The Decline Of The WASP & The Rise Of The Psychopath

Comments to Peter Frost:

* Most human cultures show favoritism toward in-group members, and it’s not just the Jews. Look at the American Supreme Court. A hundred years ago, all of the justices were White Protestants. Now, none of them are. This has not come about because White Protestants, as a group, have become progressively more and more stupid and thus unable to become judges. It’s because they see themselves as rugged individualists and will not act collectively to defend their interests.

Rugged individualism works marvellously when everyone practices it. Unfortunately, most people in this imperfect world play by a different rule book. And it’s not just the Jews. It’s most folks. The Irish were very good at collective self-defence and self-boosting in their day.

There are different branches of Christianity. Protestantism has gone the farthest down the road of individualism and renunciation of kinship ties.

* Do you believe that Calvinism in its evolution from low-kinship and an internalization of moral and religious rules has fostered individualism in extremis to the point that it can no longer be the ground for holding a society together? In other words, demarcate radical individualism and its modern correlate that all “rules” are now personal choices — a radical relativism — and one has moral and social anarchy instead of an homogenous culture based on the internalization of a specific set of moral precepts. Has Calvanistic individualism evolved into a “universalization” that now potentially includes all rules and behaviors such that if there is still a sense of guilt associated with beliefs and behaviors, it is the sense of guilt that follows from NOT accepting that universalization?

* Psychopathy/sociopathy is the far end of a behavioral continuum. At what point on that continuum do we draw the line? How psychopathic does someone have to be before we kick him/her out? And where do we kick them?

The general thinking is that psychopathy/sociopathy is caused by a low level of affective empathy combined with a high level of cognitive empathy. In other words, a sociopath is someone who understands how other people feel, and understands how his actions affect other people, but who feels no grief if he hurts other people either on purpose or inadvertently.

I believe that the complex of behaviors we see in Northwest Europeans (high affective empathy, high guilt proneness, susceptibility to universal/absolute moralism) has its origins in the Mesolithic fisher/hunters of the North Sea and Baltic. These were unusual hunter-gatherers in the sense that they formed very large seasonal communities along the coast during the summer and then broke up into smaller hunting bands for the winter. Thus, during the summer they had to interact mostly with non-kin in a context that demanded much cooperative effort and a minimum of conflict.

I grew up in a rural, WASPy, Christian environment, and I know that culture, all the more so because my mother was a Christian fundamentalist. I know what it means to live in a high-trust society, and I like the people who create that kind of society. Nonetheless, I feel like an outsider among them. Perhaps that’s just the way I am.

From time to time, I encounter people from other cultures, often of Jewish or Hindu background, who see what is happening and ask me if I can “open their eyes” — as if I have some special power as an insider. Yet, to be honest, I don’t feel like an insider.

Calvinism is one point in a process of cultural evolution. In other words, the weak kinship and strong individualism of Northwest Europeans caused them to modify Christianity after they adopted it, thus causing it to become more based on concepts like atonement, guilt, and original sin. They thus transformed Western Christianity and eventually broke away from it via the Reformation.

Protestantism helped Northwest Europeans to pursue a path of cultural evolution that took them farther and father away from kinship and closer towards new ways of organizing social relations, notably the market economy. Eventually, Protestantism moved beyond Protestantism, just as it had earlier moved beyond Western Christianity. We’re living today in a kind of post-Protestantism — a hyper-universal, hyper-individualistic outlook that has emancipated itself from its original Christian framework.

When individualism and universalism become freed from all constraints, we get an ideology that can only be self-destructive. Almost by definition. Yet people—especially Northwest Europeans—don’t see it because these values are so central not only to the current ideological environment but also to their own predispositions.

It will take a combination of calm, reasoned argument … and “events.”

* I don’t know if sociopathy is an “illness” but I do know that most authorities consider alcoholism a disease and based on my own research which I summarized on pages 114-118 of my 1994 book Vessels of Rage (in a chapter entitled “Alcoholism Kills”) Ted Bundy was an active alcoholic during his killing years.

One intended victim who escaped told police Bundy had “smelled of liquor”; on his most murderous night, when he invaded a Florida sorority house and bludgeoned four victims, killing two of them, a witness told police he had been “drunk.” In the days before he was finally caught he was observed driving while drunk and was “drunk and disoriented” when arrested. He even continued to drink while on Death Row (the woman he had married smuggled vodka); one of his lawyer’s investigators said he was drunk during a prison interview.

