Tribal Update Episodes 48 – 52

Here are more from Caroline Glick’s Latma Hebrew Language site.

#48

This one is great.  The Obama piece pushes the edge for American audiences but, it was a straight case of doing the best you can with the cast you have. Otherwise it is hilarious and defines satire…though who can say if it is not true on the surface as well..I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of it. The second part, on personal interests in media is so dea on it deserves an emmy, or a webby or whatever…BRAVO/BRAVA!

More Satire from Latma: The Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage travels the world.

The next episode of Tribal Update looks at Jerusalem Day celebrations

Extended JErusalem Day video

Episode #51

And #52

More from Our Man, the Muslim with a Mission, Mansoor! The Debate Continues!

fairness

Here is the latest in my debate with Mansoor Muhammed of Hyderabad India and runs the Christ and Mohammed website:

<mansoor>"I have no god – damn idea what u believ in. you cant just say this land belongs to them that and land belongs to them etc."

What is your point, oh insulting one who claims others are being nasty?

When the Ottomans still ruled the area a census showed very few Arabs or Jews in the Judea/Samaria area…only AFTER the Ottoman empire collapsed did the British come in to administer the area, there was NO SHRED OF A LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT after the Turks left. Because of this the vast majority of EVERYONE in the area is descended from fairly recent immigrants.  NEITHER side has a "native" claim though; the Arabs have NO claim that is not attached to warlike conquest, while the Jews have ALWAYS lived in Jerusalem. (let me remind you that the ENTIRE STORY OF MOSES) has been shown to be without basis in archeology or history..this means that we do not KNOW if the Jews invaded Canaan or not.  Either way it puts their ultimate claim far, far earlier than any Arab claim.

When the British established a civilized regime and the Zionists started steadily moving there, THEN the Arab population rose due to the new jobs from the industry of the new rulers and the new immigrants.

This is all easily confirmed public data my dear friend who puts others down as nasty and arrogant all the while being as nasty and arrogant as he can manage.

Continue reading

Mansoor Muhammed: Threats, Lies and All of That

250px-Herrmeetshare_restored

Yet another Da’wa site has become offended at historical fact…Christ and Mohammed (prophetrejectors.wordpress.com)

The author, Mansoor Muhammed’s homepage shows him to be very hurt at the actions and words of Jews and Christians. He has this lament about the viciousness of Jews and Christians in his "about me" section:

"The world seems to be not satisfied with demeaning, defaming and misinterpreting us."

He is quite distressed at the horrific actions of Israel and the US in his neighborhood of the world.  Poor fellah! He is so upset at my not submitting to his "truth" that this “gentle soul of religious persuasions” (or should that be pretentions?) responds to my posting facts about history thusly:

"Note: For those of you who do not understand the cause of my outburst just leave a comment leaving your email ID and i will show you this dewhitneys demonic comment that i have trashed ( he had put it at some other place) This is the guy who would love to see the world burn."

Note that he promotes a book he penned about the inconsistencies of the Hindu religion but, sees nothing but bias and hatred if anyone speaks of problems with his own. To those who dare to provide a counterpoint view our dear fellow Mansour declares:

theoworkshop // March 27, 2010 at 8:06 am

I doubt he will ever be brought to see that he is being hypocritical.  See, he is not searching for “truth”, he KNOWS IT ALREADY, Muslims do not “seek” as most other religion do; followers just need to submit, and make sure the rest of us conform to their reality.

Gaza Under Seige: Arab Leaders Slowly Strangeling Strip

CarterHamas

Gaza is under seige they tell me. An unjust blockade of the most vital basic nessecities. Life itself in the prison camp called the The Strip has been reduced to a bare struggle for the Palestinian-in-the-Streets’ survival…Loud sound of a record album being pulled off a record player (yes, I know this dates me)

There is something wrong with this picture Virginia! All is not as it is being presented to us regarding the situation in Gaza.

But what about the starving Palestinians, the empty shops, the crumbling infrastructure with no materials for repairs you ask? Surely THAT is a sure sign the Israelis are horribly unfair?

