reproduction in any way whatsoever. And marriage's purpose is reproduction, that is, birth and child raising. So homosexual couples getting married makes precisely as much sense as marriage between a human being and an animal. Or a piece of furniture. And don't think for one minute that activists won't be demanding one or both of those in short order.

Over at The Right Stuff [link], Linebacker II demonstrates that "gay marriage" is irrational in both religious and nonreligious systems:

The Rationale for Gay Marriage: Defective from Any Perspective

God either exists or He doesn’t (actually He does, but that’s a discussion for another time). In either scenario, the rationale for “gay” “marriage” is untenable.

For all you good atheists who believe a warm pool somewhere indirectly gave birth to the profusion of life forms, I’m sure the concepts of survival of the fittest and natural selection are intuitive and sacrosanct. Fine. In that case, you believe humans evolved physical and mental characteristics that gradually increased our versatility and capacity for individual and collaborative achievements. If so, you also believe (or should believe, if you’re logically consistent) that social patterns that have been almost completely universal among diverse societies, across distance and time, became pervasive for a reason: they enhanced the survivability of those who manifested them. Perhaps the most consistent of these social patterns is marriage–heterosexual marriage to be exact (and redundant).
You would also be justified in inferring that there has been a symbiotic relationship between these social patterns and the process of developing young minds, for as long as these patterns have been dominant. In other words, over the ages that people have grown up in families that used this framework, our mental maturation process–the steps by which we have used stable norms to calibrate our ability to think, socialize, and organize—has almost certainly been optimized for that framework. In turn, minds nurtured by the framework continuously refined and propagated it. For this reason, departure from such a fundamental social norm, particularly where the raising of children is concerned, can be seen as a truly reckless experiment, a wilful attack on the foundations of our personalities and very identities.
This critique isn’t new or original, just deliberately marginalized by those who fear its implications. As the historian Will Durant wrote over seventy years ago, “The institutions, conventions, customs and laws that make up the complex structure of a society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and one mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years.”
Let’s say instead that you have a religious mind-set, insofar as you believe in a deity or deities. In that case, you either believe that your god (or gods, or transcendent principle) has revealed truth about how to live, or you don’t.
If you don’t believe in revealed truth, you’re left to your own powers of reason, so embracing the analysis I’ve outlined above would be the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, if you do believe in revealed religious truth, you need to look at your religion, or at all religions that seem to have a prayer of being true, to see if they offer reasonably clear guidance on this issue. They do.
The classical/orthodox forms of the “Abrahamic” religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) condemn homosexuality and make absolutely no provision for homosexual marriage. The same is true of Zoroastrianism. The positions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism–on sexuality and everything else—are less consistent, but in practice the societies where these religions have flourished have maintained heterosexual marriage as an incredibly consistent norm.
Where does this leave us, and in what context do we see advocates for homosexual marriage? In this bad place: a decadent society incapable of critical thought as it fetishizes diversity in all realms as a self-evidently supreme value. In short, in a society that is estranged from its own origins and rationality.
Quibcag: Because actual anime pictures of 'gay marriage' are either nonexistent or far too disturbing, I've instead used, from the anime  Ranma ½ (らんま½), an illustration of Ranma, Tsubasa Kurenai, and Ukyo Kuonji, all three of whom are sexually ambiguous, though in radically different ways. That's the best I can do.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, and Vladimir Putin?

We don't have a Sobieski [link] on hand right now, but the closest thing to it might be another Slav, Vladimir Putin. Western Civilization is in bad shape right now, and in special danger from the Middle East. Oh, not from any military power anybody in the Middle East might have — The most powerful country there could probably be beaten by the Indiana National Guard alone — but from mass immigration from there into the West, where they can destroy us like swallowed bacteria.

One reason they're pouring out of there is because the place is unstable. For the most part, our dubious ally, Israel, likes it to be unstable, so no country or coalition of countries can become a real threat to it. And since we decided to subcontract our foreign policy to the Knesset years ago, our politicians almost all seem to want it to be unstable, too. Otherwise, why overthrow dictators who, for all their orneriness, manage at least to keep some order and hold wars to a minimum.