Other serial killers I judged to have been alcoholics include John Gacy (who, like Bundy, was inebriated when arrested), Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas, Bobby Joe Long, Gary Schaefer Wayne Henley and Dean Corll. Richard Speck who killed eight nurses in a couple of hours was a mass murderer, not a serial killer, but he too was an alcoholic. Like Bundy, he continued boozing in prison.

As has been said by others, alcoholism kills the superego (or if you prefer, the conscience) which I suppose is one way of saying it causes sociopathy.

* We don’t hear much about female hysteria anymore, but we do hear about something called borderline personality disorder. Are they the same thing?

* Protestants are still performing a lot of good works without government assistance, but those good works are often poorly thought out. It’s like the nice lady who takes in one stray cat after another. She’s engaging in a kind of moral masturbation that does more harm than good.

I know a lot of non-religious philosophical Christians. In some ways, they’re worse than the fundamentalists. If you emancipate Christianity from the limitations of religion, you’re opening a Pandora’s Box whose consequences are not entirely positive.

High IQ is very demanding metabolically, so if you don’t need it, it will be selected out of the gene pool.

* A Danish couple were arrested in NYC after leaving their child in a pram outside a restaurant, a common practice in their home country.

Posted in Addiction, Christianity, Jews, WASPs | Comments Off on The Decline Of The WASP & The Rise Of The Psychopath

The Meaning Of Hanukkah

Hanukkah is about when Jews let down their guard and allowed the Greeks to run the Federal Reserve and the media.

Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn says: “Hanukkah is the only time they were able to hit us from the inside… The Greeks found a way from the inside… How did they get in? Because they had something in common with us — a love of wisdom. There was already a rapport. That created a connection. We allowed the door to open. We allowed the enemy in. We let them inside… We’re not going to burn their Torah, destroy their Torah, we’re going to translate their Torah into Greek. We’re going to allow them to corrupt themselves. We translated the Torah for them. They went on the inside and they had us. When it was too late, we turned around saw that they were inside the fortress.”

It sounds exactly like how many gentiles have viewed Jews and their disproportionate influence in such craziness as pornography, prostitution, feminism, pacifism, marxism, TV, and gangster rap. America allowed in millions of Jewish immigrants (about a million of whom became communists and socialists circa 1950) and these immigrants took over the high points in American culture and media.

Conversos were Jews in the Middle Ages who converted to Christianity. Many of them and their descendants became Christian intellectuals who pushed for a secularized version of Christianity. They took Christianity apart from within.

The more divided a nation, the weaker. The more diversity, the weaker. The more Jewish Israel is, for instance, the stronger.

Every group is weakened when it allows outsiders to direct them. The Native Americans were not strengthened by the entrance of White Europeans.

Posted in Christianity, Judaism, Nationalism | Comments Off on The Meaning Of Hanukkah

Beyond Parody

Today’s NY Times edges past self-parody. Multiple stories aimed at getting the West to accept penetration by muslim hordes, and about three (!) full pages on the most noble thing a man can do: become a eunuch.

The Times must have devoted 10,000 more words singing the praises of men who choose to dress up as women than it ever devoted to the crimes of Communism.

Posted in Journalism, New York Times | Comments Off on Beyond Parody

The Trumpening

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’ve been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What’s interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.

* A bunch of liberals the other day sat around and were basically kicking themselves for not being able to top Trump’s proposal, here’s the clip.

I like how they’re now asking how would you even tell if people are Muslim. Weren’t they just telling us that the Obama administration would be able to screen for radical ideology? Now we can’t tell what religion people are?

It’s amazing how the media shoots at you from all angles. When they hear an idea they don’t like, they try to convince you

1) It’s impractical (“How will you tell people are Muslim?”)
2) It’ll make the problem worse (“Doing the bidding of ISIS!”)
3) It’s “contrary to our values”

If you refute one of these arguments, they’ll start debating on a different plane. Trump refuted (1) by pointing to Operation Wetback, so they just moved on to (3).

