The House of David

Saturday, November 21, 2009

The Talmud as an anti-Christian tract

When the Von Brunn murder came to light, so did Von Brunn's opinions, and among these was a polemic against the Bavli Talmud of the Rabbinic Jews. I'm seeing similar opinions among Muslim trolls in MyPetJawa.

At the core of this polemic are the comments the Bavli, and not so much the Yerushalmi, Tosefta etc, levy against Jesus. Christian and Muslim antiSemites agree upon venerating Jesus, or at least upon using Jesus as a wedge between Jews and their Abrahamic cousins.

Peter Schaefer in 2007 published the definitive secular reading of the Jesus references in the Talmud. He found that the Bavli is hostile. There had been an anti-Jesus literature in Judaism for centuries, and Justin Martyr's correspondent Trypho and Origen's foil Celsus reported on their state as of the mid second century AD. The Bavli brought many of these together and canonised them for the Jews in Iraq.

The Bavli's comments on Jesus have been known to American evangelical Protestants since Josh MacDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict books. To MacDowell, the Bavli proves that Jesus existed, performed miracles, and was killed in Jerusalem. MacDowell didn't care that the Talmud was a hostile witness; he valued it as a memory of the Pharisaic indictment. MacDowell, author of Christian propaganda against Judaism, had the integrity not to complain about the existence of Jewish propaganda against Jesus.

There is something to be learnt from MacDowell's attitude. The existence of an apologetic, or evangelical, or even polemic literature among a group - here, the Jews - does not alone imply that the group must be wicked. For that the literature would have to recommend wicked means to solve the problem of the polemic's target. The Talmud supports no prescription along the lines of the Qur'an's qital. It just lays out a case against Jesus. It has to, or else it would become a Christian text itself.

In addition, the Talmud is not a Qur'an or even a Torah, and Jews can find a multitude of opinions in it, for and against almost every proposition. The Talmud preserves a second-century case against Jesus and carries it forward to the Talmud's own day in the sixth-century. Jews then were supposed to read that and to compare it to other accounts of Jesus; canonical Christian, gnostic Christian, Josephus's accounts of Jesus and James, and also pagan and Mandaean accounts which are mostly lost now. This is pretty much how Jews look at Jesus today - and it is not entirely a hostile look.

The Muslim / David Duke axis is entirely opportunistic. When the anti-Talmud trolls come into your comment forum, they're not there to make a principled case.

Labels: antisemitism, bullshit, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 13:18 | link |

Josh MacDowell and the Jews

The Christian evangelical author Josh MacDowell had a section on the Jews in Evidence That Demands A Verdict. It's worthwhile to evaluate that evidence as it reflects upon MacDowell.

MacDowell's books were a major force in recruiting educated young people into Christianity. But he lost much of his influence in the mid 1990s with the rise of the Internet and one of its first websites, Infidels.org. This site fact-checked his books to smouldering ruins. (Disclosure - Around this time I was also fact-checking his books and I started my own researches, which you can read on the "J/X" link.)

MacDowell was an admirer of the Jewish people, insofar as they protected the Torah, agreed with his causes, and fulfilled (his interpretation of) Prophecy. MacDowell's views on Jewish doctrine were more nuanced. As I recall, he dismissed Reform Judaism as barely a religion at all and thought of Orthodox Judaism as Paul's Curse Of The Law writ large. Conservative Judaism, he treated as underdeveloped Christianity.

As a Christian evangelist, MacDowell has to promote Christianity over all forms of Judaism. As mentioned above, I am not a fan. But to call him an antiSemite would inductively condemn all Gentiles observant to their own laws as antiSemites. That would be, itself, a form of bigotry.

Labels: antisemitism, conservatives, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 12:39 | link |

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

V-3

Tonight was V night.

On the media: The reporter Decker in his first report didn't mention the fisticuffs which had broken out in V-2, wherein that hormonal teen belted a protester. Decker in later reports expounds on the Vs' public-relations, and not primarily on what is going on. Decker throughout is refusing to air hard news. Decker is not purely a mouthpiece of V "spin", though; and it's possible that he's sending coded signals to humanity that this spin exists. The Vs would be fools to trust in him but then, I noted that last time.

