Posts Tagged ‘appeasement’

Ferguson chimp out

Sunday, August 17th, 2014

Short recap of the Ferguson story:

Michael Brown, a huge black man helped himself to some tobacco in a shop, then strong armed the shopkeeper rather than paying.  He then walked down the street, expecting traffic to get out of his way.  When a policeman told him to stop jaywalking, he attacked the policeman, forced his way into the policeman’s car, and attempted to take the cops gun. The cop shot him.

According to heavily tattooed gang members wearing clothes intended to intimidate, after being shot, Michael Brown ran with his hands in the air, and the policeman shot Michael Brown again while he was holding his arms in the air and running.

This might well nonetheless be true, at least the part about him being shot while running, though not the part about his hands in the air, for if Michael Brown attacked me I might well do the same thing.  He is big, scary, violent, thuggish, and crazy.  Yeah, it would be the wrong thing to do, but when a big crazy guy attacks one out of the blue, one is apt to do the wrong thing.

The blacks proceeded to loot and burn.  The local police, facing collective criminal conduct, responded militarily, engaging in collective violence to crush collective violence – a military style response.

This “military”, which is to say collective, violence of course horrified the press, who blamed the police, and in particular the white cop in charge.  So a black cop was put in charge, and a huge round of news stories proceeded about peaceful protests and how everything was wonderful in peaceful civilized harmony, blithely ignoring events running contrary to story, blithely ignoring that the blacks were taking out one cop after another by collective violence, which the individual violence of the cops was ineffectual in preventing.  And then, contrary to story, the black cop had to resort to collective military style violence to keep his cops alive.

This is analogous to events in Gaza.  One might well believe that Israel blockades Gaza because they are evil racists, but when Egypt blockades Gaza, people of the same race and religion as themselves, it’s pretty obvious that the problem is terrorists operating out of Gaza, not Gaza’s neighbors.  And, similarly, the problem in Ferguson is individual and collective black violence, which collective violence has to be met by collective violence.

The larger story is that blacks destroyed Saint Louis, then, fleeing their own destruction of the city and each other’s violence, proceeded to move into a white suburb, which they are now in the process of destroying in turn.

This is a reason that the cost of housing is so high.  If wealthy people got to live where they chose, and poorer people got to live in the less desirable places, the inner city would be full of rich people, and poor black thugs would live in the exurbs.  The city would be safe and orderly, while slums far away from the center, places that no one ever goes to or cares much about, were dangerous and disorderly.  If, however, we look at where people live, it is clear that black collective violence trumps money, which forces up the cost of housing as white people bid up the small and shrinking pool of safe housing, which is usually located in places inconveniently far from the city center, forcing them to perform long commutes.

The white man buys a house.  To support his crushing mortgage he makes a long commute every day, along a highway with big wall to protect it from black people living much closer to his workplace than he does.  And then some section eight women and her nine kids by nine different thugs is plonked beside his house, and while he is at work, the section eight woman terrorizes his wife, breaking one of his windows and threatening to force entry.

This makes it hard for white men to reproduce, that white men are not able, not allowed, to protect their wives and children, in part because blacks can engage in collective violence against white people, and white people are not allowed to collectively defend themselves.   To have a safe place for one’s wife and children, it has to be possible to run bad people out of that place.

That blacks live close to where white people work, while white people are forced to live far from where they work, tells us that blacks have the upper hand over whites.  Slavery worked.  Jim Crow sort of worked.  Civil rights has been a disaster.

 

Herman Cain charged with making a woman feel bad about herself

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

And if a woman says whatever it is that she is saying (not that anyone is telling us what she is saying) the man must be guilty, right? (more…)

Curious cuddles between the Cathedral and Islam

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

If someone is a called a “moderate Muslim”, he is probably part of the establishment, part of our ruling elite, or spends much of his day in their circles.

If someone is a Muslim, and part of our ruling elite or close to it, he is probably a terrorist, or spends much of the rest of his day in their circles.

There is at most one degree of separation between the elite, and Islam.  In contrast, there are several degrees of separation between the elite, and conventional Christianity.

Exhibit A in this story is Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, who spent a great deal of time walking and talking with US presidents Clinton and Bush and the usual parade of the good and the great – and who also addressed terror rallies demonizing the US. In 2004 was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to assassinate the man who is now King of Saudi Arabia. So Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is zero degrees of separation between the Cathedral and the terrorists.

Well, perhaps the Cathedral just happened to have one bad apple? But it’s other Muslim apples have smelly connections also.

Suhail Khan: Wikipedia tells us “Khan serves on the Board of Directors for the American Conservative Union, the Indian American Republican Council, the Islamic Free Market Institute, and on the interfaith Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He speaks regularly at conferences and venues such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Harbour League, and the National Press Club and has contributed to publications such as the Washington Post/Newsweek Forum On Faith, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Human Events.”

Suhail Khan is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement, a Christian organization dedicated to religious freedom worldwide.

