Enter your keyword

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Useless Jewish Organization

By On July 28, 2015
After the Iran deal, American Jews turned to the “Establishment” of liberal Jewish organizations to whom they had written out so many checks over the years expecting them to do something about it.

And the organizations did what they do best. They expressed concern.

The ADL was “deeply concerned” about the Iran nuclear deal two years ago. It announced that it now has “cause for concern”. It’s unknown whether the next ADL boss, Obama crony Jonathan A. Greenblatt, it also concerned, but it doesn’t matter since the ADL’s concern and five bucks can get you an Iced Cinnamon Dolce Latte at Starbucks.

AIPAC is also “deeply concerned” about the deal. So is John Boehner. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was also “deeply concerned” about Iran’s nuclear program eight years ago. The IAEA was “deeply concerned” about it four years ago. And Obama, he’s now “deeply concerned” about the Americans held in Iran. The last time he was “deeply concerned” about the subject was two years ago.

Expressing concern, deep or otherwise, is a meaningless formula that reassures the people actually upset about an issue that they are being taken seriously, by the organizations otherwise ignoring them.

After four years, conservatives have learned that Boehner’s concern doesn’t amount to much. American Jews are baffled to realize that the organizations they expected to help them are just as worthless.

American Jewish liberalism is based on a comforting myth that in times of crisis, its organizations step up to the challenge, rescuing Jews from the Holocaust, saving Soviet Jewry and fighting for Israel. In real life, the establishment has a long history of fighting the “radical” and “extremist” groups that actually did these things, before eventually climbing on the bandwagon and then claiming all the credit.

Before it was fundraising off Israel, the establishment was militantly anti-Zionist.

In the 20s, the establishment was directing money away from Israel to the USSR’s “Jewish” farming colonies. At a time when the future of Israel hung in the balance, the American Jewish Congress had sponsored a report by Louis Fischer, a Communist sympathizer and propagandist (and a future anti-Communist), who was denying that there was a famine and urging millions be spent on Soviet colonies.

The JDC’s Agro-Joint project committed more resources to developing agriculture in the USSR than in Israel. Fortunes that could have been used to save countless Jews from the Holocaust and build a stronger Israel were instead funneled into the USSR. When the Communists had gotten what they wanted from their useful idiots, many of the Joint’s employees ended up colonizing gulags.

This was one of the earliest splits between Zionists and anti-Zionists in American Jewish life, with the anti-Zionists being Communist sympathizers or their useful idiots. As Stephen Wise pointed out, "The protagonists of this colonization were more concerned about Russia than about Jews."

A $16 million fundraiser (more than twice what the JDC had spent on Israel) was accompanied by propaganda claiming that the Jews of the Soviet settlements had found a “new life” and a “happy future”. David A. Brown, the anti-Zionist head of the United Jewish Campaign, claimed that it would get rid of anti-Semitism. Before long, most of the Joint’s employees had been shot or imprisoned by Stalin.

But by then over a decade and a fortune had been lost. By the time the Soviet colonization project had been thoroughly discredited, the British limitations on Jewish immigration had closed another door.

In 1943, James N. Rosenberg, the JDC boss, stated that the world ought to learn a lesson from “Russia’s treatment of minorities.” Meanwhile the USSR had begun its struggle against “rootless cosmopolitans”; a coded reference to Jews. The two Russian Jews he was welcoming, Solomon Mikhoels and Itzik Feffer, would soon be killed by Stalin as part of a larger purge of Soviet Jews.

Having learned nothing from the butchery of his own Joint people by Stalin, the anti-Zionist Rosenberg then suggested that European Jews after the war should move to the USSR.

Eventually in 1950, Rosenberg, whose “On the Steppes” was a key piece of establishment propaganda for the Soviet colonies, belatedly admitted that his project had, “ended in dust, ashes and death.”

Israel does not exist because of the establishment, but in spite of it. It exists because while the establishment bosses in New York were swallowing Soviet lies, young Jewish farmers worked the soil in Israel. If Israel survives, it will be because of its farmers, not because of New York’s corrupt bosses.

The Jewish establishment has always been anti-Zionist. It was anti-Zionist before the State of Israel was founded. It is anti-Zionist today. Then and now, it disguises that anti-Zionism behind excuses while redirecting money to its pet political causes. Once Israel had won, history was rewritten and the anti-Zionist Jewish establishment became Zionist; even if it was a Zionism in name only.

During the 20s, the establishment directed aid away from Israel and toward the USSR. In the 30s, there was a more progressive cause than saving Jews from Nazi Germany and his name was FDR.

Once again the establishment was “deeply concerned” about the mass murder of Jews and it was willing to hold as many meetings as it took to issue statements of deep concern. The one thing it could not and would not do was actually challenge a liberal president who had emerged as a progressive hero.

That fell to Jewish radicals and extremists in the Bergson Group who took out angry ads in newspapers with immoderate titles like “Guaranteed Human Beings at $50 a piece.”

FDR was far more concerned with Muslim feelings than Jewish lives. At the end of the war, Roosevelt would say that he had learned more about the Jewish problem by talking to the Saudi king for five minutes than he could have learned from numerous letters. At Yalta, FDR had told Stalin that he would be happy to give the Saudi king “the six million Jews in the United States.”