It would be Virginian, if that were the whole picture; come with me on a journey to a far, far land only told of by UN officials, activists and terror-friendly press called Gaza City. From our friendly tourist guide, the CIA World Factbook we can find out some interesting information about this “people undergoing genocide” called the Palestinians: The Gaza strip is 360 sq km is area with a population over 1.6 million; it has an overall population density 1.3 times that of Washington, DC! It is a “stone’s throw” from any neighborhood to any other. Let us look at the squallor that the mean and nasty Israelis enforce upon the “refugees“…

roots11

Ooops! I am sorry, that is a picture from the website of the Roots luxury dining complex in Gaza city.   Even those who are against the blockade are hard pressed to justify their support for Hamas:

“Meanwhile, tunnels built under the Gaza-Egypt border haul in scarce goods at inflated prices, enriching smugglers and Hamas, which taxes the trade. Gaza markets are filled with smuggled products like chocolate sauce and shiny children’s shoes that most residents cannot afford.
Hamas officials have used smuggled cement to rebuild the notorious Ansar prison where they detain their rivals, and are currently building a shopping center.”

Now where did I put those pictures of the other “Palestinians”? Oh, here they are:

You can be sure that Hamas won’t be staging any attacks in the Roots complex; someone who matters might get hurt!

Continue reading

For My New Friends at Scripps; Run With It Girls!

 

hereticscrusadethumb

Hear now the words of Kipling, as he reminds America that colonialism was more of a burden than a benefit to Western cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Send forth the best ye breed–

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild–

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit,

And work another’s gain.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

The savage wars of peace–

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to naught.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper–

The tale of common things.

 

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living,

And mark them with your dead.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard–

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–

“Why brought he us from bondage,

Our loved Egyptian night?”

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Ye dare not stoop to less–

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloak your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your gods and you.

 

Take up the Westerner’s burden–

Have done with childish days–

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

 

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days, the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classically arrogant, Dead White Man. But, when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion, or untruth.

Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side, and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “Oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way, but more as in no one around me ever made any big deal about it; people were people, and that was about that.

As a result, I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting that say, the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern cultures?

Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad, and sometimes indifferent, or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better, so we can’t hold them to our high standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplications of all signs in Spanish, while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar, where there are a great many Asians, the signs are only in English?

Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually THAT clueless.

To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others.

On the other hand, if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself, it is also just another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.”

Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash.

We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American enclave, and ignores the culture and language of their hosts…

We call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and act that way IN the West. Then we call them oppressed.

Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but, non-Westerners are not required to do the same, when THEY travel to the West?

What other than racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both), would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines?

And on that note, what about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in California is Spanish this, and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil, and the other Portuguese countries?

The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish, and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America, not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans seem to became confused about the difference between skin color and culture. As an American though, I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they choose to show the world.

A Hispanic man, who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know that he could have been type-cast in a remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn, and those who grow up in suburban Southern California? Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Japan?

Culture matters. Culture is values, and traditions, and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says that a man raping his wife is no criminal.

Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West it is the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all, while oppressing none, is the best regardless of the details.

In the East it is one that protects the status quo, and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign; once all opposition is removed.

Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt, and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so, they will thrive and their children, and children’s children will be of the new country, not the old “race”.

So, what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid, and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s?

Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved.

Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways.

Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals, not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab), as much as for how they acted, and their moral, and ethic values, and what religion they belonged to.

And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend MANY people with THEIR actions and values.

As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized.

Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.

I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most people’s down is their own lack of commitment to those same ideals.

This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society, and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had significant results in improving the lot of all humanity.

To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements.

The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling.

Institutional prejudices that I grew up thinking only were seen in the movies and on TV were shoved in my face when I had been living there for less than a month. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best, and that I was just an interfering outsider.

I stood up for the values that made the West, and America, what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands.

To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people, instead of privilege for a few, with subservience for the rest, in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that is promised to be “worth” the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.

So, do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women.

Stand for the West, and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you, instead of FOR you.

Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune, or allow you to break commonsense laws protecting public health and safety simply because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.

The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization”, and that it is wrong and evil to even TRY to judge which might be the “better” culture.

But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights and government for the People we find in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience, and Constitutional government designed to limit the excesses of individuals are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people somehow afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world”, then the “values” of Iran, and North Korea, and such places can ONLY been seen as evil, and inimical to those who are unfortunate enough to grow up in them, or are subject to their power.