When I started seeing (2), it was really disheartening. “We need the help of the Muslim community, this will alienate them!” Yes to deal with the immigration problem you need the help of immigrants, which means you need more immigrants indefinitely, lest the ones we let in kill us all.

* They can’t make proposals, because if they do, they lose.

If they propose to “do nothing” they become responsible for all future attacks, and they make themselves look ineffectual, uncaring, and oblivious.

If they say “do x” they are admitting that Muslim immigration is a problem and so concede the most important point in the debate. The debate then devolves into quibbling over details.

If they start making actual proposals, they are Farooked no matter what they propose. That is why they have to drown out the debate itself.

* Steve the problem is that government does not WANT to screen immigrants. More voters for Dems. So the process has to be end-around government.

Allow US citizens to sue and collect from both governments AND officials when immigrants who are let in do damages to ordinary people. There is much talk of piercing the corporate veil, to allow suing of corporate officers in various lawsuits. Oh such as, GM covering up its ignition problems leading to … death.

The same thing has to happen here. Allowing not only the Federal Government to be sued, but also NGOs making money and critically, government officials. Even years after they leave office.

Its one thing for a government official to think, “F- you Americans. President Obama! has ordered me to admit half the ME ESPECIALLY the terrorists because they haven’t been hugged enough get Y-T. Achmed here screaming he wants to kill Jews and Christians is going to be your next door neighbor and health inspector!” What did you expect him to do, exhibit moral super powers?

It is another thing for him to fear, “God-damn, I could lose my house and have to live in Baltimore not some nice place in Virginia if I let in this screaming jihadi. F-you Obama! I’m keeping my house.”

It is a matter of incentives. Demanding moral supermen is a recipe for failure. Of course pushing a piercing of the government veil will be very hard, but its a good discussion to have, as it points out the incentives to make Dem leaders happy at the expense of Joe Average shot dead at a Christmas Party.

* How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

That makes more sense.

Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

* I agree that Scott Adams has some of the most interesting comments on trump. On this issue, his opinion is that trump is playing the odds that there will be another terrorist attack somewhere in the world before the election, and at that point no other candidate will be set up like he is to play the adult in the room.

I like Steve’s idea that other organizations should be the model, and think we should make it more specific. For example, “Why are the admissions policies of the US like the University of Phoenix, when they could be like Harvard’s?”

* Scott Adams is right.

Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.

Those polices will be a *mixture* of left and right and in particular slowing/halting immigration will appeal across the board and bite great chunks out of the Democrat base while at the same time enthusing the white blue collar Republicans people like Romney can never reach.

The only people opposed will be the oligarch class and people who have a desperate craving to see white people turned into a minority.

* One obvious truth that hasn’t received any scrutiny in America is that the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system. Someone sitting in Accra who wants to come to America not only has access to information on how to go about it, he or she now also has an accomplice (relatives, friends) in Columbus, Ohio, to grease the scheme. The consular officers at our posts must be overwhelmed. Assuming only a 2% success rate for the schemers, it is still a large number of people LEGALLY coming in every year who shouldn’t have been granted a visa in the first place.

* It’s a general pattern that knowledge on how to scam institutions is readily available these days. Our society has invested heavily in defenses against some kinds of grifts, but not much against others, such as immigration and scamming on standardized tests.

* No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business.

Find a niche and fill it.

Give the customers what they want.

* Any American citizen who wants to vote has to be on a voter registry. The data on these rolls is public information and gets packaged and sold by corporations. The point is that you can’t expect privacy and anonymity while simultaneously exercising your rights associated with citizenship.

Why should immigration be a private affair? Why not create a publicly searchable database on prospective immigrants, load up all of their data, and then offer a bounty to people who a.) can invalidate any presented information and b.) add new information which would disqualify the prospective immigrant?

These people want to “join” us so better that they get used to private info becoming public. If their right to privacy is important to them then they can exercise that right in their home country.

* As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.

You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.

At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered “I can’t believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses”.

At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.

My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

* Someone in an earlier thread was writing about expanding Harvard’s entering class to be 3 million and thus solving the education problem, well why don’t we model immigration so that it matches Yale’s Skull and Bones secret society – every prospective immigrant has to apply before ALL OF US, and each of us can black ball anyone we don’t like?