The Saudi king had stated, “The word of Allah teaches us, and we implicitly believe this… that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Paradise and into the august presence of Allah. What more then can a Muslim want in this hard world.”

Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, who would cunningly block Jewish rescue efforts, wrote in his diary that “The whole Mohamedan world is tending to flare up at the indications that the Allied forces are trying to locate Jewish people under their protection in Moslem territory.”

Long before Obama or Carter, a liberal president was sacrificing Jews to Muslim anti-Semitism with the complicity of the major Jewish organizations that promised their constituents that their diplomacy on the inside would succeed. And after six million were dead, the organizations that let them die spent the rest of the century fundraising off their ashes to create tolerance programs and big buildings.

In the 60s, it was finally time for the USSR. For decades the Jewish establishment had expressed “deep concern” over the organized persecution of Jews in the USSR. While the establishment focused on keeping lines of communication to the USSR open, young Jewish activists in America staged protests. They didn’t just march; they disrupted the very dialogue that the establishment wanted so badly.

Like the Bergson Group, these activists were young and edgy. They were not impressed by meetings with officials. Instead they realized that they had to make themselves a nuisance to succeed.

They were not “deeply concerned”. Instead they acted.

If Obama’s nuclear deal is to be defeated, it won’t be done by the establishment insiders. The
establishment is invested in its own credibility and its politics. It will make a show of fighting the Iran deal before fundraising off its miserable failure. And the money will go to fund its progressive causes.

The establishment will not stand up to Obama, just like it didn’t stand up to FDR. The real action will come from ad-hoc coalitions, like the one behind the Stop Iran Rally, that throw things together. And it will come from a handful of kids somewhat that do what the adults aren’t doing.

Bergson was in his early twenties when he began his activism. Dennis Prager was in his early twenties when he began working as the national spokesman for Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry. Where the establishment failed, they succeeded in bringing national attention to an urgent crisis.

Creative solutions will not come from the establishment, but from outside it. The establishment has been 0 for 3 when it came to building Israel, the Holocaust and Soviet Jewry. Expecting it to do any more about Iran than be “deeply concerned” is a formula for disappointment.

This is not a time for more internal diplomacy in which establishment bosses chat with politicians and come away with four pounds of nothing in a torn sack. It’s time for forceful activism that wakes up everyone to the reality that we are facing a future in which terrorists have nuclear weapons.

While the ADL spends money on lesson plans about Bruce Jenner and social justice poetry, while the UJA winks and funds BDS, a new generation will once again be called on to stand against Armageddon.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Myth of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program

By On July 23, 2015
Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.

Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s constitution states that its military is an “ideological army” built to fulfill “the ideological mission of jihad in Allah's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world.”

It quotes the Koranic verse urging Muslims to “strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah”.

Article 3 of Iran’s Constitution calls for a foreign policy based on “unsparing support” to terrorists around the world. Article 11, the ISIS clause, demands the political unity of the Islamic world.

Iran is not just a country. It is the Islamic Revolution, the Shiite ISIS, a perpetual revolution to destroy the non-Muslim world and unite the Muslim world. Over half of Iran’s urban population lives below the poverty line and its regime sacrificed 100,000 child soldiers as human shields in the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran did not spend all that money just to build a peaceful civilian nuclear program to benefit its people. And yet the nuclear deal depends on the myth that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Obama insisted, “This deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.” But if Iran isn’t changing its behavior, if it isn’t changing its priorities or its values, then there is no deal.

If Iran hasn’t changed its behavior, then the nuclear deal is just another way for it to get the bomb.

If Iran were really serious about abandoning a drive for nuclear weapons, it would have shut down its nuclear program. Not because America or Europe demanded it, but because it made no economic sense. For a fraction of the money it spent on its nuclear ambitions, it could have overhauled its decaying electrical grid and actually cut costs. But this isn’t about electricity, it’s about nuclear bombs.

The peaceful nuclear program is a hoax. The deal accepts the hoax. It assumes that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. It even undertakes to improve and protect Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear technology.

The reasoning behind the nuclear deal is false. It’s so blatantly false that the falseness has been written into the deal. The agreement punts on the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and creates a complicated and easily subverted mechanism for inspecting suspicious programs in Iranian military sites.

It builds in so many loopholes and delays, separate agreements and distractions, because it doesn’t really want to know. The inspections were built to help Iran cheat and give Obama plausible deniability.

With or without the agreement, Iran is on the road to a nuclear bomb. Sanctions closed some doors and opened others. The agreement opens some doors and closes others. It’s a tactical difference that moves the crisis from one stalemate to another. Nothing has been resolved. The underlying strategy is Iran’s.

Iran decided that the best way to conduct this stage of its nuclear weapons program was by getting technical assistance and sanctions relief from the West. This agreement doesn’t even pretend to resolve the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Instead its best case scenario assumes that years from now Iran won’t want a nuclear bomb. So that’s why we’ll be helping Iran move along the path to building one.

It’s like teaching a terrorist to use TNT for mining purposes if he promises not to kill anyone.

But this agreement exists because the West refuses to come to terms with what Islam is. Successful negotiations depend on understanding what the other side wants. Celebratory media coverage talks about finding “common ground” with Iran. But what common ground is there with a regime that believes that America is the “Great Satan” and its number one enemy?