To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.

How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored, and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous peoples but, the entire indigenous culture of the West?

I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here; in every group there are Hardliners, and Compromisers, and Appeasers.

Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but, the Appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future, and to be seen as the “good guy”.

But, the Compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation, and THEN chooses to compromise or to stand firm. Unfortunately Hardliners and Appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics today, and the result is hardly more than a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

In the terror wars the appeasers seem concentrated in the West, and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side, when it comes to foreign policy.  But in domestic policy, the Appeasers of the West turn Hardliner towards their own people, and conspire toward the downfall of our culture as a means of “humbling” the “arrogant Colonial Powers”.

This is how we ended up with a “separation of church and state” that allowed the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university.

This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism, merely for responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion, that TO THEM, Mohammed was a warlord, and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women.

For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Ahadith could confirm, these people may lose their Bed & Breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs), because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that YOU follow THEIR customs at all times when they MIGHT be present, or AWARE of your activities.

When was the last time a Jew, or Christian, or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why do they not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West when in the West, not the tribalism of the East.

Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized, even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt, and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this Japan, and South Korea, and others like them are in “the West”), no matter how horrific, simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them.

That the non-Western countries that were colonized are all dramatically better off (at least, as far as the people in the street are concerned), with the influx of Western Law, and Western Science, and Western concepts of Human Rights is deemed irrelevant.

That they treat their own people, or foreigners with no power, in ways that make the WORST of the colonial excesses look tame, also means nothing.

If you say that the English were preferred employers to the local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely, and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence, you are called racist or Islamophobic.

Yet the fact remains, the English actually freed India from despotism, and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won.

So, why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India, and the Islamics, who conquered with blood half of that ancient land, seen as “victims”?

Things like this happen because the Appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken, or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike, have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.

So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese, it was anyone who was not Japanese, no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements.

To me, civilized cultures are those that allow their individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace, and a consistent and humane system of laws that apply to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other as humans, regardless of their “station” in life.

When these criteria are met a society can start building “civilizational equity” that grows over time.

Without them, a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuses of personal power.

When every functionary, officer, and elected official seeks to build their own power base without duty to the people, and the people are expected to obey without question any who have power over them, cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.

Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization.

The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture, and technology, and law, that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization.

We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented, or how the many Greek and Indian works the Islamics preserved (and modestly improved) makes them the equal of the West, but it does not change the truth.

The Chinese invented things but, then used the knowledge as a means to horde power. Their lack of sharing of information between scientists and innovators caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread. When the inventers and their people disappeared, so did the knowledge.

The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but, the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross.

Individual innovation inherent in the Chinese culture did not take up, and improve, and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a secret weapon, to be used only for the benefit of the owner.

And because of this, most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to naught over time.

But in the West, with a different way of looking at power, the rate of progress, sustained, accelerating progress, has been unparalleled anywhere in human history.

Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and Phoenicians, and developed by the Romans, Western European – council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror, and blended them with their own rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.

Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the Italian renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. With this evolution the value of ALL people came into its own, and then the tide jumped the ocean to America.

There all bets were off, as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society. Instead the West had recognized that all societies only exist to serve the people that make them real in the first place.

The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept.

To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights, or desires, or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation.

This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me.

But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him, anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong, no matter what the reason.

To him, if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be, and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it.

In contrast the West sees the WHOLE as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual, as well as the whole!

In the East, the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them.

This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them, and that The State has no right to put stability ahead of the law.

In the East, the only people who have the right to overthrow the government, are the people who belong to the winning faction in said revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason”.

To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first.

But, all this does is replace one set of thugs with another, then another, then another.

So now, let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the hated values of the West that keep non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability.

Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their greater orientation toward the West, and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens (at least in comparison with completely non-Western countries that take our technology and try to ignore the rest).

As a result, the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year, and it is next to impossible to build stable institutions.

India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law.

Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan, which retains its attachment to the tribal past.

When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim, and not in accord with agreed rules, the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption.

Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but, from a willingness to compromise ALL values on the altar of the local boss’s power, and his ability to pull the strings of influence.

In the West, we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people.

Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics.

Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression,, as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader.

But this fails the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people since to promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place.