We've already busted up what stability Iraq and Libya had, forced Egypt into dumping Mubarak for the Islamic Brotherhood, and now everybody from Hillary to Huckabee seem to want to turn Syria into another goddam mess.

Not me. Assad is just fine with me. I do not want millions of refugees out of the Middle East into Europe, and Assad has shown that, without us arming all his rebels, he's capable of keeping order in the place, like his father before him.

And Putin seems to think the same way.

This is from

Vladimir Putin: The Saviour of Western Civilisation

Written by Derek J Ackerman

Only one European superpower has been so vocal in its opposition to the barbarism of Islamic extremists. Russia's iconic leader, Vladimir Putin, has admitted to aiding the Assad administration in Syria's civil war and makes no apologies because, as he stated: "Anything the US touches turns into Libya or Iraq". Although America has played an important role in the destabilisation of both nations, many western governments in the EU are not without blame.
Russia has recently engaged in a series of anti-ISIS airstrikes in Syria that will be in strategic co-operation with Assad unlike America who has pledged to assist without forming an alliance. Obama has proclaimed America shouldn't target radical organisations without first ousting Assad, although the US has been ‘fighting’ ISIS since early 2015, beginning with military authorisation reluctantly issued by the man himself.
Putin Speaking at the UN General Assembly. 
It should be obvious why America has been so hesitant to engage in opposition against these terrorist groups—they were created, funded and trained by western foreign policy and now threaten neighbouring countries. If ISIS overthrows and dissolves the Syrian Government, only then will the US be comfortable in a real attempt at removing them from the region.
This prolonged mayhem has resulted in the mass migration of refugees and migrants, pouring over European borders, that many leaders are saying will change the culture of their nations forever. European leaders have literally facilitated their own death. By supporting rebels that defect into beheading radicals, they force innocent victims into fleeing from their country where non-refugees exploit Europe’s welcoming arms claiming they, too, are refugees.
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 28, 2015. 
Russia is a close ally to the Assad administration and understands that terrorism will not end in Syria or Iraq—it will be exported through the continent as hordes of unidentified, undocumented and anonymous migrants enter Europe. This is a security risk that has only been addressed properly by Putin who, of course, hasn’t ignored the obvious role NATO, the EU and the US have played in endangering the entire western civilisation.
With Putin declaring his aid to Syria—and now commencing airstrikes—this, I hope, will give those thinking about fleeing a good reason to resist, stay and fight for their country. By stifling the flow of Syrian refugees—and convincing them that a European superpower is here to help—and handing them a rifle to fight ISIS resistance, the majority of those from Pakistan or Bangladesh who have abused this migrant crisis will be exposed and punished. As a result, it would only make sense that western governments end refugee quotas as less than a fifth coming through the borders are legitimate Syrian refugees.
Vladimir Putin speaks to 60 Minutes.
Putin called for “a genuinely broad international coalition” to fight the Islamic State and condemned the ongoing hostility against Assad, asking those guilty to take responsibility and establish a coherent alliance against Islamic State militants. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, Putin suggested the establishment of a Security Council resolution to ‘co-ordinate’ actions against different variations of terrorist groups. “We think it’s an enormous mistake to refuse to co-operate with the Syrian Government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face,’ he said. “No-one but President Assad’s forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations inside Syria.”
When fascism threatened the civil liberties of Europe in early 20th century, there was a determined offensive strategy among the aligning powers to combat it. When communism threatened those same institutions of basic human rights, the US never agreed to appease their enemies by forgetting the millions of enslaved citizens trapped behind the iron curtain. So why is it when we are, yet again, faced with an imperial threat to every civil liberty that a contemporary western government has fought against—the only nation that is truly doing any good—is the very nation that was brought to its knees some 20 years ago under allegations of those very crimes?
Quibcag: Putin's a fine-looking fellow, but not as picturesque as Natalia Vladimirovna Poklonskaya (Ната́лья Влади́мировна Покло́нская) [link], so in this, I have him peeping at us from behind her.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

I won't make the obvious pun on P. J. O'Rourke's name

Guest post by Baloo.