What common ground can there be with people who literally believe that you are the devil?

When Iranian leaders chant, “Death to America”, we are told that they are pandering to the hardliners. The possibility that they really believe it can’t be discussed because then the nuclear deal falls apart.

For Europe, the nuclear agreement is about ending an unprofitable standoff and doing business with Iran. For Obama, it’s about rewriting history by befriending another enemy of the United States. But for Iran’s Supreme Leader, it’s about pursuing a holy war against the enemies of his flavor of Islam.

The Supreme Leader of Iran already made it clear that the war will continue until America is destroyed. That may be the only common ground he has with Obama. Both America and Iran are governed by fanatics who believe that America is the source of all evil. Both believe that it needs to be destroyed.

Carter made the Islamic Revolution possible. Obama is enabling its nuclear revolution.

Today Tehran and Washington D.C. are united by a deep distrust of America, distaste for the West and a violent hatred of Israel. This deal is the product of that mutually incomprehensible unity. It is not meant to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is meant to stop America and Israel from stopping it.

Both Obama and the Supreme Leader of Iran have a compelling vision of the world as it should be and don’t care about the consequences because they are convinced that the absolute good of their ideology makes a bad outcome inconceivable.

"O Allah, for your satisfaction, we sacrificed the offspring of Islam and the revolution," a despairing Ayatollah Khomeini wrote after the disastrous Iran-Iraq War cost the lives of three-quarters of a million Iranians. The letter quoted the need for "atomic weapons" and evicting America from the Persian Gulf.

Four years earlier, its current Supreme Leader had told officials that Khomeini had reactivated Iran’s nuclear program, vowing that it would prepare “for the emergence of Imam Mehdi.”

The Islamic Revolution’s nuclear program was never peaceful. It was a murderous fanatic’s vision for destroying the enemies of his ideology, rooted in war, restarted in a conflict in which he used children to detonate land mines, and meant for mass murder on a terrible scale.

The nuclear agreement has holes big enough to drive trucks through, but its biggest hole is the refusal of its supporters to acknowledge the history, ideology and agenda of Iran’s murderous tyrants. Like so many previous efforts at appeasement, the agreement assumes that Islam is a religion of peace.

The ideology and history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution tells us that it is an empire of blood.

The agreement asks us to choose between two possibilities. Either Iran has spent a huge fortune and nearly gone to war to slightly lower its already low electricity rates or it wants a nuclear bomb.

The deal assumes that Iran wants lower electricity rates. Iran’s constitution tells us that it wants Jihad. And unlike Obama, Iran’s leaders can be trusted to live up to their Constitution.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Millions and Millions of Mohammeds

By On July 19, 2015
Before Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer shot up a military recruiting center in Chattanooga from a car and then sped away, another Mohammed, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad did much the same thing in 2009.

Both struck military recruiting centers in the South, but the 2009 Mohammed had a message for Americans that we unfortunately failed to heed.

"This is not the first attack, and won't be the last," Muhammad warned. “I'm just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

There are millions of Mohammeds out there. It took exactly six years for one of them to finish what his predecessor started. In a world with lots of Mohammeds, we really need to consider whether we want Mohammed becoming the most common name for a boy in America, as it already has in countries like the UK.

The murderous Mohammeds embody the values of the original Mohammed, the founder of their brutal ideology. They kill like him. They kill in his name.

A country with more Mohammeds, is a country with more Muslim terrorism. And if the first Mohammed doesn't kill enough people, the next one will. We have to be lucky every time. The Mohammeds only have to be lucky once for there to be a bloody scene, handfuls of wilted flowers at makeshift memorials on concrete and Americans crying because a Mohammed has struck again.
Americans that unfortunately went unheeded.

The family that names a son Mohammed believes that the warlord who raped and murdered his way across Arabia in a manner that ISIS copied was a model for human behavior. Is it any surprise that the model Mohammed eventually imitates his bloody namesake's crimes?

When a Mohammed rapes young girls in the UK, as quite a few of them have, he is only doing what his prophet did. When a Mohammed opens fire on American soldiers, he is following the teachings of his namesake and prophet. Why blame a Mohammed for acting like Mohammed?

During WW2, we would not have allowed millions of Germans named after the Fuhrer, who admired him and worshiped him, into the country. And if we had done something that stupid, we would have had only ourselves to blame when the darling Adolfs shot and bombed their way across America.

A country with more Mohammeds is a more dangerous place. If a million mothers named their offspring after Charles Manson and raised them to embody Manson Family values, America would be a much scarier place. An America with a million Mohammeds will be even worse.

The mass murdering Mohammeds offer us a simple choice. Do we want to keep allowing people named after the Muslim Charles Manson whose big goals in life were killing non-Muslims and raping their wives and daughters in the name of tolerance or do we want to end this threat of terrorism?

Importing Mohammeds and Adolfs is no way to be tolerant. It feeds the cycle of terror, the bombs, the rapes, the shootings, the whines, the protests and the falling buildings. The first Mohammed kills and another Mohammed pops up to protest that he was only acting out of outrage. A third Mohammed emerges to kill because we arrested the first Mohammed. A fourth Mohammed demands that we free all the Mohammeds or he won't be able to stop the fifth Mohammed from becoming radicalized. Then the sixth Mohammed kills a bunch of people and the seventh Mohammed claims that he has nothing to do with Mohammedanism, which is a peaceful religion, but that we must stop offending Mohammeds or he won't be responsible for what the next thousand Mohammeds do.