In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force, and without mercy for dissent.

By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel, and the Arab states surrounding it.

How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West?

How can Israel give citizenship to Muslim Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”? And of course, non-Muslims are far from equal to Muslims there in rights and privileges.

Power, and how it is used and protected, is what it all boils down to.

In the West, governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us, and is to be used for the benefit of everyone.

In the East, this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation’s or tribe’s wellbeing.

However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.

So, why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands, even when those practices are illegal, and universally condemned for Westerners?

How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage, and genital mutilation, and honor killings to resurface in the West.

Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?

About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as REAL oppressors from the past.

In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not very “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West) they will not only excuse, but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those who are less civilized.

It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved.

But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their new land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam, who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt).

We in the West need to get over this over-developed sense of guilt, and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values.

We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions; Q.E. I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism, with them at the top of the pecking order.

A View From The Ivory Tower

sillyspeakers

Well, today has been a VERY interesting day, from nonsensical pronouncements on “Palestine” to curiously timed assaults on my “rudeness” by a very rude professor, it has been a learning experience to say the least.

Today, at Scripps College in lovely and beloved Claremont, Ca I attended a panel (not what you could call a discussion, more a multi-lecture) on , well, I will let the Scripps Website tell it:

“Scripps College will host a panel discussion on Friday, February 12, 2010 from 12:00-2:00 p.m. with four distinguished experts on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. The event, “Report Card: Evaluating the Obama Administration’s First Year of Middle East Policy,” will take place in the Hampton Room, Malott Commons, on the Scripps College campus and is free and open to the public.

This distinguished Middle East panel — including the Editor and Editorial Committee members of the prominent journal Middle East Report — will explore diverse Middle East issues, including the War in Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo, the challenges of life in Palestine, and piracy on the Red Sea.

Speakers include:

  • Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Law and Society, UC Santa Barbara and author of Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza
  • Julie Peteet, Chair and Professor of Anthropology, University of Louisville and author of Gender in Crisis: Women and the Palestinian Resistance Movement and Landscape of Hope and Despair: Palestinian Refugee Camps”

Two others had been scheduled to speak but were snowed in on the East Coast (You know, Global Warming).

Fair and balanced was probably not the best way to describe Ms. Peteet’s presentation.  To be polite, she seemed to me to display all the classic symptoms of a strong case of WhatInconvenientFacts Syndrome.

From an inability to see Israeli concerns about security as anything but “rhetoric” to expressing amazement at Israeli soldiers getting into ambulances to confirm that the occupants are really injured (Hamas has been filmed during the latest Israeli response using ambulances donated by charities as personnel carriers for armed men) Ms. Peteet sees the world the way Ms. Peteet wants to see it.

I asked her during the Q&A why everything she spoke of put all responsibility on Israel to have open borders with a “state”, actually I believe I said “people”, that has openly and consistently for years declared it’s intent to see Israel no more – especially when Israel is hardly the only country bordering either Gaza or the West Bank.

Rather than actually answer this question, Ms. Peteet actually declared that in the 60’s the Arabs were not responsible when ISRAEL redrew the map.  Then, she went on to say that it is “international law” that the “host” state’s ( i.e. the state the “refugees” originated in) responsibility to handle said refugees.

Are you following her logic Virginia?  Half the Arab world’s armies were on the march toward Israel’s borders,  and Egypt had already closed the straits of Tiran to Israel ( already a casus belli) then expelled the UN Peacekeeper force at the border, but it is ISRAEL’s fault for being the first to fire a shot.

It should also be noted I had asked about borders and trade, not about resettlement of refugees!

As a follow-up I asked if it was the case that host countries were responsible for their own refugees would she agree that the Arab states were responsible for giving a right of return to all expelled Jews from 1948 and their descendants.

This champion of the downtrodden coldly informed me that no Jews had been expelled from anywhere in 1947 or 48, period. So, I asked if that meant that the Arabs who left Israel without force were also “not refugees”. Her answer was less than detailed;  “This conversation is OVER.”

I asked the above questions at the very end of the event after it had started to break up. I had not been called on after my first question despite little competition from the audience.

