Articles

Showing posts with label future of the west. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future of the west. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Decline of Nations

No country falls but from within. Given a sufficient population and resources to hold off its enemies, the only sufficient explanation for its fall is internal.

Take the decline of the West, which is often talked about and attributed to leftist conspiracies and Islamic colonialism. But why is Japan, a First World nation whose culture and geography differs dramatically from America and Europe also in a state of economic, political and cultural decline? Not to mention demographic decline.

The Japanese left is certainly active, but blaming it for the country's decline is a more difficult proposition. Japan has a long history of Islamic outreach, but it isn't about to be Islamized and immigration is not a factor. Nor did Japan have a religious heritage that was lost to secularism. Nevertheless with its dwindling population, escapist culture, dysfunctional politics and tremulous foreign policy-- Japan's follies seem to resemble those of the West. The origins of its problems may be different, but the outcome is the same.

Taking a broader view, it almost seems as if joining the club of First World nations is a national death sentence. Sure the technology and the social benefits are nice, but they're not much good without a future.

The future is an important part of the equation, not the actual future to come, but how people see the future. Progress split the world into two kinds of societies, those that could envision a future different from the past-- and those that could only imagine the past endlessly repeating itself.

To change, you must first know that change is possible. Only then is it possible to break free of the wheel of time and rise like an arrow into the unknown reaches of the future. A hundred years ago, the world was dominated by nations that were fascinated by change and futurism. 1900 was attended by wild predictions about what life in the year 2000 might be like. That century also brought the explosion of Science Fiction, a primarily American literary genre that envisioned technology reshaping mankind.

60 years ago those elements still remained in place, but progressivism had become Dionysian, irrational pleasure seeking and substance abusing, its reformism limited to social reforms. Big government was swiftly becoming the only element of the old progressivism that still remained intact, but even that was a shell of the scientific government it was meant to be.

Pessimism has replaced optimism. Mankind is in a state of eternal war against its own social problems, class war, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on carbon and the war on terror with no solutions in sight. The Dionysian intoxication drifted between naive optimism and pessimistic melancholia aided by large doses of self-medication with drugs, prescription and illegal, to aid in their doomed search for happiness and fulfillment.

The enemies of the West had never embraced progress. The Soviet experiment was derived from a Western European model and quickly reverted to Czarist feudalism under a new name. And Islam, which had never accepted any other future than the past, was determined to tear away modernity and replace it with the past.

The Clash of Civilizations is a clash between a First World that no longer believes in its own future and an Islamic world that is determined to undo the future and bring back the past.

It is always difficult to envision the future, but the First World's visions of the future have gone from the optimistic to the pessimistic to the entirely blank. The progressives see the future as a long chain of government offices, the expansion of authority from the local to the national to the global. But there's no romance in global government as even the EU's biggest enthusiasts have trouble depicting it as anything more than some tottering gargantuan nightmare. 

Take Europa riding the bull, a common piece of EU art, the outward symbolism is of the gentler side of humanity fighting to rein in the beast of nationalism, but the actual tale is of a god in the form of the beast abducting Europa. The Eurocrats might like to pretend that the woman represents the EU, but actually they see themselves as the beast-god, ideals posing as brute force, to kidnap and ravish the nations of Europe for their own good/

The EU's motto "In Variate Concordia" or "United in Diversity" means something very different from the similar sounding, "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of Many, One", the original motto of the US and even more different than the official motto, "In God We Trust". In Variate Concordia is contradictory, expressing the limits of the progressive vision without even knowing it is doing so.

Bigger and bigger government is not inspirational to anyone who doesn't foresee a future working for it. Nor is a national identity built out of regional and global diversity at all meaningful. A future of multicultural bureaucracy isn't visionary, it's crisis management for societies that use cheap slogans to pave over real problems.

That European vision defines the First World, but it is a vision in decline and the decline of national vision is also the decline of nations. Latecomers to the club, including America, Japan and Israel have tried to adopt the European vision with disastrous results and formerly optimistic countries now suffer from national malaise.

50 years ago, America, Japan and Israel represented the "can do" spirit. Today they're as hapless and dysfunctional as Europe and unable to imagine a future that doesn't hinge on some kind of global togetherness as expressed in UN literature and Benetton ads. The European vision has gifted every country that adopted it with oversized and unwieldy governments, unstable economies and no future.

The Islamists and Communists who gathered to feast on the corpse of Europe were a symptom of the problem-- and the problem was a failure of vision. And a failure of vision originates in a loss of identity.

To know what you want from the future, you must first know who you are. The High School student who has yet to develop an idea of the kind of life he would like to lead and the things he would like to accomplish is going to have trouble picking a profession. Are you a strong person? A contemplative one? Do you enjoy the company of people, are you interested in what makes things work? Or are you "United in Diversity" and have no idea who you are?

The American future was defined by an American identity. When the American identity switched to "United in Diversity" and the national goal became to heal the eternal wounds of classism and racism and address all the social problems, then there was literally no future left. If you define the future negatively, in terms of remedying ills, rather than positively in settling an entire continent, then the future can never arrive. And even if it did, you wouldn't want it to, because those ills, racism, sexism, poverty and pollution are the closest thing you have to an identity.

A nation does not have to be multicultural to suffer an identity crisis, not when it's piggybacking on someone else's identity crisis. Japan tried very hard to catch up to Western modernism, now it's racing Europe into economic and demographic decline, without ever opening up its borders or indulging in much political correctness, besides the ritual apologies to the Ainu. Israel is still on the rise economically and demographically, but culturally it has drunk deep of the poisoned wells of European academia.

America, Australia, Canada and the rest of them are busy with their own apologies to the indigenous peoples and the foreign peoples who were offended by something or by anything. Which amounts to apologizing for their existence. And nations that apologize for their own existence have lost their identity and their future.

The "United in Diversity" model is broken, globally and locally, and that model is used to sustain the national, regional and global federalization of government into one long iron chain of authority. Without that model, the illusion of functionality would begin breaking down, forcing a redistribution of power back to local authorities.

A more honest name for the First World model would be "Progress Through Central Authority", a distillation of everything that has gone wrong, consuming the energy and vitality of great nations. In the absence of a directional vision, the First World has become easy prey for reactionary utopians with their own perfect societies.

Islam has the demographics to conquer the West and a vision of a future that is the past, building on the progress of the cultures it conquers while crushing the spirit of inquiry that made that progress possible. Having subjugated Athens, Delhi, Constantinople and Jerusalem in the past, it has its eye on London, Paris and New York today. It knows to sweep in when the innovators falter, their cultures decay and become static, and then claim its prize.

Islam has lost Jerusalem, Athens and Delhi, but it is confident of being able to reclaim them, and Athens, despite the loss of Constantinople, is urging the downfall of Jerusalem. But to those who subscribe to the "United in Diversity" vision, what difference does it make who populates a city. All people are alike in that they are to be ruled by the same global authorities. What matters is the rule of law embodied in global government... not the beliefs and identities of individual peoples, except as cultural heritage fairs.

If the First World nations don't reclaim national visions of the future that are deeper than that, then they will fall into the hands of those whose vision isn't "United in Diversity", but "United in Submission" and "Enslaved Through Force".

Creative societies innovate, decaying societies quarrel over the scraps and invite in their own enemies to rule over them. It has happened before and it is happening again before our eyes. Our capacity to resist that decay emerges from our culture and its vision of the future. Only when we see the future as an adventure, rather than a progressive decline, will we be able to win that future for ourselves and our grandchildren.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Islam and the Left - Two Sides of the Same Coin

On the surface of it they seem to have very little in common. The left claims to be progressive, embraces gay bars, abortions, feminism, worker's rights civil rights, multiculturalism and obscene slogans. The Islamists throw acid in women's faces, hang gays on every streetcorner and repress minorities and freedom of expression. This seeming contrast baffles many who demand to know how for example the left can champion Islamic regimes which mandate the death penalty for homosexuality. The answer is very simple. The people asking the question have mistaken the facade for the reality.

The left is socially progressive only in its revolutionary phase. The Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba and Communist China all had much the same view of gay people-- that Iran does today. While gay writers in America campaigned for the USSR or Cuba, both those regimes imprisoned gay writers. Homosexuality was a criminal offense in the USSR until its actual fall. None of this bothered liberals in the West, who were happy to trek to Moscow, meet with Soviet leaders and blame the US for the Cold War. And then come home and talk about how intolerant the United States is.

The USSR was happy to discuss the civil rights of African-Americans in the US. Liberals however did not care that most of the African-Americans who came to Russia early after the revolution wound up in Gulags or dead. This has been documented in books such as Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by Robert Robinson, an African-American engineer who came to find a job but was unable to leave for over four decades, while remaining constantly in fear for his life in a racist society.

Then there's Castro's Cuba, which practices unofficial racial segregation. Yes, not a fact you're likely to see in a Michael Moore documentary.