Enough.

If we don't want Mohammedan murders, we should stop importing Mohammeds. If we keep importing Mohammeds, then nothing we do, including electing a President Mohammed on a platform of non-stop apologies and free nukes to every terrorist, will stop Mohammedan terrorism.

When there's a hole in a boat, you stop drilling. When a bunch of people named Mohammed keep killing Americans, it's time to tell the next million Mohammeds applying for a visa, "Sorry, no."

America does not need immigrants who view mass murderers as role models. On the list of the least desirable immigrants, Mohammed should rank somewhere below a leprous beggar, a convicted rapist with AIDS and Piers Morgan.

In a country where the Dukes of Hazzard is now a hate crime, we seem bent on importing people who model racist murders, slavery and rape as the highest of all human virtues. And then we're baffled when a Mohammed acts like a Mohammed. The clue is right in the name.

Muslims and the left are united in suppressing any discussion about Mohammed because if we were to recognize that the very model of a major Muslim prophet would be serving a life sentence in solitary confinement if he were alive today, much like many of his Mohammed disciples are serving today, then maybe there's something wrong with all the Mohammeds and with Mohammedanism.

Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer boasted that his name triggers security alerts. And it should have. Instead he was allowed to work in a nuclear power plant despite his father's donations to Hamas.

Being named after a mass murderer is bad. Being named after a mass murderer by a cult that worships him to the degree that they won't even allow his image to be depicted is a scary sign. If we don't want the seventh century crimes of Mohammed being repeated in our own countries today, then the name Mohammed should trigger security alerts and flight bans.

We need to have a serious dialogue about what to expect from a boy named after a serial killer by a cult that worships that serial killer. And we need to have it before the next Mohammed shoots up the place.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Why Trump is Winning

By On July 16, 2015
As the long slow race to beat Hillary drags on, there will be a thousand conservative stories and blog posts demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that Donald Trump is a hypocrite, that he supported illegal immigrants, Hillary, abortion and higher taxes. And few of them will leave our small bubble.

Trump may indeed be a liar and a hypocrite, though he wouldn't be the only candidate in the race who has moved to the right or abandoned previous positions, but he understands what the others don't.

The Republican field is a mass of highly qualified and talented people with poor media skills and worse communication skills. Some consciously choose to play it safe. Others seem to have no clue how to win a debate or a drive a message home.

Donald Trump has been a joke of one kind or another for most of his adult life, and until now he's been an incredibly successful joke. He is burning the empire that allowed him to enjoy a highly privileged lifestyle by marketing his brand as a blatant luxury item that anyone could have.

Trump made wealth populist. He made a seeming upper class lifestyle appear accessible in all its ridiculously tacky glory. He might be betting that he can get it all back once the furor dies down and his run becomes another chapter that keeps him in public view. But he's betting a lot as the corporations that enabled him to play billionaire are cutting their ties with him.

And without those companies marketing his brand, he's a moderately wealthy man with a lot of debts and a troubled business plan.

So Trump is taking a huge gamble. Whatever he believes, he appears to be betting that he can become president. Unlike some other candidates, this doesn't come down to speaking fees. If no company will touch his brand, being able to charge a few thousand more per speech won't make up for his losses.

Like the Confederate flag, the more he comes under fire, the more conservatives rally around him. It's a perverse dynamic that the media feeds on. The media would love to see Trump in the race long enough to make it come down to him and Jeb Bush. They might regret that, but they probably won't.

Conservative punditry is mourning a field in which talented and promising Republican leaders are being ground under. And they have a point, but if those Republicans were really so talented and promising they wouldn't be falling behind to a man whose big talent is brash self-confidence.

Brash self-confidence, an outsized personality, a willingness to take great personal risks are what is absent from the Republican field. And those define Trump's brand. They may be fake, but in an age where the camera defines truth, your messaging is only as good as your acting and your sales skills.

Donald Trump is a great salesman. His Republican rivals aren't. Some are talented lawyers. They understand policy and political tactics. But they couldn't sell a discounted heater to Eskimos.

His entry into the race may be an important wake up call.

If the genuine conservatives can't outsell Trump, they're not going to be able to outsell bland corporate brands like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. It won't matter who is left standing because no one will be left standing.

Like most great salesmen, Donald Trump is an instinctive populist. He knows how to get people's attention and how to promise them a better life. Those are also the skills of a good politician.

And like most salesmen, plenty of people hate him instinctively. Others are willing to believe in him all the way.

Trump has changed the race from a huddle of politicians trying to lock down distinct blocs and lines of appeal in the party, Evangelicals, libertarians, candidates who can appeal to minorities, youth votes, to blatant populism. Trump doesn't appeal to any blocs. He has the FOX News sensibility of shouting the right sorts of things at the right time with a fake working class edge.

In short, he's Bill O'Reilly.

The more he does it, the more he's identified with genuine conservatism. The liberal backlash feeds into his image because he's doing what none of the candidates seem to consistently do, which is fight.

Like Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump is probably fake. But it doesn't really matter. Politics is itself fake. Trump's entry moves it from a race about blocs to a race about issues. It shows the other candidates what they aren't doing.