Once I had asked that first question a professor hopped up from his seat, (no, he was NOT one of the actual event organizers) and intimidated my assistant out of her seat to plop down next to me and (while the lectures were still going on and making it impossible for ME to hear what was being said) berate me for being so rude as to not have gone up, in the one minute after I arrived before the event started, introduce myself AND IDENTIFY WHO I WROTE FOR and THEN ask for permission to record.

Now I had been recording voice openly  and my asst. was shooting photos. She even accidently let loose one flash shot! So I am sure that the entire panel and the moderator were aware of what I was doing, yet had said and done nothing about it!

This professor had taken it upon himself to harass me ONLY after I had asked a question that showed me to be less than a member of the choir on the Israel question.

Just like a redneck telling the city black that the “Standards of the Community” required certain extra-legal rules to be followed this defender of academic freedom expected me to conform to unstated, biased and unenforced rules lest I be declared “terribly rude and even “disruptive.”

I replied that his harassing me and not letting the speaker be heard was far ruder.  Then he began to berate me for the tiny sound my blackberry keys made as I took notes.  This sound would have been totally inaudible to him if he had not displaced my assistant from her seat to lean into me and lecture in my ear.

He then glanced at my notes, didn’t like what he saw and declared it also against “Common courtesy” to text message during the event.  I informed him in a less than patient tone that if he had bothered to READ the top of the page he would have noticed that it said Word to Go – Untitled.doc in larger print than the notes that had offended him.

All in all it was an adventure exploring the limits of human silliness in defense of the indefensible.

Oh, I should add that in two hours of talk about “Palestine”, and Israel, and the terrible plight of “Palestinians”, and how they were being used and controlled to their detriment, two words were NEVER MENTIONED BY ANYONE, but me, in my first question.

What were the words that these eminent scholars felt had NOTHING to do with the problems of “Palestine and “Palestinians”?

Fatah and Hamas, of course.

Oh, again, the ONLY thing in the whole event that was about Obama at all was a tiny bit at the end, dissing him for keeping only a few of his campaign promises and otherwise following in George Bush’s footsteps.  There was FAR more talk about the “sins of Bush and Cheney” than about anything Obama had done, good or bad.

A good time was had by all…at least once Ms. Peteet got away from my uncomfortable questions.

Protecting Hate at UC Irvine


by Neelie Genya Milstein

Imagine walking on a campus past buildings where you have taken numerous classes with many peers, past the Student Center where you have eaten lunch many times, past all the familiar places where you have felt safe and accepted. Now imagine walking by those same places and seeing blood-stained flags of a nation that is part of your identity. Posters with “anti-hate = anti-Israel” and “Stop Israeli Genocide” parade in front of you. Displays surround you with images of cruel IDF soldiers, dead Gazans, Anne Frank — a symbol of Jewish tragedy — wearing a kaffiyeh, and of Israel’s barrier to protect Jews from terrorism, labeled an “apartheid wall.” It is as if everything Israel and Jews ever stood for is racism, bloodshed and war. You are a Jew; a proud Jew, a proud supporter of Israel. Now you are seen as nothing but a racist murderer on your own campus.

When I first walked onto campus and saw the Israeli flag blowing in the wind, ripped and blood-stained, I was filled with anger, sadness, and helplessness. I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs, “These are lies. This is disgusting!” I didn’t scream, but I trembled with rage at the Muslim Student Union (MSU), and even more, at the UCI administration for standing by as their students are humiliated, chewed up and spit out, and depicted almost as animals.

Anyone who knows Israel’s history knows of its challenges, triumphs and mistakes. I refuse to accept vicious propaganda that demonizes Israel. I refuse to accept desecration of cherished symbols of Jewish identity. I recognize that freedom of speech entails freedom to preach hate, lies and prejudice, but I am repulsed. The MSU depicts the suffering caused by Israel’s recent war with Hamas, but it never acknowledges the reasons for Israel’s actions, the suffering of Israelis, Hamas’ goal to destroy Israel, or the tactics Hamas used, such as human shields, that raised the civilian toll. I, along with Israelis and the Jewish world, grieve for the innocent civilians who died. Why doesn’t the MSU show equal concern for Jewish fears and suffering? Could they share Hamas’ view that whenever an Israeli man, woman, or child is killed, it should be cause for celebration and passing out candy?