* The procedure is already rigorous if ICE and the embassy do as they should. I have heard stories of interviews where the embassy people were so tough on Colombian girls they cried. You need to take elaborate stuff with you, hard copies of messenger chat sessions, tickets, receipts, pictures and be prepared for a grilling.

If you clamp down and add steps on the whole process you mess with people who generally are doing the right thing. I know this is sort of a variation on the Not All Muslims Are Like That. But this is kind of like the whole nobody had rules that said don’t fly airplanes into buildings because nobody flew airplanes into buildings before.

Single women coming to marry someone are about the least immigration threat ever. Even if there is a Russian girl that gets a beta to marry her for a green card, then you get one more hot Russian girl in the US and that in my opinion is OK, especially when ugly fat Central American kids can just stumble across the border and get taken care of.

But Latin American women coming through K visa process have high rates of sticking in the Marriage. Only DR had women with divorce rates approaching US divorce rates. In a way, the whole process is a vetting of the seriousness of both parties, lots of forms, requirements, time, BS. The bad side of it is that feminists screaming has led to more scrutiny about the US male then the foreign female.

To me, adding more complexity and vetting for K visas is like adding airport security crap to search grandmothers when obviously it is Arab men that are the risk.

I say screw em, cut off K visas to Arab countries. Kills a whole bunch of birds with one stone, eliminates Jahidi girls, cousin marriage, slows down a rapidly growing the muslim population, and even providing a disincentive to Muslim men to come here if they can’t bring a woman in to marry.

Let them go to Germany or someplace.

Then create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females from non-muslim countries wanting into the US.

And they just pull back the rope and let all the hot ones come right on in.

* One has to understand that there are two basic types of visas: nonimmigrant visas, and immigrant visas. Nonimmigrant visas are the ones that are adjudicated very quickly (two minutes), but the important part is that the applicant has no right to enter the USA – he has to prove to the consular officer that he’d be a good tourist, business meeting attendee, etc. Rejection of his application is not reviewable by a court; it’s the end of the line.

Immigrant visas, such as K-visas (fiancee visas) are processed totally differently. They start at USCIS, a component of DHS, which reviews all the materials, etc., and then they are sent to an embassy or consulate for a consular officer to conduct an interview. The vetting is pretty extensive, HOWEVER, the real issue is this: the American citizen basically has a right to get his immigrant fiancee (or spouse, or parent, etc) admitted, and either USCIS or the consular officer has to surmount a pretty high hurdle in order to keep someone out. Rejection of an application can end up in court, and petitioning relatives also often ask their congressman to weigh in on their behalf. There’s a lot of institutional pressure to admit these people.

In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted; immigrant visa applicants come in with an assumption of admissibility and the government has to prove that they _shouldn’t_ be admitted. It’s hard to prove a negative.

* I bet Trump could get a lot more black votes than other Republicans by framing it this way:

“Yes, many WEAK BLACKS will not like what I say because they can’t succeed without the patronizing excuses and handouts of liberals. WEAK BLACKS will always vote for the Democrats, and I can’t change that. But, STRONG SMART BLACKS who don’t need handouts and excuses are STRONG enough to vote for me. STRONG, SMART BLACKS find liberal attitudes patronizing and demeaning. I welcome their votes.”

Telling blacks tender lies hasn’t helped previous Republicans (e.g., Bush 43 and Kemp), so why not appeal to black pride instead?

* Rational discrimination exists for rational reasons — i.e., their behavior. Thus, the War on Noticing that attempts to make the rest of us less rational.

The best way to minimize rational discrimination against immigrants who behavior is rationally objectionable is to let fewer of them into the country.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on The Trumpening

Canadian Muslim Wants A Halt To Muslim Immigration To Canada

Comments to Steve Sailer:

*

Here’s a very interesting video of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee on Immigration hearing where a Canadian (he states that he’s an unhyphenated Canadian) academic who is Muslim is giving testimony about the dangers of immigration and multiculturalism in Canada, the first 10 minutes are his testimony, followed by a Q&A. In the Q&A is the amazing sight of white MPs who don’t like his message and cling to their ideals.

At the 22 minute mark, or so, it is noted that this academic has taken the position that Muslim immigration to Canada should be stopped.