The gifted populist knows how to echo the anger of the people, to speak for those who feel unrepresented, to offer the common sense responses that most people think they would offer in his place. That is what some of the candidates have tried to do, it's what Trump is actually doing.

The Republican field is filled with candidates who offer workshopped solutions. Even the best of them don't quite channel the public outrage, the sense of persecution that so many people feel.

They're sensible, reasonably personable, somewhat articulate, possessed of a measured sense of humor and all those things that Mitt Romney couldn't figure out how to be in front of a camera.

By 2012 standards, they're a vast improvement. By 2016 standards, that may not be enough.

A lot of people are going to embrace Trump because he says what they're thinking and feeling. They're going to nod along to Ted Cruz or Scott Walker without feeling engaged in the same way.

That's just human nature.

Trump is a wake-up call that conservative candidates need to take it to the next level. That doesn't mean moving to the "right" of Trump. If Trump is willing to say anything, there may be no such place. It means connecting with people at a deeper level than just the rhetoric. It means doing more than retelling their own compelling personal stories.

People need someone to fight for them. They need more from a politician than a great story. They need the feeling that the politician will do everything he can to fight for their way of life.

If they want to win, they are going to have to silence their inner lawyer, shut down some of the skills they learned as politicians, and learn to project what their audience is feeling. A good politician knows what you want to hear. A good salesman knows what you want to feel.

Trump isn't fighting this as a battle of ideas or policies. He's talking about what people feel. 

Monday, July 13, 2015

Congressman Gohmert Reads "Slaver Flags of Islam" in Congress

By On July 13, 2015


Congressman Louie Gohmert read a portion of my article "Pull Down the Slaver Flags of Islam" on the floor of Congress which addresses the hypocrisy of censoring the Dukes of Hazzard while opening the doors to Islamic racism and other forms of supremacist bigotry and nostalgia for slave-owning cultures.

When Obama condemned Christianity for the Crusades, only a thousand years too late, in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Sudan; a country that practices slavery and genocide. Obama could have taken time out from his rigorous denunciation of the Middle Ages to speak truth to the emissary of a Muslim Brotherhood regime whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. But our moral liberals spend too much time romanticizing actual slaver cultures.

It’s a lot easier for Obama to get in his million dollar Cadillac with its 5-inch thick bulletproof windows, a ride Boss Hogg could only envy, and chase down a couple of good ole boys than it is to condemn a culture that committed genocide in our own time, not in 1099, and that keeps slaves today, not in 1815.

Even while the Duke boys were being chased through Georgia, Obama appeared at an Iftar dinner; an event at which Muslims emulate Mohammed, who had more slaves than Robert E. Lee. There are no slaves in Arlington House today, but in the heartlands of Islam, from Saudi mansions to ISIS dungeons, there are still slaves, laboring, beaten, bought, sold, raped and disposed of in Mohammed’s name.

Slavery does not exist under the Confederate flag eagerly being pulled down. It does exist under the black and green flags of Islam rising over mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and America today.

In our incredibly tolerant culture, it has become politically incorrect to watch the General Lee jump a fence or a barn, but paying tribute to the culture that sent the slaves here and that still practices slavery is the culturally sensitive thing to do. In 2015, slavery is no longer freedom, but it certainly is tolerance.

And it’s not just about Islam.

If romanticizing Dixie is wrong, so is romanticizing those ancient African cultures so beloved by amateur anthropologists and professional sociologists with more plastic tribal jewelry than sense. Slavery was an indigenous African and Middle Eastern practice. Not to mention an indigenous practice in America among indigenous cultures.

If justice demands that we pull down the Confederate flag everywhere, even from the top of the orange car sailing through the air in the freeze frame of an old television show, then what possible justification is there for all the faux Aztec knickknacks? Even the worst Southern plantation owners didn’t tear out the hearts of their slaves on top of pyramids. The romanticization of Aztec brutality plays a crucial role in the mythology of Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza promoting the Reconquista of America today.

Black nationalists romanticize the slave-holding civilization of Egypt despite the fact that the narrative of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from bondage played a crucial role in the end of slavery in America. The endless stories about the “Amazons” of the African kingdom of Dahomey neatly fit into the leftist myth of a peaceful matriarchal Africa disrupted by European colonialism, but Dahomey ran on slavery.

The “Amazons” helped capture slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. White and black liberals are romanticizing the very culture that captured and sold their forefathers into slavery. “In Dahomey,” the first major mainstream black musical was about African-Americans moving to Dahomey. By then the French had taken over old Dahomey and together with the British had put an end to the slave trade.

The French dismantled the “Amazons” and freed many of Dahomey’s slaves only for the idiot descendants of both groups to romanticize the noble last stand of Dahomey fighting for the right to export black slaves to Cuba and condemn the European liberators who put a stop to that atrocity.

If we crack down on romanticizing Dixie, how can we possibly justify romanticizing Dahomey or the Aztecs or Mohammed? If slavery and racism are wrong, then they are wrong across the board.

Even by the miserably racist standard under which all lives don’t matter, only black lives matter, Dahomey and Mohammed had bought, sold and killed enough black lives to be frowned upon.