Jorge Luis García Pérez in Cuba, a pro-democracy activist who was only recently released from prison, said: "The authorities in my country have never tolerated that a black person oppose the regime." Carlos Moore has said;  "There is an unstated threat. Blacks in Cuba know that whenever you raise race in Cuba, you go to jail. Therefore the struggle in Cuba is different. There cannot be a civil rights movement. You will have instantly 10,000 black people dead." Do you think that any of the Hollywood liberals like Spielberg or Costner who fall over themselves praising Castro care? Why would they.

Shall we discuss worker's rights? In the West, Communists championed unions. In the USSR, striking workers were meant with machine gun fire. In 1962, workers in the city of Novocherkassk tried to go on strike to protest pay cuts. They were gunned down in the street in front of city hall by Soviet troops. This mind you was in the days of the relatively "moderate" Communist regime of Khrushchev. Independent unions were illegal there. Just as they are illegal in the USSR.

It's possible to write volumes on this topic, but let's just cut to the chase. An actual left wing dictatorship brutally represses everything they claim to fight for.

While in the West, experimental artists were cheering on the USSR, in the USSR, such art was considered degenerate, just as it was in Nazi Germany. And the same went for literature. The USSR did push a sham feminism and occasionally abortion rights, not because they believed in it, but because they needed to expand the workforce. On the other hand divorces were hard to come by, and women who obtained them risked being expelled from the Communist Party. All the elements of political equality and civil rights that the left claimed to be fighting for, were in fact completely absent from Communist regimes. And that never bothered the left at all.

The social progressivism of the left has never been anything but a fraud. A tool used to recruit bohemian activists to fight on their side, while purging them once the revolution was successful. The left tries to overturn the values of a target society as part of a comprehensive revolutionary assault. That doesn't mean that its actual values are different. Once the left gains absolute power, it seeks to create a static and unchanging system. The perfect Utopian society with immovable laws administered by an endless political bureaucracy. In the real world this translates into a repressive search for stability. Which means banning exactly the same things that the left had been fighting for. And the first thing to be banned is always the right to dissent. A right that the left insists on for itself when it is out of power, but does not permit to others when it is.

George Orwell expressed this closed circle at the end of Animal Farm by having the "new bosses" who were once pigs become indistinguishable from the farmers, the "old bosses". The pigs had not been interested in an animal run farm. What they all along wanted was to take over. To become the farmers. Championing the rights of all animals to be free was only a tool to accomplish their end goal. Absolute power.

This finally brings us back to Islam. There has never been any contradiction between the left making common cause with Islamist movements and regimes that murder gay people. Because if the Left in the West ever gained absolute power, they would murder them too. For that matter 90 percent of the idiots attending their anti-war rallies would end up in front of a firing squad. Does this sound far-fetched to you? Guess what, virtually every Communist regime did the same thing in its time.

Do you know what the worst possible way to survive a Communist takeover is? It's being a member of a right wing organization. Do you know what the second worst way is? Being a member of a left wing organization. Do you know what the third worst way is? Being a member of the Communist party before the takeover. Yes, the third worst thing to be when the Communists take over, is to be one of them. Because you'll only get to live long enough to help wipe out the members of right wing organizations and the members of left wing non-Communist groups, before your own turn comes.

This is not just the norm for Communists, it's a common pattern on the left. The French Revolution degenerated into horrifying massacres and endless executions in exactly that same way. First the radicals purge "enemies of the state", then they purge each other, then they themselves are purged to make way for a more stable system. The end result is a repressive state that has wiped out anyone who might want to change things. Which was the goal all along.

So the idea that the Left would have only moral objections to the Islamists is just plain naive. In fact the Left and the Islamists agree on the essential bullet points, including the part about using actual bullets and who they want to kill. As far as both Left Wing and Islamist leaders are concerned, 90 percent of their movements consist of nothing more than useful idiots good for nothing but cannon fodder. Don't believe me? When was the last time, a Hamas leader sent one of his sons to blow himself up? It never happened. And never will.

The Islamists and the Leftists have the same goal. Absolute power. Islam like Communism is a means to that end. This is what makes them so dangerous. Their goal is to create absolute tyrannies based on ideologies that promise a better world. The ideology is what brings them to power as useful idiots kill and die, thinking that they're fighting to create a Utopian society run according to the Koran (a book supposedly dictated by an illiterate merchant who used his claims of getting divine messages from angels to rule over an entire region) or Marxism (essays produced by a man who never worked for a living, but was supported by the profits from a textile factory) that will usher in a new era where everyone (except all the people they killed) are happy.

The Left is on the same page as the Islamists. Just as they were on the same page as the Nazis. Just as they're on the same page with every reactionary totalitarian regime in the world, except those that they think they can overthrow, or those that are allied with the Great Satan or the Imperialist Capitalist Powers.

The Left tells its followers that they're smarter and more moral than ordinary people. What it really means is that they're dumber and more willing to sacrifice for its goals. The Islamists tell their followers that they're braver and more religious than ordinary people. What they mean, is that their followers are suicidally stupid and easily led around the nose. The common denominator isn't very hard to see. The Left is the Islam of the West. And Islam is the Left of the Middle East. But labels like that are virtually meaningless. Both are just totalitarian movements using gullible idiots following an ideology worked out by vicious greedy men to seize power. That is all there is to it in the end. The rest is just technique.

The Left has no problem allying with Islam. Nor does Islam have a problem allying with the Left. That is because they both agree on their enemies and their objectives. They have more of a problem allying with people who actually want to be free, then they do with slaves and their slavemasters. Of course once in power, one would have to absorb or destroy the other. Just as Communism and Nazism united to consume Eastern Europe, with the inevitable consequence that once the job was done, one would have to destroy the other. Hitler successfully fooled Stalin and nearly destroyed the USSR with a first strike. Islam will likely do the same thing to the Left, just as it did in Iran.

The Red-Green Alliance works because both are variations on a theme. The theme is totalitarian rule. It is not the Left that threatens Islam, nor Islam that threatens the Left-- but free societies and individual freedoms. When such societies prove successful, then they particularly infuriate those who insist that they must be replaced with their totalitarian rule. These twin impulses, fear of a loss of control over their own societies, and a lust for power, is what energizes the Jihad of Islam and the Revolutions of the Left. Both want control, rather than freedom. And offer promises of Utopian tyrannies in exchange for freedom.

Destroying Europe, America, Israel, Australia, Canada, etc is about power. Absolute power. And it is about putting out whatever light still shines in the West, for fear that it will spread. The light of freedom and civilization stands in the way of tyranny. And tyranny is the endgame of both the Left and Islam. Two sides of the same coin. Janus, with one head looking back to the impossible past of Mohammed, and with one head looking forward to the even more impossible future of Communism. Both forcibly ignoring the present in which people can still be happy and free.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The Moral Disarmament of the Civilized World

There are two ways to disarm a people. You can disarm them by taking away their weapons, or you can disarm their minds by taking away their willingness and ability to fight back. Disarmament a people by confiscating their weapons is a weak solution, because people can always make or smuggle new weapons. And without weapons they can still use their numbers and their fists. They can continue fighting so long as they believe that they have the right to defend themselves.

And that is the far great disarmament, the disarmament not of bodies, but of minds. The disarmament of the moral right of self-defense by convincing entire peoples that they are the perpetrators and their attackers are the victims. And that in any case self-defense is futile. That it is better to be quiet, to keep your head down, to learn to get along, to hope that your leaders make whatever deals are necessary to keep the peace, and to replace them with even more spineless leaders if they don't.

That is the moral disarmament of the civilized world and it is going on every day, even in countries where there are guns to be found everywhere, the people's minds are being disarmed, rendered helpless and impotent in the face of the enemy. Because it is not the gun that matters, but the man willing to fire it. A home can be filled with guns from top to bottom, but if the homeowner refuses to use them a robber breaks into his home, because he is not certain whether the robber might not have the right to burglarize him after all-- then even surrounded by a thousand rifles, he has already been disarmed.

Like every great tyranny, the left has always known that the chains must be placed not merely on men's bodies and property, but first and foremost on their minds. Merely placing chains on a man does not make him a slave. He must be taught to think of himself as a slave. To see himself as inferior and worthless. He cannot be prevented by escaping only through threats of violence, instead he must be brought to think that he does not deserve freedom. That whatever dissatisfaction he has with his current condition is his own fault, and that slavery is actually a kindness being rendered unto him. Then his body need no longer be chained. His body can be free and he will remain a slave, because it is his mind that has been chained.