It's a shame about P. J. O'Rourke. I got started in the writing business by selling stuff to National Lampoon back when, approximately, he was an editor there. And I've been enjoying his writing ever since. But, like so many, P. J. is right until he's wrong. For most libertarian/republican issues, he writes good stuff. But like so many neocons, his eyes glaze over when it comes to guess who.

Well, if you weren't aware, P. J. reacted to Ann Coulter's tweets about the Republican debate with this drivel [link]. Clever drivel, I grant you, but what, oh what ethnic group other that the one in question would P. J. feel driven to defend so shrilly. And against such a non-attack? Ann Coulter, you see, for all her acumen in other connections, doesn't quite get the Jewish thing. She thinks that the Jewish establishment is foolishly pushing leftist causes because they don't realize it's to their detriment. Of course, they don't mind it being to their detriment as long as it's also, and more so, to the detriment of Whites.

Kevin MacDonald straightens P. J. out, or tries to:

P. J. O’Rourke on Ann Coulter: Not-So-Deep Thinking about Race, Anti-Semitism, etc.

Kevin MacDonald

I suppose I should cut P. J. O’Rourke some slack. Like him, I was once on thehippie-dippy left during the 60s, and I know it’s hard to get over that. But there are limits. His “She said what?” in the Weekly Standard is an important reminder of how far there is to go to have intelligent discussion of Jewish issues in the mainstream media. O’Rourke, who, it must be stipulated, is a very entertaining writer, wants to call himself a conservative. The sad reality is that he is just the sort of cuckservative who is welcome at The Weekly Standard. As James Fulford points out at VDARE, he has Utopian ideas on race, maintaining that Haitians immigrants are just as acceptable as the Irish — or perhaps even more so if they had to struggle to get here, because, after all, being aggressive enough to get here illegally means that you would be crime free, have a high IQ, and not be assertive about demanding free stuff paid for by previous waves of White immigrants. Or maybe not.

The main point of this is to discuss O’Rourke’s ideas on Jews and anti-Semitism, but a few preliminaries are in order. He thinks that because the Indians got here first, that Europeans have no right to defend their conquest:

She’s from Connecticut and is very upset about immigrants. I am willing to lend a sympathetic ear to people from Connecticut who are very upset about immigrants, if they have a tribal casino.

But why stop at Native Americans? What about the tsunami of migrants entering European homelands? Would nativism and nationalism by native Europeans be okay? But the same attitudes and forces welcoming the displacement of Europeans in the US are resulting in the displacement of Europeans from lands they have dominated for thousands of years. And we hear the same charges of “racism” and “Nazism” thrown at opponents of immigration in both Europe and the U.S. Focusing on the tribal casinos ignores the problems facing European societies everywhere.

This kind of White self-flagellation is completely unknown elsewhere on the planet. Do the Bantu peoples of Africa worry about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa? How about the Han Chinese who displaced other peoples as they spread throughout what is now China? Or the Arab conquests in the name of Islam? Should these people have no right to control their borders in the present world because of their original sin of conquest? And what year should we pick as the magical time when everyone had, like the Native Americans according to O’Rourke, settled lands that they were entitled to forever because of some cosmic moral principle?

O’Rourke’s article on Ann Coulter exhibits some conventional attitudes on Jews and anti-Semitism that show quite clearly that being an entertaining writer doesn’t imply deep thinking about Jewish issues. In fact, I would venture to say that his thinking about Jewish issues is about as deep as his thinking about race.

O’Rourke is offended by Ann Coulter’s faux pas in calling attention to Jewish influence.

What Ann Coulter tweeted was:
Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.”
How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
Not anywhere near as many as there would and should be if FDR hadn’t been as much of a jerk about immigration as you are, Ann, you etiolated bean sprout butt trumpet.

O’Rourke is signaling that he has completely internalized the decontextualized view of US immigration history that is constantly promoted by Jewish activists. I discussed this recently elsewhere, so suffice it to say here that Americans viewed Jewish immigration from the standpoint of their legitimate economic and social interests.

O’Rourke’s deep thinking on Israel is entirely in sync with The Weekly Standard:

As to why Israel is important, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, “Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is ‘Ikh bin a Ishral.’ ”
And I mean it, even if, pope-kissing Mick that I am, my Yiddish is maybe sketchy.