I have been told to censor myself so that potential students are not afraid to come to UCI, but I have had enough censorship. With truth comes power, not fear. The MSU’s hate is dangerous. I have been in Jewish private schools since second grade and I have always been taught that hatred is wrong. I know that Israelis are taught not to hate Arabs, and that Jewish national identity demands equal protection for Muslim religious identity. I know that UCI’s Jewish students never even thought of retaliating with a weeklong campaign of “The World Without Mecca” or “Palestinian Nationalism=Islamic Terrorism and Racism.” Then I came to UCI, and found that my fear of hatred was more than justified. At UCI, hate is a yearly event that lasts for a week. It isn’t just any hatred. It is hatred directed at me, my friends, my community and my history.

After my three years at UCI, you would think I would be desensitized, and could just ignore the MSU’s “apartheid wall.” But I stand for more than that. I am standing up for all the Jews in past generations who did their best to uphold our religion and protect our people. I am standing up for all who understand and support the State of Israel as one of the most extraordinary achievements of the Jewish people.

I am not asking the UCI administration to censor the hate speech. I am asking them to denounce this style of rhetoric and displays just as they would denounce campaigns for white supremacy, sexism, or Islamophobia. I am asking them to be as fearful of countenancing hatred as I was taught to be, not just because of its present impact, but because of what it bodes for the future.

Neelie Genya Milstein is a student at UC Irvine.

Motto of Anti-Israel Academics: “Free Speech For Me, But Not for Thee

columbia
By Alan Dershowitz

Filed under: Commentary

Do anti-Israel professors “tremble in fear” when they criticize Israel at Harvard and other American universities? Not likely, if you have any sense of what’s going on on college campuses today where Israel-bashing is rampant among hard left faculty and students. But a Harvard professor named J. Lorand Matory who teaches anthropology and Afro-American studies, whined to the Harvard faculty last week that he “tremble[s] in fear” whenever he criticizes Israel. Well, he must tremble an awful lot, since he spends so much of his time criticizing Israel, a country he has never even visited and a country that he recently told an interviewer he has never even read a book about. Matory submitted a motion stating that “this faculty commits itself to fostering civil dialogue in which people with a broad range of perspectives feel safe and are encouraged to express their reasoned and evidence-based ideas.” Nothing wrong with encouraging free speech as long as speech is free to people representing different perspectives. But Matory’s motion received support from other paragons of political correctness, who are well-known for their advocacy of censorship of the “offensive” speech of others, but who are now complaining that there’s not enough free speech for them at Harvard.

At Columbia University, on the other hand, a group of professors — who are generally in sync with their extremist colleagues at Harvard — are complaining that Columbia’s President, Lee C. Bollinger, has too much freedom of speech when it comes to the Middle East. A campaign is underway to rebuke Bollinger for expressing his personal views about the Iranian dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Led by well-known radicals such as Eric Foner — who complained that Bollinger’s harsh description of Ahmadinejad was “completely inaccurate” — these politically correct censors want to muzzle Bollinger. They also want to muzzle students, alumni, and other “outsiders,” who have legitimate complaints about the Middle East Studies Department, which has become a wholly owned subsidiary of radical Islam.

(HH here: You may think that last is a strong statement. Go and look up the funding for virtually all major “Middle East Studies” depts. in the U.S.. It all winds back to Saudi Arabia and a proselytizing Wahhabi government.)

It all seems so inconsistent unless you understand what the real agenda is, and then everything becomes completely clear and totally consistent. The agenda is Israel. If you’re against Israel — as Matory, Foner, and their ilk are — then they want you to have complete freedom to speak against the Jewish state (as they certainly should and do). If, on the other hand, you’re perceived as pro-Israel (or pro-American, for that matter), then suddenly you have no right to free speech. It is so transparently cynical that I’m amazed that any reasonable person actually falls for it.

The hypocrisy is rather easy to spot if you’ve been around long enough to remember when it was leaders of the radical left, led by MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, who were trying to intrude on the tenure process for political reasons. I recall vividly when Chomsky campaigned to prevent Columbia from granting a tenured position to Henry Kissinger. Chomsky spoke at a noisy rally against Kissinger’s tenure. It was that same Chomsky who complained when I wrote a letter — in response to a request from the former chairman of the political science department — detailing misquotations, made-up facts, and other scholarly sins by anti-Israel extremist Norman Finkelstein and urging DePaul University to deny him tenure. I also remember when it was Professor Matory who tried to prevent former University President Lawrence H. Summers from exercising his freedom of speech with regard to Israel when he was president.