There are many forms of moral disarmament, but they are all directed at depriving a man not merely of freedoms and rights, but of the idea that he has any freedoms and rights. The second amendment comes after the first, and so before the disarmament of self-defense, there is the disarmament of the pen and the voice, in which people learn to censor themselves, to replace "crimethink" with "bellyfeel duckspeak", to avoid saying things that are not yet illegal, but are disapproved of. And even when they do say them, they take great care to demonstrate that they are not engaging in "crimethink", but that though admittedly controversial, their ideas are legitimate and not extremist. They apologize for their words before they say them, which is the intellectual equivalent of going to war with your hands thrown up in the air. And so before they speak, they have already been disarmed.

There is the moral disarmament of the military and security forces who are taught to see themselves not as honorable defenders of their homeland, but as dishonorable brutes and tools of government policy, whose only real purpose is suppressing internal dissent. There is the moral disarmament of academics who are forced to parrot the currently popular relativism and reject the idea that there are absolute truths beyond ideology and politics. There is the moral disarmament of politicians who are given every chance to be greedy and corrupt, while being warned against taking any principled stands not in compliance with the party doctrine. But these are all parts of the Great Moral Disarmament which insists on the worthlessness of the individual and the country, except when they reflect the ideals of their own destruction. Ideals which themselves declare the worthlessness of the individual and the country.

This Catch 22 underlies the moral disarmament of the free world. For if one says that America, England or Israel are worthless unless they give the same rights to terrorists that they do to their citizens-- he is in effect saying that America, England and Israel are worthless either way, as he is only prepared to accept their worth if they demonstrate their willingness to destroy themselves. And that is exactly what he means.

If you want the American left to love their country, all you have to do is turn it over to them so they can destroy it. But that is of course difficult to do unless you first convince the people that those who would destroy the country are actually its saviors, that their hate is actually love, and that all who oppose them are amoral monsters. To do this takes more than mere propaganda, but it requires upending their values so that black is white, right is wrong and wrong is right. Self-defense becomes a crime and terrorism becomes a virtue. Hate for America is actually love, and love for America is actually hate.

And that is where the moral disarmament comes in. For if you surrender your values, you have been disarmed. If you do not have any new values to replace them with, you may be able to fight in your own interest. But few people are able to live entirely without values. And these new values mark the transition from disarmament to slavery. For the easiest way to make a free man into a slave, is to make him forget what makes him free, and then to forget that he is free, and finally to forget that he should want to be free.

To do this you must pervert his values. You must convince him that his individualism, his ownlife, is evil. That his desire for freedom is an act of greed and selfishness that actively leads to the murders of small children in the Third World. That his belief that he has a right to defend himself is a thoughtcrime that represents a dangerous homicidal madness. That any resentment he has toward the authorities or the people attacking him is only due to his own ignorance and prejudices. That he must embrace his would-be killers, give up his freedom and property, and submit to the authorities in order to be a good and moral person.

And now he is no longer a free man. Now he is a slave.

The moral disarmament of the civilized world has been done for the benefit of the left, but its ultimate benefit will not be for the left, but for Islam. For Islam is the religion of slaves, even more so than Socialism. Under Islam all men are already slaves, the only difference is that some are of a higher slave caste than others. Islam too promises the emergence of a perfectly just society when it takes power. The left sees Islam as an ally, but in fact it is a competitor. Both are ideologies that offer up slavery as a just society. Both are fanatical and murderous, operating by treachery and deceit, and taking power by exploiting fifth columns and making false agreements.

The left has worked steadily toward the moral and physical disarmament of the civilized world, without considering that the world will not be run of Brussels or governed by men in blue helmets. Not even Europe will be run that way for long. In their lust for power, the left has disarmed the free world, without considering that just as in Iran, Islam will rise to take the spoils of their long political war against the free world.

An old Soviet joke. A man visits a doctor. The doctor tells him that he is suffering from a progressive paralysis. The man breathes a sigh of relief. "At least it is progressive." The left too is a progressive paralysis for the civilized world. And though the left thinks that it has genuine power, the Muslim politicians who are elected to power from liberal parties, are Muslims first. And when the time is right, there will not need to be any armed coups. The same men who ran as Labor or Democrats will simply pledge allegiance to the banner of Islam under Sharia law. It has happened before. It is happening now.

The left's moral disarmament of the civilized world was intended to make free men into slaves, but it is also their own death warrant. For it disarms the only ones who might protect them from the final consequences of their own hunger for power.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Two Models for the Encounter Between Islam and the West

There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization.

The second model is the Assimilationist Model, this model is the most widely held one, not only on the left, but among many on the right as well. The Assimilationist Model holds that the tensions between Muslims and the West, both in the West and in the Muslim world, are the product of the incomplete assimilation of both sides into a global society.

Under the Assimilationist Model, clashes in Europe or terrorism in America result from a failure by their host countries to properly assimilate Muslims within their borders. This "failure to assimilate" results primarily from Western racism, ignorance about Islam, and disrespect for Muslim values, leading to economic and social injustice. This economic and social injustice is then said to marginalize Muslim moderate leaders, who are more prepared to assimilate into their host society, and strengthens Muslim extremists.


On a global scale, violence from the Muslim world is said to be produced by the failure of First World countries to respect and adapt to Muslim culture and religion, as well as the left's old standbys of racism, and economic and social injustice. With the same results as on local level. Muslim extremists are strengthened, Muslim moderates are weakened, and stuff blows up all because we didn't spend enough time learning about other cultures.

Both locally and globally, the Assimilationist Model's prescription for curing terrorist ills is the same. For the affected countries to learn about the values of their attackers and strive to accommodate them. To provide financial benefits and various forms of affirmative action to neutralize Islamic grievances and show respect by promoting and normalizing Islam, both locally and globally. This will harmonize Muslims and non-Muslims together within the emerging global society. And then everyone can join hands and live peacefully together under the enlightened rule of a vast global bureaucracy.

While the Assimilationist Model emerged out of attempts by First World countries to actually assimilate Muslims, in its present state it is essentially a prescription for what is at best mutual assimilation, and what is at worst, a Muslim takeover. And what is worse, the Assimilationist Model is the dominant model used by politicians, academics, business leaders and the political and intellectual elite of almost every society currently targeted by Islam.

And there is a reason for that. Where the Clash of Civilizations model presents a global showdown in which not only is there no avoiding a global conflict, but that conflict will also disrupt emerging trade, international cooperation and global governance mechanisms-- the Assimilationist Model is an essentially optimistic one that says that if we all "buckle down" and make some cultural sacrifices, censor our cartoons, pay fealty to the cultural importance of Mosque and Koran, and avoid eating in public around Ramadan time, in exchange we'll benefit from from globalism abroad and multiculturalism at home (read as a dirt cheap workforce that can help fund our already bankrupt socialist systems). It's no wonder that the Assimilationist Model is so popular among the ruling elite, since it assumes that with a little cultural tinkering, everyone can be made happy. Even if it's under Sharia law. The details don't really matter to them, only the big picture does.

The different viewpoints inherent in these two models, the Clash of Civilizations and the Assimilationist Model underlie virtually all of the debate going on about Islam and the West. And what is so insidious about the Assimilationist Model is that it represents the "easy shortcut" in which societies begin trying to win over Muslims, and by the time they realize it isn't working they see no other alternative short of civil war for dealing with the problem, and this only reinforces their commitment to the Assimilationist Model as the only remaining option.

It is easy to understand why the Assimilationist Model is so dominant, given two choices, most people will choose the "easy way" out. Most people will also try to choose the nicer one, in order to feel better about themselves. The Assimilationist Model offers a minimum of sacrifice up front. There's no need to fight wars or contemplate international alliances against a rising evil. All you really have to do is run some ads, meet with some Muslim leaders, address their concerns and you're done for the day. It seems easy and at first it is. But then the demands get worse and worse, and even when you address them the violence increase. And you're caught inside the trap, and the only way to get out is chew your own leg off, on a national scale. But how many modern leaders are prepared to do that? And so they keep repeating the same futile gestures, putting more and more on the table, in the hopes that at some point the Assimilationist Model will kick in and their society will be saved. Of course the only thing that finally kicks in, is Sharia law and another addition to the Ummah, once the tipping point has been reached.

The difference between the Assimilationist Model and the Clash of Civilizations is the difference between a slot machine that asks for a quarter and a training course in electrical engineering that asks for ten thousand dollars. The first seems tempting, because it asks for very little up front and offers a huge reward. While the other asks for a lot up front and doesn't offer nearly as much down the road, and requires a lot of hard work. And much of the West's political leadership is no longer geared up for sacrifices and hard work, but for socialist bread and circuses, and the Assimilationist Model fits nicely into that mold.

But the intellectual failure of the Assimilationist Model goes even further back, because it's really the model that the West adopted for use against Communist and other far left wing workers' movements, which focused on depriving them of their base by improving conditions for workers. Since then the First World has adapted that same model for use in pacifying virtually any form of dangerous social discontent. But there's a basic disconnect between applying a model meant to deal with an ideological threat to a religious and cultural war. Because while Islam functions at the ideological level, its primary appeal functions at a cultural, national and religious level.