And yet this same Suhail Khan, moderate, pillar of the establishment, advocate of tolerance, also seems to spend a lot of time with people dedicated to blowing up infidels.

So Suhail Khan is one degree of separation between the Cathedral and terrorism.

Similarly for Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf, of the ground zero victory mosque. So of three Muslims that I noticed as being Cathedral insiders, three had ties to terror.

It does not appear the Cathedral is consciously and cynically cozying up to terrorists – Suhail Khan put quite a bit of effort into appearing to be moderate.  Rather, they turn a blind eye to terrorist connections, because to do otherwise would be racism and discrimination – while quite slight and vague connections to conventional Christianity cause them to reel back in shock and horror, like a vampire at the sight of the cross, as they do from Sarah Palin.

They want to include Muslims, but terrorism is as central to Islam as the Eucharist is to Christianity, and so if someone is an important Muslim, he is apt to have important connections to terror, and if a Muslim is in with the Cathedral, he is an important Muslim.  In contrast, if a nominal Christian knew what the Eucharist was, the Cathedral would treat him with extreme suspicion.

This is not a pro terror bias, but an anti discrimination bias – which bias in practice means we are not allowed to discriminate against people trying to kill us.

The war with Islam was lost on the playing fields of Sidwell Friends

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

Roissy reports how when the Washington school to which the elite send their children made a poor sporting performance, their response to losing was childish, unsporting, and unmanly.

Pajamas Media reports how unsportsmanlike attitudes are inculcated, and masculinity treated as a mental defect caused by testosterone poisoning.

If the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, America was lost on the playing fields of Sidwell Friends.

The childish and unmanly response of the kids from Sidwell Friends very much reminds me of the unmanly British response to military defeat in Basra.

Losing to Islam

Friday, September 24th, 2010

Islam is theocratic.  It intends to conquer. Shariah law, as interpreted by most Muslims, treats women fine.  Trouble is, as interpreted by all Muslims, even Sufis, it requires that infidels submit to law that makes them second class to believers and that Muslims fight to impose such law – and we are in fact submitting to such law.  The rather small Sufi minority merely propose less drastic measures to impose inferiority.

East Lansing, Michigan Police Department offers $10,000 reward in Qur’an-burning case

The department is offering $10,000 for any information that would lead to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for this act.

In November 2009, a high school senior was suspended in order to protect him from violence when he wrote an essay criticizing perceived special treatment for Somali Muslims in his school. In Dearborn, Mich., Christian missionaries were arrested for proselytizing at an Arab festival. In Minnesota, the state accommodates Shariah’s prohibition on interest payments by buying homes from realtors and reselling them to Muslims at an up-front price. Thereby providing Muslims with preferential access to homes at the expense of infidels.  Apparently the Constitution requires separation of Church and state, but no separation of mosque and state.

While Christianity is forbidden in government schools, Islam is preached and sponsored by the state.

Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist whose artwork sparked the controversial “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!” has gone into hiding, changed her name, and so forth.  The state is not protecting her.

Similarly for the Sweden Democrats.

In much of Europe, including England, people who criticize Islam are capriciously prosecuted

One supreme court justice has proposed that burning the Koran be banned – though none would suggest similar courtesy for the flag or the bible, or the 9/11 dead.  When an obscure church proposed to burn the Koran its website was  shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, and its mortgage has been called in by its bankers.

In England two men were arrested for watching a video of a Koran burning

Muslims are abducting infidel women, raping them, getting them pregnant, and forcibly marrying them as additional wives, and everyone is closing their eyes to it.

Our official moderate Muslim, Imam Rauf, is curiously evasive about 9/11.

How many Christians reacted violently to Piss Christ? Not a one, zero.  How many Muslims reacted violently to cartoon Mohammed?  Hundreds of thousands committed criminal acts, millions cheered them on.

All the great leaders of Islam were war makers, military leaders, conquerors, slavers.  This just is not a pattern you see in Christianity.  Not only did the original prophet of Islam massacre defeated populations, every subsequent great Islamic religious leader acted similarly – some better, some worse, but all directly commanded wars, personally led them, and took extreme measures to subjugate the defeated population.  In contrast, absolutely zero great Christian religious leaders has done this – you do not see popes and bishops leading armies, burning towns, and personally ordering the rape of the women of the conquered.

Christian fanatics generally lock themselves in dungeons and meditate.  Islamic fanatics blow themselves up.

Christian leaders that combined the role of military and religious leader have always been a marginal phenomenon, and phenomenon that  occurred only among those directly at war with Islam: the Knights of Malta and the Knights Templar.  Further, those combining Christian religious and secular power have frequently led their followers to disaster by recollecting Christ’s command to forgive one’s enemies and turn the other cheek at some highly inopportune moment, as Grand Master Bolheim of the Knights of Malta did.