Israel as a moral paragon?? Despite his stating that Native Americans have a legitimate gripe about immigration, there is no consideration of the moral status of Israel as an ethnostate that has displaced the Palestinians from lands they dominated for centuries and now oppresses them in ways that that pretty much the entire rest of the world finds unconscionable. Or perhaps PJ would like the argument that g-d gave Israel to the Jews, so therefore they have a right to displace the Palestinians? Do they get the entire area from the Nile to the Euphrates as promised in Genesis? Again, what year should we pick as the magical time when everyone had settled lands that they were entitled to forever because of some cosmic moral principle?

And what about Israel’s refusal to take in non-Jewish immigrants, including refugees from Africa or Syria that Jewish organizations are so eager to importinto Europe? Why isn’t that a moral issue for O’Rourke if he really thinks the US should welcome all comers? Is it okay for Jewish organizations in the US and elsewhere throughout the West to be gung-ho for massive non-White immigration but to never criticize Israel for wanting to remain a Jewish ethnostate? If Israel must be a Jewish state, what is so wrong about the US considering itself a European nation that intends to remain European? (The U.S. was 90% White in 1960 — i.e., more European than Israel is Jewish now.)

But now we come to the real reason why this column had to be written: O’Rourke’s deep thinking about anti-Semitism:

But, first, my contempt is moral. Antisemitism is evil. Per se, as you lawyers like to put it. For the sake of argument, let us “stipulate” that you are not per se an antisemite. Instead of saying that’s true, let us stipulate it with all the snarky lawyer freight that “stipulating” carries.
Being so stipulated, you are damn rude. One does not say, “f—ing Jews.” One does not say “f—ing blacks” or “f—ing Latinos” or even “f—ing relentlessly self-promoting Presbyterian white women from New Canaan.”
Manners are the small change of morality. You, Ann, are nickel and diming yourself. And may all the coins in Scrooge McDuck’s money bin land on you and squash you flat. (Scrooge, by the way, is not a Jew, he’s a duck.)

Okay, it was rude, and it may even be true that Ann had one glass of wine too many when she wrote it. But shouldn’t you be able to get really angry if you believe on the basis of a whole lot of evidence, that Israel and its fifth column have hijacked American foreign policy to the tune of several disastrous and horribly expensive (in terms of blood and treasure) wars against Israel’s enemies with the big one against Iran only a matter of time if the Lobby gets its way? The pandering of Huckabee, Cruz, and Rubio (with the money of Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition lurking in the background) is absolutely inexcusable. Why be polite about it? It’s American politics at its f—ing worst: caving in to a powerful, wealthy special interest lobby whose interests are not at all the same as the interests of America — a conflict of interest that has already had horrendous consequences for the U.S.

Second, my contempt is religious. The Jews found our God, hiding in plain sight, while the rest of us were praying to “a rag and a bone and a hank of hair.”
And what thanks do the Jews get? They get this wisecrack from William Norman Ewer, early-20th-century Brit journalist (and Commie):
How odd of GodTo choose the Jews.
To which there’s an anonymous capping reply that I would like to second:
Not odd, you sod
The Jews chose God.
Has PJ even read the Old Testament? If you think that the god of the Old Testament has any positive qualities whatever, I’m afraid you just haven’t read it — which is typical of “pope-kissing Micks” like PJ. Growing up Catholic, I was completely unfamiliar with the Old Testament except for a few passages that fit with Christianity, like from the Psalms. In fact, the Old Testament is a genocidalist wet dream, complete with slaughtering and enslaving non-Israelites, punishing and ostracizing those who marry people who can’t trace their blood lines to racially pure Israelites, extreme ethnonationalism, separation from and a sense of superiority to all other peoples, and a glorification of moral particularlism where there are quite different moral standards depending on whether you are a Jew or not — a form of collectivism and the complete opposite of Christianity and Western moral universalism. The Jews did indeed choose god, and they chose a god that exactly suits their ethnic interests. Given Pope Francis’s recent statements on immigration, would that Christians had done the same!