Islam is not simply a manifestation of discontent due to economic or social barriers, but the Manifest Destiny of Muslims in building a global Caliphate. It cannot be waved away with aid money, affirmative action or even showing respect for Islam. The Assimilationist Model is based on the fallacy that Islamism can be neutralized by coddling Muslims. It is profoundly and deeply wrong in this regard, because it fails to understand the power and appeal of Islam. But the fault lies in the left which following its Marxist model of class warfare has coded every social movement as coming in response to economic inequality. And the level of acceptance for the Assimilationist Model demonstrates the level of penetration by the basic ideas behind Marxism... even when those ideas were used to counter the rise of Marxist groups.

The left's intellectual dominance in the First World has wedded its political elite to a worldview in which local and global conflicts can be reduced to either greed on the part of developed nations and groups, or outrage against economic inequality by undeveloped nations and groups. The latter half of the 20th century has overlain those ideas with dollops of tolerance and respect, but the underlying idea remains the same. That you resolve a conflict by divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and assuming the latter can be appeased by remedying the wrongs done to them by the Haves.

The "Have and the Have Not" formula so vital to the Marxist worldview is so thorough embedded that it cannot envision actual Islamist motives as anything except as an insanity that can be pacified by weaning away their followers with economic, social and cultural incentives, or the inventions of intolerant conservative elements within their own society who are seeking to disrupt their attempt at national and global harmony.

This is why the Assimilationist Model has become a fact of life, whether it's in Europe, where governments seek to charm Muslims by showing them respect, or America, where the government is planning to spend billions to lure away Taliban fighters from their machine guns, to Israel, where the endless peace process continues dangling a limited state before terrorists who remain committed to destroying their country.

Because it is easy, because it accommodates the facile worldview of the left and provides minimum disruption to their plans for a global order-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.

The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.

The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.

(Spanish Language Translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Caryl Chessman and the Triumph of Evil



"Telephone callers from Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and Australia have importuned Governor Brown to spare Chessman's life. Brown has received save-Chessman pleas from Belgium's Queen Mother and from the Social Democratic members of Italy's Chamber of Deputies.

Secretary of State Christian Herter told his press conference last week that the Chessman case had stirred up "quite a surprising amount of interest" in South America. In Brazil, circulators of a save-Chessman petition claim more than 2,500,000 signatures. In The Netherlands, record dealers are profiting from brisk demand for a new platter, in Dutch, called The Death Song of Chessman.

The London News Chronicle recently editorialized that "the great American nation is humiliated because of the agony of Chessman," and the London Daily Herald added that the day Chessman is executed "will be a day when it will be rather unpleasant to be an American." Buenos Aires' Critics called the Chessman case "the most terrible case that has faced the world in recent history." - Time Magazine, Mar 21, 1960

Who was Chessman that America should want to condemn him and the entire world should so hysterically agitate on his behalf and what is his connection to the War on Terror?

Caryl Chessman was a robber, rapist and murderer who dragged women out of cars and sexually assaulted them. He was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to death. He was held on death row while every goodhearted liberal demanded his release.

Caryl Chessman was to liberals what the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay are today. Imagine Tookie Williams and multiply him a thousand times over and that was Caryl Chessman. Liberals contended he was the victim of a cruel and unfair justice system. They wrote books about him, they made two movies about him, they published the books he wrote and the essays condemning his imprisonment. Ronnie Hawkins wrote "The Ballad Of Caryl Chessman" and Phil Ochs wrote "The Iron Lady" in sympathy for him.


E. A. Poe, Henri Rousseau
Sholom Aleichem and Caryl Chessman
Alan Freed and Buster Keaton too
And each one there
Has one thing shared
They have sweated beneath the same sun
Looked up in wonder at the same moon
And wept when it was all done
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done too soon
For bein' done

Neil Diamond - Done Too Soon


There were no ballads or songs written about Caryl Chessman's victims. One of those victims remained in a schizophrenic state for as long as Chessman remained on death row. But there was no pity for her or for any of them.

No singer worried how much they ached or sweated or how they lived their lives. The liberals ranging from Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Aldous Huxley, Norman Mailer (who himself nearly murdered his wife), Robert Frost (who had also obtained clemency for Nazi propagandist poet, Ezra Pound) to those letter writers sending in a 1000 letters a day cared very much about them.

What all those great men and the everyday liberal had in common was that they gave nearly as much of a damn for Caryl Chessman's victims, as today's liberals bleeding their little hearts all over Abu Ghaib and Gitmo, have for the victims of September 11th and the victims of Islamic terrorism all over the world.

They liked and like to believe that they're enormously sensitive people full of love for mankind, yet that love seemed to best express itself toward murderers and rapists. After Caryl Chessman would come Eldridge Cleaver who would boast of his rapes and of practicing on "little black girls in the ghetto" before using the white women who were the racial enemy. There would be Che Guevara whose murderous visage still adorns millions of red t-shirts.

There would be Adolf Eichmann, who despite carrying out the genocide of millions, was the subject of pleas from all over the world for forgiveness. There was Yasir Arafat whose terrorist thugs carved a brutal trail of terror and death across Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. There would be Tookie Williams and there would be Hicks and the terrorists at Gitmo. The cycle of sympathizing with the criminal and transforming him into a victim, of sanctifying his bloodiest deeds in the name of his victimization by the system and the United States, dated long before Islamic terrorism even reared its ugly head. It was an ugly foulness that was always in our culture and always nesting in the rotting heart of that brand of liberalism which is attracted to the dirty bloody hand and repulsed by the waving flag.

In the death row waiting for their turn
No time to change, not a chance to learn
Waiting for someone to call
Say it's over after all
They won't have to face the justice of the chair

The Iron Lady - Phil Ochs

Aren't you sad now? Can you feel empathy for what he's going through? Poor dear Caryl Chessman. Note the overflowing well of pity for a man who had none for anyone else but himself. Caryl Chessman spent years waxing outraged about his treatment and his abuse by the criminal justice system, even as he concocted more and more outrageous lies in his own defense. And his defenders lapped up every one of them.

Chessman's methods and techniques would inspire hero worship in the Hillside Stranglers who would go on to kidnap, torture and murder a number of women. Even after they were arrested, they nearly got off for it, but for the insistence of the trial judge on refusing the prosecution's motion to withdraw the case and prosecuted it instead.

Chessman is mainly forgotten today, perhaps out of embarrassment. He was sent to the gas chamber from where he never returned. Liberals have found new murderers to idolize. Monsters who make Caryl Chessman or the Hillside Stranglers look like amateurs.

Why remember Caryl Chessman at all? Because he is an example. He is the sham that exposes the fraudulent feminism of liberals who tirelessly defended rapists like him or Eldridge Cleaver. Hunter S. Thompson, that great inspiration to gonzo journalism, who all but celebrated the gang rapists of the Hell's Angels.

It exposes the love that liberals hold for criminals, but never for their victims. Their willingness to identify with and weep over the sufferings of a condemned criminal, without caring a whit for those people whose lives were ruined in his aftermath.

It exposes the fact that modern day liberal sympathies for terrorists is not the product of a more enlightened global worldview. Why after all did Caryl Chessman hate the people he assaulted? He didn't. He wasn't the product of America's policies in the middle east or the ghetto or anywhere else. He was a sociopathic monster in a line of sociopathic monsters whose magnetism and charisma would captivate liberals leading them to make their pilgrimages to Fidel Castro or Yasir Arafat or Ahmadinejad.

When the world wails over Gimto or Hicks and liberals condemn Bush and churn out petitions, there is nothing new under the sun. It has all happened before. It will all happen again.
"One atrocious but clever criminal called into question our judicial system and brought discredit to our laws...Then ... he intimidated the Governor of California and drove the timorous U.S. State Department to declare him an international issue. And finally, he beheld the legislature in a session specially called to change the law so that he could be saved from execution . . . What will happen now? They would not change the law for Chessman, but it would be unwise to give odds that he won't beat it again." Los Angeles Times

Does this sound familiar? Think of Arafat brandishing a gun at the U.N. Think of Ahmadinejad smirking at Britain as he seizes hostages, negotiates an exchange and then sets them free. This is what happens when civilizations give in to thugs. This is what happens when a nation bows its head to a monster.

This is how evil wins, whether it is the evil at the heart of the USSR or Iran or in Ramallah or thugs and murderers smirking their way through sessions with their lawyers. Evil does not merely win when good men do nothing. It wins when the supposed good men do their utmost to fight fiercely on its behalf.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Victory Over Evil Takes Responsibility

Confronting evil takes responsibility. Not responsibility for the actions of others. Not responsibility for offending the perpetrators, for being insensitive to their poor childhoods and their government's World Bank debt. Responsibility means being responsible for protecting yourself and your neighbors and the greater families or your country and community. That does not necessarily mean physical force, it means being responsible by fighting for the policies that will protect them.