If we go back far enough in time, most cultures kept slaves. The Romans and Greeks certainly did. That’s why the meaningful standard is not whether a culture ever had slaves, but whether it has slaves today. If we are going to eradicate the symbols of every culture that ever traded in slaves, there will be few cultural symbols that will escape unscathed. But the academics who insist on cultural relativism in 19th century Africa, reject it in 19th century South Carolina thereby revealing their own racism.

And so instead of fighting actual modern day slavery in Africa and the Middle East, social justice warriors are swarming to invade Hazzard County.

As Ben Carson pointed out, we will not get rid of racism by banning the Confederate flag. Even when it is used at its worst, by the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, it is a symptom, not the problem. Roof was not radicalized by the dead Confederacy, but by the racial tensions kicked off by the Trayvon Martin case.

The same racial tensions that led to the murder of two police officers by a #BlackLivesMatter protester in New York City led to the massacre of nine black congregants in a church in Charleston. This surge of violence has its roots in racist activism by Obama and his supporters seeking power and political gain, but feeding racial tensions for political purposes eventually risks leading to actual violence.

The Confederate flag is a matter of history. The racial tensions stirred up by Obama have actually gotten people killed. Slavery is not making a comeback and Robert E. Lee will not come riding into San Francisco any time soon. The Civil War ended long ago. The country would be a better place if modern racists who believe that some lives, whether black or white, matter more than others would stop trying to start one.

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

5 Ways to Fight the Left and Make Your Life Better

By On July 07, 2015
Lately I've been looking at Organic Opposition instead of Organizational Opposition. The latter is still important, but people are rightly disappointed and angry with everything from the GOP to assorted national groups and bewildered by a wide array of candidates.

Organic Opposition doesn't require organizations or a movement. It's about living in ways that naturally oppose the left.

Most of the people here already live in ways that the left resents without even thinking about it. Organic Opposition is about finding new ways to oppose the power of the left in your life.

This is not a complete checklist. It's a set of general ideas and people are welcome to add to them in the comments.


5. Don't Give Money to People Who Hate You

Imagine meeting an actor or a CEO, and telling him your political views and envision his response to them. If you can see his lip stretching into a sneer or a spittle-flecked rant as he orders security to throw you out, you really shouldn't be giving him your money.

That doesn't mean that you should lose out, but there are ways that you stop rewarding people who hate you.

For example, when buying new books, you are helping that writer and his publishers. If you don't support the writer, save money and buy the books used. It's easy to find most of the books you want in good condition for a fraction of the price on sites like Alibris.

Buying new books should be reserved for writers you support. Do look into writers on our side, like Edward Cline, if you like mysteries or Peter Grant, look at if you like Science Fiction, look at the projects that Adam Baldwin is involved in, and if you really must have that Stephen King or  John Grisham novel, buy it used. You're not just saving money, you're denying income to people who hate you.

I know that conservatives don't like doing this. I don't like doing this. But the left does this and it works. Look at the politics of the writers, actors and directors you support. That doesn't necessarily mean only reading only those writers you agree with, but a reasonable acid test is decency.

Decency, for example, means standing up for basic freedoms. People who are on the political left can do that and when they do it, they should be rewarded for it. When Patrick Stewart recently said that a bakery should not be compelled into writing a pro-gay marriage message on a wedding cake, that was a rejection of the totalitarian norms being imposed by social justice warriors.

People who hate you don't want you to be able to live in peace. That's the essence of the SJW.

Those who take a stand against them on an issue, even if they're on the left, should get some support and a note or tweet telling them why. Likewise those who make the wrong choices should be told that from now on that even if you buy anything they make money from, you'll do it in a way that they won't see any proceeds from it. That will make them angrier than a straight boycott would.

And there's a lot more you can do that will hit the left in its pockets.

Use AdBlockers on its sites. Not on conservative ones. You'll save time and hurt the left.

Dump subscriptions to liberal magazines and newspapers.

Get rid of your cable. Cable is a financially shaky proposition. If enough people leave, it falls apart. And even if the only thing you watch is FOX News, under the current system, you're subsidizing a whole bunch of left-wing channels. If you have cable internet, you can access a wider range of programming online than you could on cable. You'll save money and hurt the left.



4. Shop Small Business and Become Independent


People were surprised when Wal-Mart turned left. They shouldn't have been

Under the current system, major corporations will almost inevitably turn left to align with the authorities and tastemakers. Liberals have become champions of big government. The bigger a company becomes, the more it aligns with the system.

We all buy things from Amazon or Wal-Mart, but try to support local small businesses in your community when you can. They form a community in ways that a megastore won't and when they get a monopoly they will step on you, not just economically, but politically as well.

The Confederate flag hysteria and the Trump purge are a warning sign of things to come. Imagine a day when it's Ted Cruz's books being purged from every online retailer and Apple blocking his App.

It will come to that.

Look at the politics of major corporations and their policies. Avoid 'gated communities' created by the hardware sold by Amazon and Apple. Yes the Kindle and the iPhone are convenient, but you're giving control of your digital life to two left-wing corporations. As bad as Google and Microsoft are, they're somewhat better when it comes to freedom of speech.

A good test is imagine yourself working at a particular company. If you can't imagine even being tolerated there, maybe you shouldn't be rewarding it.

Learn something about the products and brands you buy. If you know of a company that shares your values, keep it in mind during your next purchase. Choose small manufacturers and stores when you can.