Third, it’s political. There is a vein of antisemitism in conservatism. You’re mining it. I trust the claim you’ve staked will pan out with you getting a smack in the pan. [Say what??]
Antisemitism is almost an original sin of “classical liberalism.” It is present at the birth of the Enlightenment, with Voltaire who, in his Dictionnaire Philosophique, under the entry for Tolerance, of all places, calls Jews “the most intolerant and cruel nation of all antiquity.” Voltaire! Even he who all but invented liberty and saved us from that ur-leftist fool Rousseau.

Right. Voltaire had read the Old Testament and was quite aware of the bloody Jewish history in the ancient world — a history that in no way can be understood as Jews being passive victims of non-Jewish irrational hatred. Enlightenment thinkers wanted everyone to become citizens in nations dedicated to principles of freedom and liberty, and to do so, they had to shed their ancient superstitions and group (collectivist) loyalties. Jews should be citizens but not form a state within a state. However, for Jews the ancient superstitions coincided with their ethnic interests, and even when they gave up the religious veneer, they retained a fierce group loyalty (hyper-ethnocentrism by any other name — a form of collectivism that PJ claims to abhor) which has repeatedly resulted in conflicts of interest with surrounding societies (see, e.g., comments on the Israel Lobby above).

And 200 years later it was still there. In the effort to expel antisemites from conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr. had to pause in his war against collectivism’s barbarian hordes and sever ties with the man he had endorsed for president, Pat Buchanan, and stifle his old friend and National Reviewsenior editor Joe Sobran. (Joe, whom you, Ann, have called “the G. K. Chesterton of our time”​—​a two-edged compliment in this context, viz. Chesterton’s essay “The Problem of Zionism.”)

But of course, Cuckley wasn’t battling all forms of collectivism. Jews themselves are arch-collectivists — the deep meaning, after all, behind Jewish moral particularism that is so apparent throughout Jewish history. It’s just that quite a few Jews (including the Frankfurt School mentioned below) discovered that it’s good for the Jews if non-Jews are individualists.

Cuckley did indeed purge from mainstream conservatism people who were critical of Jews, including Joe Sobran whose criticisms, so far as I can see, were entirely rational. And the same goes for Pat Buchanan who has, at great personal cost, called attention not only to the role of the Israel Lobby in promoting disastrous wars in the Middle East, but has called attention to impending death of the West — neither of which PJ’s neocon buddies at The Weekly Standard care to discuss.

In fact, Joe was quite aware of exactly the issue that has gotten Coulter in trouble — the fact that one can’t call attention to Jewish power or influence without suffering the consequences:

It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others—you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.[1]

One might wonder about the wisdom of Cuckley’s purge given that Conservatism, Inc. is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israel Lobby which, come to think of it, was exactly Coulter’s point. Could it be that O’Rourke exemplifies what G. K. Chesterton called “the silly and craven fear” of even mentioning Jews as an identifiable group. Chesterton’s example from “The Problem of Zionism” is classic:

The substance of this [i.e., Chesterton’s] heresy was exceedingly simple. It consisted entirely in saying that Jews are Jews; and as a logical consequence that they are not Russians or Roumanians or Italians or Frenchmen or Englishmen. During the war the newspapers commonly referred to them as Russians; but the ritual wore so singularly thin that I remember one newspaper paragraph saying that the Russians in the East End complained of the food regulations, because their religion forbade them to eat pork.

So we might ask PJ: What exactly is so wrong with the thinking of Sobran and Chesterton that Ann Coulter should avoid mentioning them?

The rest of O’Rourke’s article deals with his admiration for Jews for saving him from a life of being a dumb goy — a fate worse than death presumably. It should be read in its entirety, but the gist is that “I owe my life as something other than a complete nebbish to Jews.” O’Rourke revels in indulging in invidious ethnic stereotyping of fellow Whites in the Toledo of his youth, but Jews were superior: “The Jewish kids were the only kids who considered it coolto be smart. And so did their parents.”

And thank God—specifically YHWH—for the few, the very few, the chosen if you will, people in Toledo who tried [to be smart]. Who tried to cheer the Freedom Riders, tried to debate the ideas of Herman Kahn, tried to get to Chicago to see Lenny Bruce at the Gate of Horn, tried to read Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hoffer, and tried to dig Thelonious Monk.