Liberalism has distorted responsibility into a guilt complex for the hatred that others feel for us. The tenets of liberalism say that hatred against the privileged is by definition legitimate and justified. Once liberalism has defined being privileged as being a member of any society that functions sufficiently well to provide clean drinking water for its citizens and protection against being gunned down in the street by roving gangs, it turns out that we are all privileged and therefore deserve the hatred levered against us. This is the warped philosophy behind the left's response to crime, violence, terrorism and war. But it is thoroughly wrong.

We are not responsible for their hatred. We are responsible only for protecting ourselves against it. Hatred is the responsibility of the hater. Murder is the responsibility of the murderer. When we take someone else's responsibility on ourselves, two things happen.

First by taking responsibility for something we cannot control, we waste our energies and do nothing to address or resolve the problem.

Secondly, we remove responsibility from the only person who can control it, we give him absolute freedom from his responsibilities. He becomes free to rob and kill and do as he likes, because his victims are responsible now, not him.

All totalitarian systems remove individual responsibility, replacing it with obligation. Responsibility requires informed individual judgment. Obligation simply means doing what you're told.

Nanny states treat everyone as irresponsible. Every package needs a dozen warning labels, because people can't be expected to understanding anything on their own. Every person needs to sacrifice the bulk of their earnings to the government, which will administer and use it for his benefit, because he cannot possible use it for his own benefit. Nanny states centralize authority, while decentralizing responsibility.

Instead of holding you responsible for what you do, liberalism holds you responsible for what you are, for your race, for your gender and your earning power. Like all socialist systems, it despises individuals and accepts only classes and categories. It has no place in it for a black man who successfully started his own business and earns $220,000 a year. Such a person should not exist and therefore does not. A class is in the end a caste system, manufactured by socialist rhetoric and enforced by a system of thought that in the manner of 1984, rejects even the understanding of things outside its categories.

Liberalism celebrates the irresponsible, the addict, the criminal and the terrorist and justifies him by arguing that he is not responsible for what he does. By contrast governments and police and the victims of terrorism are always responsible and for that responsibility, they are penalized for their own supposed crimes and for the crimes committed against them by the irresponsible.

The best way to oppose a system that mandates irresponsibility, is with responsibility. Firstly by helping others, not merely charitably, but in helping them become responsible for themselves. Secondly by rejecting illegitimate attempts to shift responsibility for the actions of others onto you. This false responsibility is the basis of liberal morality and it is where the line can and should be drawn to oppose and undermine this competing moral system.

We are not responsible for the actions of Muslim terrorists. We are only responsible to stop them.

We are certainly not responsible for how much "they" hate us. Whether the they are the Arab street, Europeans or the people of Papau, New Guinea. Their hatred is their choice. We are not responsible for their emotions. Their emotions are not proof of their rightness. The truth is most of the world hates most of the rest of the world. That is not our problem.

We are not responsible for the actions of muggers, murderers, child molesters, rapists. Only they are responsible for their crimes. Not us. Not some nebulous definition of society. The perpetrators are responsible.

We are not responsible for obesity, anorexia, violence in schools, a gun culture or global warming. Some of these are phony crisis' concocted by think tanks and used by the press to beat us over the head with on a daily basis and make us feel guilty and unworthy as a society. We are not responsible for them as problems, we are only responsible to the extent that we can help ourselves and others live better lives. We are not responsible for nebulous social ills or things that have been defined as social problems. We are only responsible to the extent that we can help others who need our help and raise our children and grandchildren well.

We are not responsible for the beliefs of others that we have committed offenses against them. We are not responsible for the jealousy of others because we live better than them. We are not responsible for the beliefs of others that by eating meat or driving to work, we are perpetrating horrible cruelties and destroying the planet. These people are in any case hypocrites and their beliefs are devoid of any real grounding.

This is not though about irresponsibility. It is about responsibility. It is about eliminating the things we are not responsible for, to focus on what we are responsible for.

Taking responsibility should never be an act of guilt as liberalism treats it, but an act of courage. It means participating in the building of better families, better communities and better systems. It is a creative act and a willingness to shoulder a workload, not because of some offenses committed by your ancestors in the past or because living better is itself an offense, but because it is an integral part of living life well.

Taking responsibility is not a guilt trip, but a choice. Defeating evil, defeating Islam, will take a cultural victory. Not by a culture crippled by false liberal morality and guilt, but by a truly responsible culture, standing up to an irresponsible one and for once, holding it responsible.

That will be our victory.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Democracy Fallacy

It was the end of the 18th century and soon would come the beginning of the 19th. A new age that it was believed would usher in a world of transformation. The old tyrannical monarchies would fall and the success of the American revolution would be replicated across Europe.

First in line was France. The French revolution was heralded by America's revolutionary Francophiles such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Support for the French revolution was identified with support for a broader revolution for mankind against tyranny and oppression. Much as the liberals of the 20th century would inflexibly commit themselves to supporting the great evil that was Communism, in the name of human progress- American liberals of the 18th would do for the French revolution.

Democracy was the goal. Freedom for all men. A new age.

At first the prospects seemed good. The American Revolution's chief propagandist, Thomas Paine, joined the National Assembly (even though he barely spoke a word of French.) George Washington wrote letters of advice to the hero of two revolutions, Lafayette, his surrogate son.

If the attitude is reminiscent of anything, it can be reminiscent of American troops entering Baghdad, coming to rebuild Iraq and idealistically bringing democracy to an oppressed people. Or liberals rejoicing in the Russian people overthrowing the Czar and creating a government of the workers. And then as now, idealism gave way to baffled horror, as the killing began.

The tide of blood began. Talk of liberty and freedom went on and so did the blades of the gullioutine. The revolution had begun to devour its own children. Many Americans looked away horrified, incapable of comprehending what had happened. After all the American experiment had encountered its share of troubles yes, the Whiskey Rebellion, Aaron Burr and the Federalist debates were notable early highlights, but nothing like this.

What Americans then and what Americans now had failed to understand that democracy is a tool. A means not an end. Used correctly democracy can create a republic of free men invested with rights and responsibilities. Used incorrectly democracy can lead to political bloodbaths, anarchy or a genocidal madman.

As in the 18th century, Americans continue to view democracy as a messianic ideal that will transform humanity. It may. In time. The reality though is democracy is simply a method of achieving political consensus. It is the fairest method we know and the least likely to be abused. But every method of government is also inherently unfair and abusive. It is the nature of the citizenry and the political class that determines whether its outcome is good or evil.

The fundamental error then and now in messianically embracing democracy as an ultimate good, is that we contrast it with tyranny as the ultimate evil. We falsely assume that tyranny is evil because it is undemocratic. While that is one aspect of tyranny's evil, the overall evils of tyranny come from abuses, atrocities and oppression. Democracy is not a perfect cure for those things. To the extent that its leadership is corrupt or void of empathy or committed to political philosophies that harm some in their society, the democracy they run reflects that.

Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Just ask a Southern slave. Democracy and equality are not the same thing, just ask a white college student applying to college.

Democracy as we apply it is an outgrowth of ideals and ideas within Western culture and European history. Transplanted into another society, the effects are unpredictable. But beyond all the idealistic rhetoric, boiled down simply, democracy says that you don't have to kill in order to be treated fairly. You don't have to kill to survive, if your beliefs are different from the people running things. You don't have to kill to have your rights protected. You don't have to kill to have a voice in the way government is run. You can vote. You can lobby. You can protest without being shot down in the street.

This is not always the case even in democracies. That has not and is not always the case in America. But it is the case overall and that has been enough to keep things going. It combined with hefty doses of government welfare and a growing respect for human life has been enough to keep things going. It and the general exhaustion in the West for any more wars and killing has been enough to keep things going.

That is the reality. The myth of democracy as a near-religious icon has been what has blinded Americans time and time again when democracy was offered to other nations and peoples and those peoples shrugged and said "Who needs it" and went on killing anyway.

Democracy only works in a culture where different sides can agree to vote it out, instead of fight it out. Democracy only works in a culture that values human life enough to pull back from the brink and settle things by slandering each other in the press. Democracy only works in a culture where each other side believes the other side is wrong, but not so wrong they have to be wiped out and kept from any role in the country's future.

Where those conditions do not obtain, THERE WILL BE NO DEMOCRACY. It does not matter how many troops you send in. Not unless you are prepared to use those troops to slaughter every faction that is not prepared to lay down arms and accept the results of the voting booth, not caring what devastation we produce in the process. We are not prepared to do that and until we are discussing bringing democracy to Iraq or any Muslim country is a dead end.

Democracy will not produce Muslim countries that will respect human rights. Democracy is a truce. In a Muslim country it's an armed truce while both sides prepare to kill each other. Don't believe me? Look at Democracy in Lebanon or Gaza? That's what democracy looks like in a country where both sides care more about winning than about their own people.