I challenge Matory and his hard left political cronies to show a history of supporting the free speech rights of those they disagree with. Has Matory defended the right of Professor James D. Watson, whose despicable theories of racial inferiority resulted in the cancellation of his speech at Rockefeller University? I, and many other genuine civil libertarians, have long histories of defending the free speech rights of those we most despise. I supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. 40 years ago. I opposed the cancellation of a speech by Tom Paulin, who advocated the murder of Israelis. I defended, pro bono, a virulently anti-Israel Stanford professor who was fired for inciting violence. I opposed Harvard’s attempt to prevent students from flying the Palestinian flag to commemorate the death of mass-murderer Yasser Arafat.

Don’t expect the defense of those with whom they disagree from the Israel-bashers at Columbia, Harvard, and MIT. For them, it is “free speech for me, but not for thee!”

Freedom of speech to criticize Israel and the U.S. is alive and well at Harvard and most other universities. Matory need not “tremble in fear” of anything except his pernicious opinions being rebutted in the marketplace of ideas.

Freedom of speech to criticize Palestinian extremism is however in short supply at many American and European universities. Jewish students do actually “tremble in fear” of offending anti-Israel professors who have the power to downgrade and negatively recommend them. This is an issue that deserves serious attention in the real world of academia, rather than in Matory’s ersatz world of topsy-turvy newspeak.

So let us all support complete free speech for every perspective relating to the Middle East, not just for perspectives supported by the hard left.

READ IT ALL!!!

Scottish court charges anti-Israel activists with ‘racial’ harassment (YES!)

A group of anti-Israel activists who disrupted a concert by the Jerusalem String Quartet in Scotland last August have been charged by a Scottish court with racially aggravated harassment.

At a the performance, in Edinburgh’s Queen Hall on August 29, four members of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) – a radical offshoot of the London-based Palestine Solidarity Campaign fringe group – interrupted the concert by shouting abuse at the musicians and audience.

It was claimed that the activists caused distress to both the orchestra and members of the audience.

The protesters had originally been charged with disturbing the peace, but at the Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday those charges were dropped in favor of the more serious charge of “racially motivated conduct.”

She added that the Palestine solidarity movement was “an anti-racist movement based on anti-racism,” a claim which was questioned by the Fair Play Campaign Group (FPCG), a community organization that coordinates activity against boycotts of Israel and other anti-Zionist campaigns.

“This is a common but obviously false argument – firstly the claim that the whole Palestine solidarity movement is ‘anti-racist.’ This is transparently not true; it has its share of outright racists and anti-Semites, a fact acknowledged even by many anti-Israel activists. Simply being a member of a pro-Palestinian group doesn’t automatically make someone an ‘anti-racist,'” an FPCG spokesman said.

“Now imagine someone wants to boycott all Israelis. So this person goes to a performance of an Israeli music group, shouts insults at the performers and generally disrupts the performance. Perhaps they accuse the performers of being racists or murderers because they’re Israeli. Whether that person is a racist or an anti-racist, it certainly seems like they’ve committed racially aggravated harassment,” the FPCG spokesman added.

In a statement put out by the group, SPSC chairman Mick Napier, who is also due to appear in court at a later date, said, “We thank the court for providing us with the forum to explain that opposition to the violent, racist state of Israel is motivated by a commitment to universal human rights. We support the Palestinian people faced with Zionist savagery, and we are contemptuous of attempts to smear such a struggle for justice with the taint of racism. I hope these charges are not quietly dropped and we will have the opportunity to meet our critics in open court.”

In December, the SPSC fabricated a story that a number of Scottish companies and institutions had terminated contracts with an Israeli mineral water supplier. The allegations proved unfounded. In January, the group staged a Holocaust Memorial Day event with a Hamas representative.

Next week, another anti-Israel protester will appear in City of London Magistrate’s Court charged with a public order offense. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was arrested at the Israel parade in central London last June for a disturbance at the event celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary.

(HH: you can’t say this is not over due! I LIKE IT!!!!!!!)