On the Vs' propaganda: Anna defines "peace" as submission to the Vs. We are reminded of how "Islam" equals progress toward God's peace, and of how "peace" in the West equals acquiescence to the Nobel Prize Committee's whim. Anna is a master at twisting events to serve her higher goals.

On the corruption of youth: I suspected that the aforementioned hormonal teen would be strung along as a dupe and, whaddaya know, it's happening.

The plot-thread which, so far, has not amounted to much is that of the Vs' "fifth column" (misnamed, under the rules thus far laid down). All we know is that the Column exists, that it opposes the V leadership, and that its members think they are doing good for humanity.

Labels: media, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 00:49 | link |

Monday, November 09, 2009

Gunpowder, treason and plot

I invoked Guy Fawkes in that Fort Hood post. Andrea Harris has called me on it. (Not me exactly, but someone else who independently drew the same parallel. Mutatis mutandis.)

My point about 5 November was never that Muslims cared; it was that violent religious anarchists cared. Before “V for Vendetta” I was hard put to it to find anyone here who had even heard of the Gunpowder Plot, outside Tudor / Stewart history buffs and the odd Alan Moore fanatic.

Times are different now. For instance, I saw a protest of Scientology of whose members more than one was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. (Disclosure: It wasn’t me. The Starbucks was next to their outlet. I just wanted to finish my coffee. I think the Scientologists moved away soon after.)

Plus, the movie "V" (and not the novel) had its title character give props to the Qur'an, presumably because of its hate for the West. Hasan could have picked up the date from popular culture.

Maybe we should blame /b/?

Labels: crime, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 21:46 | link |

Pro-democracy blogs on the Right... well... sorta

The Right - like the Left - has two attitudes toward democracy, and one can find bloggers who hold to either view.

I go to Moldbug for a Right-wing anti-democratic view and to Ace for a Right-wing democratic view. Moldbug isn't interested in working with the system, except insofar as the judo master works with his enemy's folly; he endorses the politicians who are mostly likely to further the ends of this system, which last year meant Obama. Ace by contrast has not abandoned democracy. Ace sees his mission as rallying libertarians and Conservatives together to elect pro-liberty, pro-tradition people into office.

I believe that blogs should state what they are about. When That Other Green-Themed Blog became an anti-Conservative blog, its proprietor should have announced that.

If you are running a blog based on a standpoint, then you have a loyalty to that standpoint. Since Ace is pro-democracy, Ace can't put up with comments advocating anti-democratic means.

The "maximalists" whom Ace frequently posts against, include a sizable subset who support armed resistance to Obama's regime. I am in sympathy with many of these, but Ace's comments are nonetheless not the place to air all that. "Go get your own blog", as a green sage once put it (before he decided he wanted to shut down those blogs too).

With that in mind, I'm at a loss to understand why Ace thinks it's good politics to vote present on an amendment which supports the pro-life position. If the RNC wants to "vote present", why not do that on all this Congress's business? The logical conclusion to this line of argument, for Republicans, should be to stay at home and let the Democrats run the candy store. It's a defensible Moldbug argument, and I might agree with it too - but it's anti-democratic.

Very strange, this. (Not that there is anything wrong with it.)

Labels: liberty, propaganda, republicans

posted by Zimri on 21:05 | link |

Proof by bad analogy

I'm always suspicious of parables. I heard a lot of them from Christian evangelists. Whenever I poked holes in one model they would just move on to another model. It got too much for me to bear as of late 1996 or so. I see no reason to be any more tolerant of socialists - in fact, I have more of a problem with socialists, who want to steal from me after they're done preaching. (I can always sleep through a sermon.)

I fully expect "pnrj", who came up with the analogy below, to come up with that other model. It will be just as bad as the first one.

Labels: bullshit, liberty, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 16:29 | link |

Insidious bad apples

I just read this parable of economic inequality:

There are three men on a desert island. Adam has 2000 apples. Bob has 12 apples. Carl has only 3 apples. There is reason to think that all three men could survive to be rescued, if each has at least 10 apples to feed himself until the rescue arrives. If things remain the same, Adam will obviously survive; Bob would also most likely survive. But Carl would definitely die. Bob could give up 2 of his apples to Carl, but then he'd be at more risk and Carl would still most likely die--or he could give up 7 of his apples and Carl would live but Bob would die.