Want a best case scenario of what democracy looks like in an unstable society? Take a look at Latin America. Want a worst case one, look at Russia.

Russia abandoned its brief flirtation with democracy in favor of a new dictatorship. Russia is never going to be a democratic country, simply because Russia has always been run by powerful cliques inserted into a rotten bureaucracy. Russia's democracy was simply more of the same. So was Communism. So were the Czars. So is Putin.

It's the same government with a different name, because it's the same society and culture. Governments don't define a society and a culture. A society and a culture define the government.

Colonial America had many of the same characteristics as Post-Colonial America. The Revolution simply gave Americans legal independence, a national government and the ability to set our cultural norms into law.

European democracy set the cultural norms of Europe into law. Namely a massive state bureaucracy, a static culture and tolerance of most things so long as they don't interfere with business as usual.

Iraqi democracy set Arabs norms into practice. Be loyal to your tribe and faction. Kill your enemies before they kill you. Attack anyone who shows weakness. Lie about all of the above until you believe it yourself.

Iraq or any Arab country will change when enough of its citizens desire it. Not until then, unless we're prepared to engage in the kind of force it takes to break their society down and rebuild it in our own image. It's possible but we won't do it, because we are who we are and they are who they are.

Our democracy is a great and wonderful thing. But it is not the cure for the world. It is who we are. It is a part and parcel of our Americaness. We cannot give it to another people unless they want it and are willing to accept it. And most will not, until they learn for themselves there is a better way.

Too often in our history we have chosen to believe that democracy is the innate condition of mankind when tyranny is removed. We believed that removing Louis or Saddam or Nikolai, would usher in democracy, freedom and human rights. But tyranny is the innate condition of mankind. Thousands of years of history indisputably back it up. Democracy is an ideal to be reached up for. Not something that emerges when the ground is cleared of tyranny.

Societal virtues cannot be given as a gift. They must be acquired by dedicated striving. When a people is ready to reach for self-improvement, they may have what we have. But until that day if we are to hold on to what we have, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against them and put our trust in destroying their threat potential through arms, not in rebuilding them into a virtuous society.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Whatever You Do, Don't Fight Back



Out of Dallas comes a story about a 60 year old woman who wrestled away a gun from a 19 year old teenager trying to steal her car and shot him. The story's closing paragraph contains the cautionary note that has become obligatory for postmodern America.

"We don't recommend it," Sgt. McFarlin said of the woman's decision to confront her attacker. "Always the safe thing to do, unless you're in fear of imminent bodily injury, is to comply."

Complying is indeed the recommended option these days, whether it's with criminals or terrorists. Follow orders and hope you don't get hurt. How many women have been forced into cars at the threat of a knife or a gun, only to be taken away and raped and murdered. When people are taught to comply, imminent injury ceases to be a risk but a consequence.

Complying was the standard recommendation for airplane hijackings. This cultural programming was only broken on Flight 93, when the consequences of compliance had become clear. It is not in Afghanistan or Iraq, where the only truly decisive victory against terrorism occurred, but on that plane, when the passengers chose to resist their attackers and foil their plans.

The common denominator between crime and terrorism is that both are cultural threats to our society. They originate from cultures existing abroad and in the fringes of our own society. A criminal culture and a terrorist culture. They cannot be defeated purely through military means, they must be defeated at the cultural level, and that will only happen when a society of committed individuals resist them, rather than comply with them.

But we have been assiduously taught not to do this. We are taught to vest out faith and rights into the hands of government bodies who will handle our security for us. Our approach to terrorism is only an extension of our approach to crime, which is to slide back and forth between aggressive rhetoric and overbearing action to appeasement and downright romanticisation of the criminal and the terrorist. This romanticisation of murderers and criminals who challenge authority, itself stems from the loss of liberty inherent in a state which preaches government power as the ultimate good and the ultimate solution.

Once we transferred responsibility for our security from ourselves to a designated professional force and made it all but illegal, for people to defend others or themselves using force, we created the kind of society that could stand by as Kitty Genovese was attacked repeatedly over a half and allowed to die without any help.

We created a society perpetually afraid of crime and dependent on police brutality and ruthless policing to keep it at bay. By taking away the ability of ordinary citizens to protect themselves, we were left with the false choice of either weak policing and anarchy or ruthless policing and obscene erosions of individual freedoms.

All attempts to transfer individual responsibilities to the government however, are doomed to failure. A government educational system can never replace parents. Government policing can never take the place of individual deterrence and self-defense. Governments can defeat armed forces, but they cannot defeat a culture. Only one culture can defeat another culture and only one civilization can defeat another civilization.

The War on Terror was marked by a government that rushed to pass laws, that were promptly never taken advantage of, or misused for ordinary criminal prosecutions. While everyone from the President on down rushed to insure the public that everything was under control, attempts to give the American people a role in the War on Terror were either squashed or squandered. The government insisted on doing it on its own and worked hard to convince the public that this was a conventional threat that could be defeated by conventional means, because government always seeks to rhetorically recreate a situation along the parameters that place it within its sphere of control.

In the War on Terror, domestic terrorists have been barely touched, and the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, ignored the fact that the real threat lay not from Osama Bin Laden, but from the growing Muslim immigration and accompanying legitimization of terrorism and delegitimization of self-defense, that has turned Europe's former great empires into supine chambers of appeasement before the spawn of Mohammedanism. Unable to admit the average American understands, the government's attempt to fight terrorism can only stop state sponsors of terrorism, but not the disease vector of terrorism itself, which is Islam.

The dream of Islamic supremacy cannot be blown up with a bomb. It can be defeated only by a superior culture. A culture that is unafraid of the truth and whose superiority rests in individual liberty and self-reliance, rather than on grand government programs that hunt mosquitoes with howitzer cannons.

Individual liberty is a free society's immunity mechanism that prevents it from being overcome by malignant ideologies. A socialist state which seeks to subdue the native energies, spirits and vigor of its people, turns a Democratic society into little more than an inferior version of the dictatorships and totalitarian ideologies it resists. Inferior because true totalitarian regimes are far more thorough, both in crushing their own people and in maintaining a police state over them.

A government cannot subdue the Islamic threat. Military force is an important component over defeating Islamic terrorism abroad, but we can score military victories over Islamic terrorism across the world, and yet see it spring up in new places every week. Because all that Islamists require is a weak government and a crumbling social structure to move in and begin taking over. Africa alone offers dozens of such places. So does Southeast Asia. So does Europe.

A government cannot subdue an ideology. Bombing another training camp in Pakistan does only a limited amount of good, when mosques are preaching Jihad recruiting terrorists in our own cities. Fighting Islamic terrorism abroad does little good, when our own schools and colleges are prosyletising students with classes on the glories of the Religion of Peace.

Terrorism is only the poison the snake spits. The snake itself is the rise of Islam as a force in the modern world. That snake stretches out from the sand pits of the Middle East, its coils draping across Asia and Europe and its fangs reaching across the ocean to America. The snake's body is composed of the numbers of its worshipers, of their mosques and charities and schools and institutions.

For the poison to seep in, they might prefer a Liberal Democrat President, but they would settle for a Republican one whose administration will counsel people not to worry, teach them to tape the windows shut and do nothing, especially not blame Islam or Muslims for terrorism. Especially not to fight back.

Since 9/11 Muslims boast that conversions to Islam have gone up. The murder of over 3000 Americans served as a kind of publicity stunt to launch the promotion of the religion responsible for it. The average American today is fed a dozen lies about Islam before breakfast, all of them sickeningly sweet. The empty debate rages about whether to pull in and out of Iraq, when the real battle for the West is being fought in Paris and Brussels and Rome and for that matter Detroit.

As the death toll in the unofficial war being fought in Europe rises, the media trumpets each dead American soldier. In Sweden women are told not to dress provocatively or meet the eyes of Muslim men. In Australia rhetoric against Muslims is punished with jail time. In England republication of cartoons offensive to Muslims is set to trigger a criminal prosecution. In America rumors of a supposed Koran in the toilet trigger police investigations.

All of it falls under a single banner. The same banner liberals and conservatives both, have spent too much time waving since the 70's. Whatever you do, don't fight back.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Moral Idiots, Injustice and the Triumph of Evil



"On the night of April 24, 2005, Christine Kramer - her body etched head to heel with two dozen stab wounds and almost completely drained of blood - summoned her last measure of strength to lift her thin right arm up off the floor of East 84th Street kitchen.

Her right thumb dangling and nearly severed, she pointed at her spouse of 27 years. "He stabbed me in the heart," she murmured to cops. "My husband."

Two days before that she had called her mother to tell her that she had given him divorce papers and that he had gone nuts. "She said, 'He's going to kill me, Mom! He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!'
"

And he did. Yesterday a jury of twelve people (I hesitate to even describe them as people) set her killer, Benjamin Odierno, a multimillionaire real estate tycoon free. He did a jig outside the courthouse, grinning happily. Then he went off to celebrate with his family and friends at Lusardi's.