Just as there is in all the world not one Christian who called for violence against the creators of Piss Christ and Andres Serrano, there is in all the world not one Muslim very few Muslims who condemned the fatwa against Molly Norris.  In that sense, every single Christian in the entire world is opposed to holy war and seeks peace, and every single Muslim in the entire world supports holy war and seeks conquest.

Let us imagine the situation was reversed, and some notable Christian preacher was to call for the murder of Andres Serrano. Obviously, if this happened, which it never would, every other notable Christian leader would condemn that call. Compare and contrast with the call for the murder of Molly Norris.  Not every Muslim has called for the murder of Molly Norris, but not one Muslim has condemned the call either.

Losing in Afghanistan

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Michael Yon, who should know better than anyone, reports we are losing in Afghanistan.

He suggests the solution is more troops.  I don’t think so.  After all, we originally won in Afghanistan with near zero troops.

Democracy has been a disaster, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  The masses just do not like us much, and tend to elect people that do not like us much – or like freedom, or like democracy, or like capitalism.  And especially, they do not like religious freedom.

The winner in a guerrilla war is the side that most brutally terrorizes the population.  Our troops lack the stomach for what it takes to win a guerrilla war, so more troops will not help.  We already have enough troops to win any conventional battle, and there is not much else to do, other than what our troops are reluctant to do.  It also helps to know the locals, know the language and know the culture – so winning in a guerrilla war means arming the local killers that are on your side, and killing the local killers that are against your side.  And that, of course, means arming the Northern alliance and terrorizing the Pashtuns.

Moral progress

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Robert Hanson observes we are less inclined to kill, rape and plunder than in past centuries, and proposes some explanations for this: (more…)

Terror works

Friday, May 23rd, 2008

Before the twentieth century, the usual method for suppressing guerrilla war was artificial famine, state sponsored mass rape, and mass murder. During the twentieth century the communists used these methods heavily to quell not only resistance, but to quell resentment, to quell suspected politically incorrect thoughts. These methods generated curiously little resentment. Indeed, it seems that the greater the injury, the less the hostility. Certainly that is how things worked out for the communists. (more…)

Are Palestinians mad dogs, or crazy like foxes?

Sunday, April 20th, 2008

It is widely believed that the “draconian” terms that the allies imposed on Germany at the end of World War One contributed to the rise of the Nazis and World War Two, and in a sense this is true, but imposing the terms and then retreating from them under pressure is what really caused the rise of the Nazis, as Étienne Mantoux argues in “The Carthaginian Peace: Or the Economic Consequences of Mr Keynes”

The Versailles reparations were extremely mild compared to the extraordinary brutality with which the Germans treated conquered populations during World War One, and their cost was entirely insignificant, compared to the economic costs the Germans inflicted on themselves in the course of resisting it – for example paying people to not work, paying people to sabotage their own economy. Indeed, Hitler quite correctly pointed this out, in the course of arguing that instead of economic threats, Germans needed to use threats of violence.

The ruin suffered by Germany was a result of them accurately perceiving weakness of will and self doubt among the allies, much like the ruin today suffered by the Palestinians. Keynes’s book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” was a major cause and manifestation of this weakness of will and self doubt. The successful push of the Germans against this weakness progressively escalated, Nazism, like Hamas, being a manifestation of this success.

Palestinian terror has been highly profitable, as Europe and America seek to outbid each other in paying off the terrorists. So the PLO escalate their demands, and Hamas demands its share of the gravy. In order to get their share of the gravy, Hamas has to prove they are even crazier than the PLO.

The lesson we should have learned from World War II is not only no appeasement, but that early appeasement leads to increasingly intolerable demands and the rise of increasingly extreme factions – that the temptation to appeasement must be resisted when the demands are cheap, arguably reasonable and morally justified, and the threats modest, for yielding will lead to escalating demands and escalating threats, will lead to the rise of factions that are ever crazier, since craziness is working.

We should have responded to German resistance by substantially escalating Versailles, rex talonis, to a punishment that matched German occupation during World War One eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, rather that making concessions. This would have prevented the rise of Hitler. Since confrontation was working, Germans figured they should elect the most confrontational politician of them all, and at first it worked great.

Of course, confrontation worked at a very great risk of renewing World War I, as Hitler and the Nazis well knew, but the Nazis of course de-emphasized this risk, and when they told the truth to the voters, as they sometimes did, seems that no one listened anyway. Indeed Hitler had a long history of speaking the truth, and not being believed. He would tell the plain truth, then he would imply a lie that people wanted to believe, and people would believe the lie, and forget the truth. Again, observe the similarity with Hamas and the PLO, both of which have told us often enough that a two state solution is only a step towards the total destruction of Israel – and Hamas has from time to time told us that Tel Aviv is only a first step towards Rome. Israeli concessions endanger not only Israel, but also the rest of us.

Stubborn intransigence by the Palestinians needs to be met by cutting off the payoffs, by killing the bagmen who attempt to make payoffs, and if that fails, by imposing on Muslims rex talionis the same conditions as are imposed on Christians in most Muslim countries, not by making ever bigger payoffs.