Later it is noted that Trudeau (father of the current Zoolander) came to regret the policy he launched. Here’s independent confirmation of that fact:

Even Pierre Trudeau, the key architect of multiculturalism, regretted how multiculturalism had been warped to emphasize an immigrant’s identification with his country or culture of origin rather than his assimilation of a Canadian identity. At a private luncheon with MPs in the mid-1990s, Trudeau was asked whether multiculturalism had developed the way he hoped. He replied: “No, this is not what I wanted.”

So it appears that their present PM takes after his fruit-loop mom, Margaret, than Pierre.

* Florence King, a paleocon who used to write a column for National Review, was a lesbian who said that before the gay rights movement most homosexuals considered themselves conservative.

* South Africa was mostly marginal for humans, especially of the pastoral variety that predominated when the Whites first came. It took labor and know-how of the kind the Dutch had to make it so productive. So, when Riebeck landed his first ships, in the early XVIIth century, there were just a few Hottentots and San Bushmen around who had been displaced by the Bantu hordes that have spread throughout Africa over the past 1000 years like the Goths, vandals etc in Europe before. The Europeans expanded and they finally met the next African tribe 130 years later, the tip of the Bantu wave. They had only been in that area for 100 years longer than the Europeans had been in the Cape region. This is how the Boer Republics were formed, by being allowed by Black chieftains to settle the unused gaps between tribal territories. As late as the XVIIth century’s close, the Whites and the Blacks had equal numbers, although a fertility discrepancy was starting to form and many Blacks kept coming or being brought to work the land and the mines. Even today, SA is the biggest destination for immigration among all African countries, which leads to a lot of unreported racism and rioting from the indigenous Blacks. So, in a sense, it was the Euros who were the most indigenous to South Africa, although today’s South Africa is a mix of various Dutch settlements, Boer Republics and British colonial areas so that pronouncement would not hold for the whole of SA’s territory, especially the part closest to Botswana, which was part of the land of the Tswana.

Posted in Canada, Immigration, Islam | Comments Off on Canadian Muslim Wants A Halt To Muslim Immigration To Canada

The NYT Vs Donald Trump

Steve Sailer writes: “In contrast, the New York Times brand is linked to its financial savior and largest individual stockholder, the Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim who has risen to be one of the richest men in the world by using his ill-gotten monopoly, bought cheap from the murderous Salinas regime, to rip off Mexicans. The recent revelations that the Slim dynasty has strong ties to literal Fascism with a capital F, ties that he has never publicly repudiated, only adds to the connotations.”

Comments:

* I think a lot of the online vitality of the alt-right has to do with clever young prole white dudes sensing the corporations and media are united against them and lashing out anonymously. If you have only one metaphorical ‘mouth’, you might as well use it to scream.

I do have to admit attacking multiculturalism is a funny thing to do if you do business in New York, though.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The NYT Vs Donald Trump

The Loneliness Of The Deracinated Goy

Goy: I think a while ago you wrote about how you have sort of been an outsider in every community that you were a part of. Me too. Gets a bit lonely. But why an AA meeting and not just a church or something? I do feel lonely sometimes cuz I can’t exactly talk to my kids about the Jewish influence on America… And my parents would freak out. Wife listened last night and then said, “well, it’s fine that you email your neonazi friends but just keep it off Twitter okay?” But usually I seek alone time more than connection, I think, because it’s exhausting–all that connection.

I mean you can only connect with people if you meet them where they are. So I watch TV with daughter and try to care about what color we should paint the kitchen with wife and talk sports with dad. To the Jew I become a Jew, and to the Greek I become a Greek (or whatever it was Paul said).

Daughter just asked the other day–“what’s Hanukkah?” Because they taught her at kindergarten about “the four holidays” –Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, and Ramadan!

I said “Jesus was Jewish. Then some people didn’t believe he came back from the dead. They’re still around–called Jews. Those who believed he came back were called Christians.”

Luke: “Hanukkah is about when Jews let down their guard and allowed the Greeks to run the Federal Reserve and the media.”

Goy: The problem I’m having now with my anonymous hater-account is that I feel like we’re creeping up on flat-out holocaust denial… an idea that, like everyone else in my generation, I’m pretty thoroughly inoculated against. So can I really take Kevin MacDonald seriously if lots of his followers start saying the holocaust was a hoax? On the other hand, I have to admit, I know almost nothing about it except what I saw in a movie by Spielberg, and that I’m not supposed to question it. And SIX MILLION. So, reel me in a bit. I don’t wanna end up filtering the flouride out of my water and talking about chemtrails.