And he had plenty to grin about. He stabbed his wife twenty-four times, cut himself twice to claim she had attacked and hired a lawyer, Jack Litman, who put his murder victim on trial claiming that she was mentally unstable because she was thrifty with household goods and had loudly argued with him.

That's all it took. With a jury. Now why am I blogging about this on a political blog? Because this case is also the story of why Israel can't seem to get a fair break in the coverage, why American soldiers are turned into villains and terrorists are turned into heroes. Why much of the world and a lot of Americans will claim that it's America that is at fault before and after 9/11.

It's a world where evil emerges grinning, just like Benjamin Odierno, and doing a little jig, while its victims sit in the criminals dock, baffled as to why the world is so unfair, until some of them begin to really believe themselves the guilty ones.

Let's take an analytical look at what Benjamin Odierno did. He set out to prevent a divorce settlement in which his wife would have gotten half his property, by murdering her. It's not an original idea. Plenty of men have done it, but he clearly planned it out.

He didn't merely kill his wife, he created a story... a story in which he was the victim and she was the perpetrator. A story that made him sympathetic and his victim, a crazy unlikeable woman. If you look at the basic facts of the case, a claim of self-defense when stabbing a woman 24 times from head to toe, isn't something that should convince even the worst idiot.

But it convinced 12 jurors. Some of them well educated and successful. It convinced them not because they're mental idiots, but like much of the West these days, because they're 'moral idiots.' Moral idiots are often quite educated. They're not genuinely intelligent, but they have the college education and trappings of intelligence. But they're idiots when it comes to matters of right and wrong.

Like a lot of Westerners today, they were never properly taught right from wrong. Their parents were likely the same products of a culture that had lost all touch with right and wrong. Their professors and teachers certainly were. In college they were taught moral relativism, rather than morality. In popular culture, they were taught that nothing is really wrong, except possibly bigotry and polluting the environment. In this fertile soil of moral idiocy, evil sprouts like weeds, unchecked.

Let's swing back to the Middle-East now. Over centuries Muslim Arabs had conquered and subjugated the Middle East, reduced every other race and religion in the area, to second class citizens. Their response to the Jewish resettlement of Israel was homicidal rage. They set out to kill millions of Jews. Like Benjamin Odierno, they did this with the help of a story, a fictional story of Jews displacing them from their land.

As time went on, the story evolved. A separate Palestinian nationality was manufactured, after Egypt and Jordan lost control over the area to Israel. A people with a passionate desire for their country, even though no such country had ever existed. But the story was developed and told and retold, emphasizing Israeli war crimes. Never mind that these "crimes" would have been a picnic in any of the other Arab states. Never mind that each time the Arabs had begun wars, with the open aim of mass murder.

Like Benjamin Odierno, the Arabs, like all experienced murderers, understood that the truth wouldn't matter. The story mattered. While Israel and its defenders insisted on repeatedly reciting the reality, investigating complaints, trying to argue a middle ground; the Arab propagandists disdained such things. Like Scheherezade, they held their international audience spellbound with their own Arabian Nights, with magic housekeys, tales of oppression and children in staged shots throwing stones at tanks.

The Arab approach was simply to circulate as many stories as possible, certain that some would stick. It was to stay on message, with a simple message. "Israel Stole Our Land. Israel Is Oppressing Us." By doing so they quickly made Israel into the perpetual defendant. The more Israel defended itself, the more the charges gained ground, because the discussion had shifted into a debate over whether Israel was guilty or not.

In "The Manchurian Candidate", Angela Lansbury's character flagrantly had her husband ,the Senator, give out random numbers of Communists in the Defense Department. When he complains, she tells him that "They're not discussing whether there are Communists in the Defense Department. They're discussing how many Communists are there in the Defense Department."

A smart lawyer does not work so much to prove his client innocent, as to shift the blame, on the victim, on the police, on anybody convenient. In the O.J. Simpson case, it was the LAPD who was really at fault. In rape cases, it's the victim who was really responsible. Lines on defense like that were the reason rape shield laws were created. Once the point of contention shifts from "Did he or didn't he do it" to the victim's culpability, the case has mostly been won already.

While Israel's Hasbara focused on dealing with the reality of what was going on, the Arabs spun a legend. Like in Liberty Valance, the legend that was better than the truth, was the one that got printed. Israel's insistence on addressing the situation that was actually going on, rather than simply creating a completely false storyline and peddling it to the exclusion of everything else; doomed its case, just as surely as the prosecution doomed Christine Kramer to not just be a murder victim, but a reviled one.

Let's take a look at the jury again. At the mindless minds of men and women who set a murderer free. You'll find them not just in juries, but answering questions in telephone surveys and voicing their opinions on political issues. They are what happens when the human soul remains unformed and the human character devoid of passionate convictions of right and wrong.

“It was very difficult to side with the prosecution when the majority of the character witnesses called were there for the defense,” said one juror, Randy Levine, 29, associate media director at an advertising firm.

"He didn't mean for this to happen," said juror Mark Flowers of Harlem.

Miri Samuel, another juror, agreed and said it seemed that Mrs. Odierno could have been the instigator of the couple’s fights. “Christine Odierno looked like someone who could possibly start the whole thing, and there was nothing to contradict that,” said Ms. Samuel, a sales representative for Estée Lauder.

Meanwhile, they said, Mr. Odierno came off as kind and grandfatherly.

“He was a simple, decent man who tried to live a simple, happy life,” Ms. Samuel said.

Another juror, Joanne McGrath, assistant dean of admissions at New York University School of Medicine, said Mr. Odierno ultimately saved himself. “Putting him on the stand was a big, big, big factor,” she said, “because he turned out to be a likable guy.”


Note that last part in particular, Benjamin Odierno was a likable guy. Now if Joanne McGrath had any shame at least, she would have at least avoided admitting that she was influenced by how likable a murderer was. But moral shame is an inaccessible concept for moral idiots. If Joanne went out with her slip showing she would be ashamed, but she doesn't even understand that she should feel shame when she informs the New York Times that she freed a man who stabbed his wife 24 times, because she found him likable.

Despite, or maybe she is assistant dean of admissions at New York University School of Medicine, Joanne McGrath is a moral idiot.

Meanwhile Miri Samuel thought Benjamin Odierno reminded her of her grandfather. Hopefully grandpa never decides to stab grandma, because we know for sure who Miri Samuel would side with. And it wouldn't be the woman whose body is lying bloodied and hacked apart on the floor.

As it turns out a lot of reporters had the tendency to call Arafat, grandfatherly. One BBC reporter even wept on television when he was being transported for medical treatment. Despite being a mass murderer, a terrorist who had ordered crimes too horrific for words, Arafat smiled benevolently and asked them how they were doing and invited them for tea. The blood on his hands didn't matter, he was grandfatherly.

Moral idiots do not make decisions based on right and wrong. They have no grasp of right and wrong. They make decisions based on what they are told to believe and their emotional pull to someone. If one side has a better story, they believe that story, because most of them aren't capable of actually discarding lies from the truth and seeing the basic reality of what is going on.

They believe the more appealing side and the Arab side has trotted through bushels of smiling and bloodied kids, for the cameras. It doesn't matter that they murder children, the way some people staple files. It doesn't matter that they themselves murdered some of the children they showed off for the cameras, as happened in Lebanon and with the Mohammed Al-Dura case. This is a degree of complexity beyond the grasp of the modern moral idiot who instinctively grasps for the smiling face and the better story, the one with no grey areas, told with the utter conviction of the professional liar, who has no holes in his story, because the entire story is a lie. The entire story is the hole.

The justice system is an adversarial system, in which both the lawyers and prosecutors are the adversaries of justice. Sometimes justice triumphs over both sides. Rarely.

The international arena is also an adversarial system, glued together by agendas, lies, interests and prejudices. As in the justice system, murder is not murder if you tell a really good story.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Free Power - Republicans and Democrats and the Economic Survival of America

We've got an election coming up and as per usual that means we'll see Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, both casting themselves as defenders of the ordinary man. Debates will be conducted over health care, minimum wage increases and tax breaks. And the hypocrisy will flow like wine.

The simple reality is that both sides like to cast themselves as working to make life better for the average American, some may even believe it. In practice what occurs is a tug of war between two extremes.

Democrats propose to address the inequities of a capitalist system by replacing it with a totalitarian one, Big Brother with a bureaucratic face by using government programs to fill those gaps.

Government programs can certainly help people but government agencies and bureaucracies represent their own motive force. Programs that sound good in theory quickly create a massive spiraling bureaucracy full of fraud and abuse. The people they are meant to help quickly become divided into beneficiaries of the aid who wind up perpetually on the dole and those who increasingly have to pay for the programs themselves. And if they can't afford it, the programs are open to them too as soon as their income drops enough.