And there’s the nub of the problem. Thanking Jews for Herbert Marcuse is like Russians thanking the Georgians for Stalin. Marcuse was a card-carrying member of the Frankfurt School and its ideology that identifying as a White person with interests as Whites is a form of psychopathology — but at the same time entirely exempting Jews from a similar indictment against a collective ethnic identification. As a psychoanalytically influenced leftist, he was entirely in the mainstream of Jewish intellectuals that deposed the racially conscious, Darwin-influenced White elites that had been dominant up through the 1920s and were an important part of the intellectual context for passage of the immigration restriction act of 1924.

And even if in the end, you come to think that Marcuse was a false prophet, as O’Rourke presumably does, the fact is that he and the Frankfurt School have had an enormous evil influence which is not at all due to the empirical basis or rationality of their ideas but to the Jewish intellectual and media infrastructure that promoted them. Nobody would have been discussing him all, except that he was promoted by this infrastructure to a position of prominence in academia and popular culture. No one should ever have to discuss Marcuse except perhaps to point out the vileness and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. I rather doubt it was an accident that Marcuse’s wife Ricky Marcuse was a pioneering “Whiteness Studies” activist who, as Andrew Joyce notes, “simultaneously [acted] against White identity while boosting Jewish interests.” The same could be said about Marcuse, except that his anti-White activism was less explicit. But given his reputation and influence as a New Left guru, Marcuse’s influence was far deadlier.

The problem is that when you get caught up in a world where Jewish intellectuals define the parameters of acceptable discourse — from Marcuse’s far left to the neoconservative right — you are going to find that in the end (with vanishingly few individual exceptions and certainly not including any influential group of Jews that I am aware of), none of them really have yourinterests at heart. Where there are disagreements, it’s just that they have different perceptions of Jewish interests — like debates in the Knesset — and make alliances with different groups of non-Jews. Hence the need in The Culture of Critique to establish that all of the gurus who dominated the various Jewish intellectual movements had strong identities as Jews and saw their work as advancing their perception of Jewish interests (here, pp. i-iii).

And that’s exactly the world O’Rourke finds himself in, taking positions on race and Israel that are near and dear to an influential community of Jews under Bill Kristol’s guruship at the Weekly Standard — Jews who, like those discussed in The Culture of Critique — have strong Jewish identities and a sense of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. And entirely missing from those interests is a concern for the legitimate interests of the traditional people and cultures of America, including pope-kissing Micks, in not becoming a minority in the United States.

By taking these positions, he can feel good about himself because deep down he believes that Jews define moral legitimacy and intellectual sophistication, so when he throws his lot in with the neocons, he is on solid ground and immune to any serious criticism. Deep down, he still feels intellectually inferior to his Jewish friends and colleagues, just as he felt inferior to his Jewish classmates while growing up in Toledo. He yearns to be accepted by them, and he thinks that his personal experience as a kid is a great basis for a theory of Judaism. So when he frames his ideas, he makes sure that they are palatable to at least some significant group of mainstream Jews. Can’t go wrong there. Money in the bank.

PJ is the Rube mentioned in this quote I used in The Culture of Critique (here, p. 3).

[Jewish literary critic Leslie] Fiedler goes on to say that “the writer drawn to New York from the provinces feels . . . the Rube, attempts to conform; and the almost parody of Jewishness achieved by the gentile writer in New York is a strange and crucial testimony of our time.”

Fiedler wrote this in 1948. It’s a lot worse now.

As PJ said (unfairly) about Ms. Coulter, “kids are, and kids do.” But you’re pushing 70, so there’s no excuse. Stop being a nebbish. Grow up and show some intellectual self-confidence. Stop being a cuckservative who thinks it’s an honor to be published in The Weekly Standard. Your interests as a pope-kissing Mick are not at all the same as theirs.

[1] Sobran, J. (1995). The Jewish establishment. Sobran’s (September):4–5, 4.

Read the original here:
Quibcag: I think this illustration is somehow related to  Upotte!! (うぽって!!). Tell me if I'm wrong.