And avoid becoming dependent on megacorporations. The St. Patrick's Parade was undone because it had become dependent on Diageo, a mega whose vast catalog of brands includes Guinness.

When a corporation becomes big enough, it will find it easier to bend to the left than tolerate you.

A megacorp whose brands you eat will rob them of nutrition and taste to comply with the left's food police. Its cleaners will turn into useless junk to comply with the environmentalists. Even if it hasn't sold you out yet, it will sell you out later. And if you wait for it to become a monopoly, you'll have trouble finding alternatives.

Find ways to become independent. Make some of the things you've become accustomed to buying. Or buy and trade with other craftsmen. Those are useful skills in the best of times and we may be headed for darker times.

Independence threatens the left and makes your life better.




3. Build Likeminded Communities

You don't need to move to X to find a conservative community. You can build one organically by making friends, online and offline, cultivating ties, sharing and helping other people who share your worldview.

Make your own tribe. The left is doing it.

Find sane people at work. If you're in a position to hire sane people over likely leftists, do it.  Be careful, don't risk your position and don't tell anyone what you're doing, but do it if you can.

A community is about more than setting up a Facebook group. It's a support structure and you'll need those, if not now, then later. The members of a community help meet each other's needs.

Don't get seduced by telescopic philanthropy. Don't focus on helping Third World countries. Help your neighbors and friends. An hour spent helping someone you know does a lot more good than all the 'penny a day' for starving children in X, which really ends up going to the marketing department.

Protect communal institutions you have and avoid hostile ones. Don't stay in a church or synagogue that has gone to the left. Find one that meets your needs. If it doesn't exist, work with other dissatisfied worshipers to make one happen.

Never subsidize left-wing clergy. America got Hillary Clinton because she came under the influence of a left-wing minister at an impressionable age.

The left is trying to break up the country's traditional social structures. One of the best ways to resist them is to maintain them, whether it's a family, a religious institution or a club. Protect them and they'll protect you.

By being part of a real community, you'll be naturally resisting the left and making your life better.




2. Have Fun Starting Trouble

The pushback to the left may not start where you expect. The Cliven Bundy standoff and Gamergate both happened when groups of ordinary people with little in common pushed back when they felt pushed into a corner.

It wasn't a national issue. Grazing sites and corruption in gaming are about as narrow as you can get.

They became national because when people fight back against the left, local goes national and then global.

The American Revolution started in part over a dispute with a British officer over a bill in Boston. That led to the Boston Massacre and by then the issue that started it all no longer mattered. What people come away with is who is being abusive in that particular situation.

People rally to unlikely flags and causes and fight for unexpected things that they care about.

A revolution against the left won't be led by the GOP. It won't come out of Washington D.C. But the pushback just might come because a group nobody pays attention to is angry about some issues you've never even heard of.

That group might be next door to you.

Fighting back does not have to be about convincing them to read Thomas Sowell and Bill Buckley. If you think like a community organizer, it's about getting them to make the connection between what they're angry about and the source of the trouble from the left.

People want to know why they're being kicked around. They don't want to hear about the politics. Those come later. They don't need the big stuff. The little stuff is pointing them at their abusers.

Community organizers spend a lot of time listening to people's grievances, especially people not one else listens to, and then slowly pointing them in the right direction while making them feel empowered. You don't have to look at it as a job.

Think of it as being a troublemaker. It's not a chore. It's fun.

The next major issue may start in your backyard and you, not some national organization, might just be the one to help set it off.




1. Focus on Your Family

You can have more influence on your kids than you ever can on Facebook or Twitter. If you have them, your biggest job in the world is making sure that you are a bigger influence on them than the latest movie or trending topic.

Be involved in their lives.

Even if they're in their forties and seem to have turned out liberal, plenty of people have turned around their politics right at that age. Don't argue with them. Shouting matches never changed anyone's mind. Show them that the way you live is better in the long run.

If you win there, the left loses big. Its big gamble is generational. If it loses your kids and grandkids, it loses. Period.

And your life will be better for it.



Friday, July 03, 2015

Racing Through History

By On July 03, 2015
The return of the Confederacy was averted in the summer of 2015 when major retailers frantically scoured through their vast offerings to purge any images of a car from the Dukes of Hazzard. If not for their quick thinking, armies of men in gray might have come marching down the streets of New York and San Francisco to stop off for an Iced Mocha Frappucino ™ at a local Starbucks before restoring slavery.

History will little note nor long remember the tired wage slaves making $7.25 an hour while checking Amazon and eBay databases for tin models of an orange car with a Confederate flag on top. During this courageous defense of the homeland from the scourge of a mildly politically incorrect 80s show, Hillary Clinton committed her own unpardonable racist hate crime by saying, “All lives matter”.

The politically correct term is, “Black lives matter.”

Even while our own Boss Hoggs in DC and SF are locking up the Duke boys as a symbol of racism, they are loudly arguing that black lives matter, all lives don’t. The proportion that the weight of a life should be measured by race is the sort of idea that we might have associated with slavery. Today it’s an idea that we associate with racial tolerance as we heal our nation’s racial wounds one race riot at a time.

Romanticizing the South means a whipping from our cultural elite. Instead of romanticizing the culture that bought slaves, they romanticize the Middle Eastern and African cultures that sold them the slaves.