(It's why Democrats bitterly oppose tax cuts but support minimum wage hikes. The tax cuts some off their end. The minimum wage hikes aren't a problem because they get a percentage off the top.)

The more the war on poverty is fought, the worse it gets because the money that might have gone into allowing people to have a better life, is being sucked up into taxes to fund those programs, both at the income level and at the business level. And the degradation of basic humanity and loss of rights that grows as a free society gives way to a regulatory bureaucracy insures a populace unwilling and unable to raise itself up anymore.

Socialism creates serf states, sometimes with populations taxed worse than serfs were, where people are earning a little but making very little. Two income families become the norm. Women marry later and have less children. The birthrate drops, which worsens the problem of finding a tax base for the growing bureaucracy, which pushes taxes higher.

Immigrant populations are brought in to replace the worker shortages which further strain and expand the government bureaucracies. The government programs have by now come to resemble a Ponzi scheme and the whole thing teeters on an imminent collapse. Take a look at just about any country in Europe if you want to see a living example of once great nations facing extinction by becoming devoured by their own bureaucracies.


And then there's the Republican side of the coin. There's usually a lot of talk about small business and the American worker. But the real policy is to let big business do anything it likes. That means outsourcing of workers. It means legalizing massive amounts of illegal aliens. It means supporting terrorists who come here on HB-1 visas to fill the tech industry's appetite for skilled workers with low pay expectations. It means shipping American industry and jobs to Mexico and China.

At home it means letting big corporations monopolize and crush small businesses and workers out of existence and subsidizing those companies with tens of billions of dollars, even as they continue their disastrous business practices while their CEO's walk away with 170 million dollar golden parachutes. The complete hopelessness of subsidizing failing businesses never seems to make any impact on them.

This is of course hardly limited to Republicans, most Democratic politicians are just as bad. But it's a philosophical defect of Republicans to believe that deregulating business is a universal good, when it was Theodore Roosevelt, the second greatest Republican President, who fought corruption and reined in monopolies and abuse business practices that the Democrats had winked at. The corruption fallout in the previous Republican Congress came about because the party chose the legacy of Ulysses S. Grant over that of Theodore Roosevelt.

Uncontrolled deregulation simply leaves the workers, consumers and small businessmen naked against a never ending list of abuses. Nor is what's good for GM, good for America. What's good for GM is outsourcing labor and government subsidies. None of that is good for America. It pumps America and Americans dry while the multinational corporations move on to greener pastures in Mexico or China.


Without controlling taxes and spending, both Democrats and Republicans continue the same destructive course. The Bush Administration has plenty of economic successes to claim but it's competiting against the moribund socialist states of Europe, who actually thought the falling value of the Dollar was a national triumph for them, instead of a national disaster.

The real struggle should be the struggle of Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican President, who fought for Free Power over Slave Power. Slave Power does not merely mean the enslavement of a particular race. It means an economy based on slave labor. Slave labor can come in the form of slaves of an overwhelming bureaucracy or slaves to an uncontrolled corporate system.

Free Power encourages the rise of the individual over conglomerates, corporations and bureaucracies. Democrats and Republicans both talk that talk, but few are really willing to put the regulations where their mouths are. The best hope for America's survival is to return to the values of Free Power, of small business and commerce, of significantly lowered taxation and deregulation, without deregulating so far as to give big businesses a free hand to abuse their power.

Free Power means recognizing that the strength and economic survival of America is and has always been in the individual. We cannot compete against the slave power of China or Mexico, states with low incomes and not particularly democratic governments. America will stand or fall on the individual.

Alfred Must Die so Mahmood Can Live: Why Socialized Medicine Makes Euthanasia Inevitable



There's always a price for everything or as they say in certain circles, TANSTAAFL, or There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Politicians though increasingly build their promises on a government bureaucracy that will give you a free lunch. Of course the government bureaucracy isn't free and there's a hell of a tab to pick up for the lunch too.

The problem with offering pie in the sky though is someone has to pay for it. Medicine is justifiably a human right, but when doled out by the government comes packaged with a massive bureaucracy to implement and distribute and manage it. While the governments promised a lot, reality interferes naturally. Drugs and doctors don't grow on trees.

Socialized medicine may give away a lot, but it has to stagger carefully what it gives away and lower the quality. Americans may go to Canada for cheap drugs but Canadians will go to America because America offers the procedures they need, without having to wait months for them. Wards in England are a national disgrace and a nightmare with nursing shortages, mixed sex wards and severe cleanliness problems. France's broken health care system is climbing the ranks of election campaign issues.

For parts of the 19th and most of the 20th century, civic medicine has made great strides. Health care and hygiene came to the slums, diseases were fought and conquered. Much of what was accomplished was toted up as yet further evidence that government programs when applied to social problems could create an ideal society.

As social prosperity increased, lifespans increased and birth rates fell. In America they fell somewhat, in Europe they fell drastically. So drastically that Europe from the English coastlines to the Russian tundra is facing the loss of millions of people and the depopulation of entire areas. This would have been a severe enough problems in and of itself, but a system in which younger worker's pay is leveraged to provide social services for them and for retired citizens cannot survive a gap in the birth rate any more than you can build a building with a missing two stories in the middle.

Immigration was meant to make up for that but of course immigration only makes things worse. On paper immigration seems like an easy way to make up for a birth rate shortfall. But immigration is not some sort of clone factory stamping out fresh new young workers to take their places at the desks and counters of tomorrow. Immigration meant importing entire families, often in three generations, from the third world, most with health care needs vastly outweighing those of the natives. And then there are the social problems.

Using immigration as a stopgap solution for the birth rate was a lot like a thirsty man at sea drinking salt water. It made things a good deal worse and placed massive stresses on socialism's free lunch pail. This wasn't so much a problem for the government bureaucracies though as for the nation's citizens. The bureaucracies were perfectly happy with the infusion of third worlders as it meant more jobs for them and expansions of their programs. The bonus crime, diseases and social unrest was manna from heaven for them. The worse things got, the more funding they could demand for their departments.

For the Western nations as a whole though it was a horrific disaster that undermined their social fabrics, created war zones in formerly peaceful small towns and of course gave them a whopping huge bill for the whole thing.

But still the squeeze was on and immigration only made it worse. You could squeeze it by cutting off social services for deadbeat immigrants, at least for the illegal ones, but no municipality in Europe and America would hear of that. It's not only racist but it's equivalent to taking away a farmer's milk cows just when he expects years of use from them.

That leaves squeezing the elderly and the disabled through euthanasia. And that's exactly the situation where disabled patients in England sue to not be disconnected from life support and are denied. Euthanasia is declared to be a human right, but it is not only applied to those who actively wish to die, but to those whom the bureaucracy decides should die.

The resource shortfall has to be made up from somewhere and the elderly are no more use to anyone as far as the bureaucracy is concerned and there is a whole lot of them about. As immigration further strains the health care system, choices are made. Alfred has to die, so Mahmood can get treated for three diseases that had formerly been eradicated in the Western world.

It's not only Europe. It's America too. A family friend recently passed away in no small part because the hospital he was in decided he should die. His feeding tube was disconnected and not reconnected for days despite pleas for his wife. Doctors pressured her repeatedly to disconnect him from life support and would not respond to her questions about his condition. She stayed by his bedside but in the end they got what they wanted.

Another acquittance some years back found that her uncle had been disconnected from life support without her authorization leading to his death. When she demanded answers, she was told, "He lived his life."

He lived his life, is the epitaph of a lot of elderly men and women dying under socialized medicine or perhaps being outright murdered. Eugenics today is a dirty word, but the distinction between eugenics as practiced by the Germans or practiced under socialism today, is the definition of "Life Unworthy of Life." The Germans applied it to the mentally ill, the disabled and a variety of categories including the Jews. Today it's often applied to the disabled, babies and the elderly, whose "Quality of Life", a euphemism that could proudly be translated into the German, is measured, found wanting and disposed of.

Peter Singer, one of the moral and ethical authorities of modern medicine, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, has endorsed killing disabled newborns and mentally disabled elderly. Singer isn't some obscure crank, he's the leading inspiration of the animal rights movement.

Singer premises the right to life on "the ability to plan and anticipate one's future." In a bureaucracy of course no one has much ability to plan and anticipate one's future and accordingly have no right to live. Like Nazi eugenics, such selection targets the weakest and most vulnerable people in a society by the government.

The most common reasons for disapproving of eugenics have been racial, rather than the moral argument that murder is simply wrong. Modern eugenics instead of targeting racial minorities, targets the weakest people on behalf of minorities. The selection is made to prioritize social services for third world immigrants, over the nation's own disabled and elderly citizens. The resource gaps created by socialized medicine have to be balanced and the scales weighed. Alfred must die, so Mahmood may live.