The problem I’m having is that if THAT is some insane anti-semitic bullshit, and it’s totally false, then how can I trust anything else that that tweeter says (about Jews in particular)?

“Well,” I think, “After all, white people really don’t have much of a shared history–certainly not a shared history of suffering.” But why should that be the criteria for being justified in cherishing an identity more primary than nation?

Luke: Read this and this.

Different groups have different interests. That is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary. Go and study.

Posted in America, Jews, Personal | Comments Off on The Loneliness Of The Deracinated Goy

When The Goyim Notice Patterns

Most Jews I know think that any goy who hates Arabs/Muslims is likely to hate Jews as well and so Donald Trump (and any form of populism and nationalism and gentile cohesion) makes them nervous.

When goyim start noticing patterns (such as Jews are smart, blacks can run fast, Asians study hard, etc) and remarking upon them and wanting to take action on them (profiling Muslims), some Jews get nervous. Jews do best in an individualist society where people are judged as individuals primarily and not as representatives of their group, and where there is little in-group/out-group distinction and there is not one collectivist religion and culture.

An Orthodox Jewish friend told me Shabbos that he loved Trump’s idea of banning Muslim immigration and that he hoped Trump would extend the idea to deporting all Muslims, and that if Jews were then forced to leave America too, he would be fine with it. He’d go to Israel.

When Jews in the diaspora get nervous about goy hatred for Muslims, we reveal that we see ourselves as an alien tribe.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on When The Goyim Notice Patterns

A Terrifying Thought

During a five-minute meditation in a 12-step meeting last week, I had a terrifying thought — how does God want me to spend my day? Then the scary questions just kept on coming: How does God want me to deal with my neighbors? How does God want me to treat my clients? How does God want me to relate to my family? How does God want me to treat my enemies? My creditors? How does God want me to blog? To surf the web? To watch TV? Is God OK with my obsession with football? How does God want me to watch Netflix? Does God want me to watch Game of Thrones? Does God want me to get another job?

I find it easier to ask, what does Jewish law say about this, then to ask, what does God want in this situation.

How does God want me to conduct my business? How does God want me to conduct my friendships? How does God want me to relate to my rabbis? How does God want me to conduct myself in shul? Is God OK with me using my time in shul primarily to talk to people? Is God OK with me skipping out on the Torah reading and the sermon to shmooze? How does God want me to look at women? How does God want me to treat women I want to bed? How long does God want me to lust? Is God OK with me lusting 15 minutes a day? How does God want me to treat blacks, Mexicans and Muslims? How does God want me to write about race? How does God want me to blog about Jews, Judaism and Israel? How much would my life change if I kept asking myself, what does God want from me in this situation? Where would I get my kicks?

Posted in God, Personal | Comments Off on A Terrifying Thought

So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits–and the President–Failed on Iraq

Greg Mitchell writes:

For awhile, back in 2003, Iraq meant never having to say you’re sorry. The spring offensive had produced a victory in less than three weeks, with a relatively low American and Iraqi civilian death toll. Saddam fled and George W. Bush and his team drew overwhelming praise, at least here at home.

But wait. Where were the crowds greeting us as “liberators”? Why were the Iraqis now shooting at each other–and blowing up our soldiers? And where were those WMDs, bio-chem labs, and nuclear materials? Most Americans still backed the invasion, so it still too early for mea culpas–it was more “my sad” than “my bad.”

By 2004 it was clear that Saddam’s WMDs would never be found, but with another election season at hand, sorry was still the hardest word. But a few very limited glimmers of accountability began to appear. So let’s begin our catalog of the art of mea culpa and Iraq here.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY President Bush and many others–including scores of Democrats–who once claimed “slam dunk” evidence on Iraq’s WMDs now admitted that this intelligence was more below-average than Mensa. But don’t blame them! They simply had been misled. Judith Miller of The New York Times, perhaps the prime fabulist in the run-up to war, explained that she was only as good as her sources–her sources having names like “Curveball” and “Red Cap Guy.”

But the news media, which for the most part had swallowed whole the WMD claims, was not facing re-election, so some self-criticism, at least of the “mistakes-were-made” variety came easier.