When Obama condemned Christianity for the Crusades, only a thousand years too late, in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Sudan; a country that practices slavery and genocide. Obama could have taken time out from his rigorous denunciation of the Middle Ages to speak truth to the emissary of a Muslim Brotherhood regime whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. But our moral liberals spend too much time romanticizing actual slaver cultures.

It’s a lot easier for Obama to get in his million dollar Cadillac with its 5-inch thick bulletproof windows, a ride Boss Hogg could only envy, and chase down a couple of good ole boys than it is to condemn a culture that committed genocide in our own time, not in 1099, and that keeps slaves today, not in 1815.

Even while the Duke boys were being chased through Georgia, Obama appeared at an Iftar dinner; an event at which Muslims emulate Mohammed, who had more slaves than Robert E. Lee. There are no slaves in Arlington House today, but in the heartlands of Islam, from Saudi mansions to ISIS dungeons, there are still slaves, laboring, beaten, bought, sold, raped and disposed of in Mohammed’s name.

Slavery does not exist under the Confederate flag eagerly being pulled down. It does exist under the black and green flags of Islam rising over mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and America today.

In our incredibly tolerant culture, it has become politically incorrect to watch the General Lee jump a fence or a barn, but paying tribute to the culture that sent the slaves here and that still practices slavery is the culturally sensitive thing to do. In 2015, slavery is no longer freedom, but it certainly is tolerance.

And it’s not just about Islam.

If romanticizing Dixie is wrong, so is romanticizing those ancient African cultures so beloved by amateur anthropologists and professional sociologists with more plastic tribal jewelry than sense. Slavery was an indigenous African and Middle Eastern practice. Not to mention an indigenous practice in America among indigenous cultures.

If justice demands that we pull down the Confederate flag everywhere, even from the top of the orange car sailing through the air in the freeze frame of an old television show, then what possible justification is there for all the faux Aztec knickknacks? Even the worst Southern plantation owners didn’t tear out the hearts of their slaves on top of pyramids. The romanticization of Aztec brutality plays a crucial role in the mythology of Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza promoting the Reconquista of America today.

Black nationalists romanticize the slave-holding civilization of Egypt despite the fact that the narrative of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from bondage played a crucial role in the end of slavery in America. The endless stories about the “Amazons” of the African kingdom of Dahomey neatly fit into the leftist myth of a peaceful matriarchal Africa disrupted by European colonialism, but Dahomey ran on slavery.

The “Amazons” helped capture slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. White and black liberals are romanticizing the very culture that captured and sold their forefathers into slavery. “In Dahomey”, the first major mainstream black musical was about African-Americans moving to Dahomey. By then the French had taken over old Dahomey and together with the British had put an end to the slave trade.

The French dismantled the “Amazons” and freed many of Dahomey’s slaves only for the idiot descendants of both groups to romanticize the noble last stand of Dahomey fighting for the right to export black slaves to Cuba and condemn the European liberators who put a stop to that atrocity.

If we crack down on romanticizing Dixie, how can we possibly justify romanticizing Dahomey or the Aztecs or Mohammed? If slavery and racism are wrong, then they are wrong across the board.

Even by the miserably racist standard under which all lives don’t matter, only black lives matter, Dahomey and Mohammed had bought, sold and killed enough black lives to be frowned upon.

If we go back far enough in time, most cultures kept slaves. The Romans and Greeks certainly did. That’s why the meaningful standard is not whether a culture ever had slaves, but whether it has slaves today. If we are going to eradicate the symbols of every culture that ever traded in slaves, there will be few cultural symbols that will escape unscathed. But the academics who insist on cultural relativism in 19th century Africa, reject it in 19th century South Carolina thereby revealing their own racism. And so instead of fighting actual modern day slavery in Africa and the Middle East, social justice warriors are swarming to invade Hazzard County.

Most of the cultures of the past that we admire, respect and even romanticize had slaves. When we look back at their achievements and even try to forge some connection to them, it does not have to mean an endorsement of their worst habits. This is a concept that liberals understood, but that leftists reject. The recent hysteria reminds us that the nuanced reason of the former has been replaced by the irrational destructive impulses of the latter. The left is so obsessed with creating utopias of the future that like the Taliban or ISIS, it destroys the relics of past societies that do not measure up to its impossible standards. And then it replaces them with imaginary utopias of the past that never existed.

As Ben Carson pointed out, we will not get rid of racism by banning the Confederate flag. Even when it is used at its worst, by the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, it is a symptom, not the problem. Roof was not radicalized by the dead Confederacy, but by the racial tensions kicked off by the Trayvon Martin case.

The same racial tensions that led to the murder of two police officers by a #BlackLivesMatter protester in New York City led to the massacre of nine black congregants in a church in Charleston. This surge of violence has its roots in racist activism by Obama and his supporters seeking power and political gain, but feeding racial tensions for political purposes eventually risks leading to actual violence.

The Confederate flag is a matter of history. The racial tensions stirred up by Obama have actually gotten people killed. Slavery is not making a comeback and Robert E. Lee will not come riding into San Francisco any time soon.

The Civil War ended long ago. The country would be a better place if modern racists who believe that some lives, whether black or white, matter more than others would stop trying to start one.

Popular

Categories

Follow by Email