His offense was that a woman claims to feel offended – which is pretty standard female reaction to a strong man who fails to make a pickup when she was expecting one, or who makes a pickup, and then makes a pickup of someone else, or who makes a pickup and then does not follow through, perhaps he was only joking, or who is already married and faithful to his wife.

This issue is much debated between PUAs and MRAs, between Pick Up Artists and Men’s Rights Activists.

PUAs say that men lead and women follow, that as bird must fly, and a fish must swim, men and women must follow their innate natures, that men must be strong.

MRAs point out that that is illegal.  That by law men must submit and women command.  Since women who command are unhappy, angry, and disagreeable, because they are acting against their natures, and are prone to issuing commands that are mutually contradictory and impossible to obey, the MRA solution is to run away.

Show me a household where the housework is equally and fairly shared, including such traditionally female tasks as picking up stuff, and I will show you a marriage where the husband sleeps on the couch, and once in a week or so the wife’s lover drops in to bang her on the main bed, rough her up a bit, take her money, and leave a mess for the husband to clean up.

When in doubt, do what Sean Connery would have done.

Watch Barbra Walters get wet when Sean Connery refuses to be bullied.

Sean Connery regrets nothing!

If Herman Cain refuses to be bullied, as Sean Connery refused to be bullied, the female voters will respond to Cain much as Barbra Walters did to Sean Connery.

There is a large and rapidly growing discrepancy between what is theoretically illegal, and what is in fact acceptable and commonly done.  We are all felons now. The average honest respectable middle class entrepreneur has offenses worth several hundred years of jail time.  It is near impossible to anything important in a way that is wholly legal, unless you are government employee, or an employee of a quasi governmental  organization.

Such laws are enforced selectively, against such people as Herman Cain.  Any political candidate that fails to please the ruling elite will get this treatment.  No candidate that could possibly get us out of this mess will please the ruling elite, so any candidate that could possibly get us out of this mess will be charged with hate crimes and suchlike.

The average busy professional commits three felonies a day. Make sure you commit a few felony hate crimes among them.

True story: Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger was bicycling icognito, a press man with him, but no secret service. A woman recognized him and said “Oh my God, it is President Clinton”

To which he replied, “No, I am the other sex offender.”

Our sex offenders are better than their sex offenders!

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 forImam 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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Virtue is a luxury good.  We are less inclined to enslave people when we have invented the horse collar, and so can make a horse pull heavy loads instead of a man
2. Communications.  We are inclined to ally with those close to us to protect ourselves against those distant from us – and now everyone is close to us.
3. Some of his contributors suggest genetics – we have killed off people who make trouble.

I suggest we are not more virtuous. Consider the crimes of the twentieth century. Rather, we have strong states that reserve criminal conduct for themselves. When those states weaken, we see private crime on a scale typical of earlier of history, when they are strong, we see enormous crimes by states.

It is often argued that indiscriminate terror must be ineffective. If those who are not fighting the terrorists, even those who are collaborating with the terrorists, are in almost as much danger as those who are fighting the terrorists, surely every sensible person will fight. But this is not in fact what we see. Rather, what we saw back in the days when the United States used terror, and what we see in these days when terror is used against Americans, is quite the reverse effect. When terror is used brutally and indiscriminately, everyone feels uneasy merely hearing the terrorists spoken of unkindly, fearing that merely hearing such words spoken might attract the wrath of the terrorists. To speak unkindly of those who murder indiscriminately has become politically incorrect.

A magistrate in the northern Italian city of Bergamo ordered writer Oriana Fallaci to stand trial for vilifying Islam in her book The Force of Reason. which resulted in her exiling herself to America.

Genghis Khan set up a policy of massacring the entire city if it resisted. This produced many surrenders amongst people who would otherwise have fought. Grant’s terror policy ended Confederate resistance.

Similarly, though movie makers generally flatter, rather than condemn their audience, when it comes to Muslims and Christianity, they follow the reverse policy: In the “sum of all fears” they amended the story to avoid offending Muslims, while in “Kingdom of heaven” they rewrote history to spit on Christians, demonstrating the effectiveness and success of terrorism, and rewarding those who use terror against us.

Back when the Muslim world was having hysterics because a guard at Gitmo might have inadvertently caused a minute sacrilege against the Koran, National Public Radio told us every day for a week how sacred the Koran is. In the middle of each news period, they brought on a Muslim clergyman to give us a lengthy sermon. Did not see any Christian clergymen getting any airtime during the piss christ event, demonstrating the effectiveness and success of terrorism, and rewarding those who use terror against us.

Timothy McViegh sought to stop certain extreme government abuses, which have in fact stopped.

Muslim terrorists seek to impose a supremacy for Islam, and they are succeeding. Speech against Christians is privileged, while speech against Muslims is silenced.

Observe, for example, how since the recent escalation in Muslim terror against France and Frenchmen, France’s votes on the security council have become even more anti Israel – for example they voted against the security fence and voted to condemn Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin.

Terror works. Cannot stop it working, so have to make it expensive. If we really cannot find the terrorists, we have to hit people and things they care about. We should kill prominent muslim leaders and sacrilegiously spill their blood over prominent muslim religious monuments. We have to raise the price of terror.

Terror makes Muslims feel strong and proud, for we are in fact terrorized. Terror gives Muslims a living. Without the big handouts made to terrorists such as the PLO by non Muslims they would be even poorer. Terror gives them an alternative to having a capitalist economy where they create wealth. Instead they successfully extort wealth. Terror works for them.

Why don’t I hear people saying “Mohammed the mass murdering pedophile rapist”, the way I hear them say “pedophile priests”.

Enough people are scared that Muslims can feel strong and proud, that Muslims can make a living out of terror – a substantially better living than is otherwise possible for them.

By Arab standards the West Bank and Gaza are extremely prosperous, thanks to the jizya paid by westerners, and, until recently, paid by Jews. Terror works. They are getting laid, and getting money, you are not getting laid, and are paying them money. This is them winning and us losing.

Terror works. The terrorists get chicks and money.

What happened in Afghanistan is that we won, then would not leave well enough alone, and proceeded to shoot ourselves in the foot. The problem is that the West did “finish the job” – The west replaced the warlords, who were entirely capable of keeping the Taliban under control, and succeeded in a fine job of doing so, with a centralized state that cannot and is not. We should have paid and armed those people who are friendly to us and trustworthy, and assisted them to terrorize those people who are hostile to us and sponsor terrorist warfare against us. Instead, we arranged a government that represents 51% of the people – and 51% do not like us very much, and particularly dislike the 30% or so of Afghans who are on our side.

Strong Muslim central governments do us considerable harm, as Saddam demonstrated, as Syria and Iran continue to demonstrate. The Afghan government is weak because it is democratic, and reluctant to offend those who wish to use violence against Christians and women. Its weakness makes it a lesser evil. Better if it was weaker still, better still, hanging from the trees by their necks.

Bush should have stuck to his guns when he said “if you are not with us you are against us.” This compromise crap is getting us killed. You cannot compromise with those who intend to conquer us. You have to kill them, or at least kill enough of them that the remainder give it up. When we try to compromise with an undefeated enemy who intends to conquer us, the resulting deal is, like Munich, that we shall be a little bit conquered, which encourages them to try for a lot more conquered. This is not a situation where the politics of compromise works.

Forming a government in Afghanistan looked remarkably like selling our allies into the hands of our enemies, like Chamberlain selling Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The people who fought for us are outvoted and disarmed, which is why things are now going bad in Afghanistan. It is as if the Czechs had fought and won, and then Chamberlain sold them to Hitler.

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.