THE MINI-CULPA This phrase was coined by Jack Shafer of Slate after The New York Times published an “editors’ note” in May 2004, admitting it had publishing a few “problematic articles” (it didn’t mention any authors) on Iraqi WMDs, but pointing out it was “taken in” like most in the Bush administration. Unlike the Times, Washington Post editors three months later did not produce their own explanation but allowed chief media reporter Howard Kurtz to write a lengthy critique. Editors and reporters admitted they had often performed poorly but offered one excuse after another, with phrases such as “always easy in hindsight,” “editing difficulties,” “communication problems” and “there is limited space on Page 1.” One top reporter said, “We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power. “

STONEWALLING As years passed, the carnage in Iraq intensified but accepting blame for this in America was still pretty much AWOL. President Bush and Vice President Cheney said that even if the WMD threat was bogus, they’d still do it again. Reason: They’d deposed a “dictator”–and would you rather have Saddam still in power?

Now let’s flash forward to this past two weeks, when Iraq (remember Iraq?) re-emerged in the news and opinion sections. But anyone who expected that hair shirts would come into fashion must have been sadly disappointed. The “mea culpas” would not be “maxima.” First, those who accepted some blame.

LIMITED HANGOUT STRATEGY David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, wrote well over a thousand words at the Daily Beast describing multiple reasons for promoting the war before very briefly concluding, “Those of us who were involved—in whatever way—bear the responsibility.” While adding: “I could have set myself on fire in protest on the White House lawn and the war would have proceeded without me.” Jonathan Chait at New York offered regrets for backing the war but defended believing in Saddam’s WMD and recalled that “supporting the war was cool and a sign of seriousness.” And: “The people demanding apologies today will find themselves being asked to supply apologies of their own tomorrow.”

YOUNG AND DUMBER Ezra Klein apologized in a Bloomberg column, at great length, for supporting the war–when he was eighteen, and “young and dumb.” Charles P. Pierce at Esquire replied, “It is encouraging that he no longer believes in fairy tales.”

MEA (AND A LOT OF OTHERS) CULPA Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, wrote at Foreign Policy: “It never occurred to me or anyone else I was working with, and no one from the intelligence community or anyplace else ever came in and said, ‘What if Saddam is doing all this deception because he actually got rid of the WMD and he doesn’t want the Iranians to know?’ Now, somebody should have asked that question. I should have asked that question. Nobody did.”

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Thomas Friedman, famous author and New York Times columnist, admitted that the U.S. had “paid too high a price” for the 2003 invasion (which he supported, but did not now mention) but, hey, there was still a decent chance that good would come from it–if only those ungrateful Iraqis would stop blowing each other up and form a stable democracy. David Ignatius at the Washington Post offered his regrets but observed that at least “the surge” worked and saved lives (although Rajiv Chandraskaran at the Post calls this a “myth”).

Now for those who accepted little or no blame:

WHO, MEA? Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy Pentagon chief, in an interview fiercely denied he was the architect of the disaster. Afterall, “I didn’t meet with him [Bush] very often.” The New York Times in an editorial pointed fingers at the bad actors who helped get us into the war but somehow did not recognize any “me” in “mess.” (The Washington Post got around this by not publishing an editorial on the subject at all.) Peter Beinart at The Daily Beast blamed the war on American “hubris” but did not reveal that he (hubristically?) backed the war himself.

THAT’S MY STORY AND I’M STICKING TO IT Dick Cheney in a new Showtime documentary said he’d do it all again. “I feel very good about it. If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair concurred. Donald Rumsfeld tweeted (yes) about “liberating” 25 million Iraqis. He failed to recall when he said the war would last at most six months. Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, said that asking if the war was worth it was “not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation.”

IF WE’D ONLY KNOWN! George Will on ABC: “If in 2003 we’d known what we know now — the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the difficulty of governing and occupying a society in which, once you lop off the regime, you’re going to have a civil war in a sectarian tribal society — the answer I think is obviously no.”

BLAME IT ON THE HANDLERS Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, one of the most influential proponents of the war, now says that he had a different war in mind and the occupation was handled incompetently, asserting, “it didn’t have to be this bad.”

Posted in America, Iraq, Journalism, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits–and the President–Failed on Iraq