Here's the author's answer - social democracy:

So, Bob and Carl make a contract: They will take 7 of Adam's apples so that Carl will have 10. Adam resists, saying, "This is coercion! This is socialism! You have no right!" They do it anyway; everyone lives---but Adam is angry.

We see here immediately that social democracy (which Moldbug and I abbreviate, more cynically, to "democracy") creates envy in Carl and anger in Adam. It also demands that no-one recalls how the apples came into Adam's possession in the first place. Lastly, like Dispensational Millenniarianism, it assumes a finite span of time before some future Rapture. As a result no-one on this island asks how this colony might acquire more foodstuffs and other supplies.

Adam could offer some of his apples to Carl (who's clearly the worst at apple husbandry), on condition Carl row out and catch fish. If so, Adam and Carl both could have apples and fish between them.

To save his zero-sum-game model: the author has to fill his ocean with maneating sharks, and to strip his island of everything but those three guys and thousands of apples, and to intervene at the End. His model is entirely detached from reality. He may as well be talking about Robots! - from Spaaaaace!

Because in real life there is ALWAYS someone who has something and someone else who has something else - if only the people have the wit and the drive to produce it. Optimising total wealth and happiness involves free exchange, and restriction of interference to when one side is doing something clearly harmful (pollution, for instance).

The author should take an interest in what Adam really thinks beyond "I got mine". Adam has the hoard to prove that he is the most rational actor in the parable. Adam is wishing that he had refused to pick more than Bob's 12 apples, and pretended not to know how to pick them. Adam could have let Bob bear the wrath of the community while Adam spent his extra time lounging in the sun and playing dominoes with Carl.

Under socialism, those 2000 apples won't be picked and nobody gets protein, either. Everyone works just enough to stay under the radar. (Except maybe for Carl the least productive. Whether it's Carl's own fault or not, Adam and Bob will see him as the weak link. When supplies go low enough those two are likely to ambush Carl in the middle of the night and eat him.)

Socialists aren't that stupid, and if I can figure out the flaw in the above parable then so can they. Something else is at work.

I say that socialism was Bob's insidious plan all along. Bob undercut his own efforts so as to achieve parity with Carl, so that he could get Carl on his side. It wouldn't matter if Carl was poor or not; Bob would have told Carl it was okay not to work all that hard. It's not about justice for socialists; it's about being the one to dispense justice.

Labels: bullshit, progressives, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 16:27 | link |

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Trolls trolls trolls

I don't know if it's even worth my time to blog about this...

I'm dealing with a couple of the inmates at Moran's nuthouse. Moran as far as I can tell is saying "meh, we're getting socialised healthcare" and shopping for KY Jelly and condoms. His commenters are more extreme.

Here's one:

“Are you an adult living with muscular dystrophy who can’t get nursing care because the CEO of your health insurer needs a private jet? Well too damned bad, pal, the GOP does not give a damn.”

Or, we could say “Are you an adult living with muscular dystrophy who can’t get nursing care because ‘budgets are tight for everyone’, and Sheila Jackson-Lee needs a private jet?”

What we have here is an appeal to emotion and a not-very-roundabout way of calling libertarians evil. Because the people have the right to the contents of your purse; you, on the other hand, have the duty to sit in line for months. For the chilllldrennnn!

And then there's this:

This bill however flawed, is the only serious one on the table; the GOP had control for decades, and not once made any serious attempt to fix the problem.

What's "the problem"? If we're talking comprehensivity of existent care, George W Bush "fixed" a "problem" of medication not being covered well under Medicare. That effort was pretty "serious", as I recall; Bush had to twist arms all over the place. If the problem is cost and complexity, then Pelosi's monstrosity makes things much much worse.

Then there are the guys who claim that it's all the fault of Beck, Limbaugh, and the extreme right-wing GOP who wouldn't play ball. Another commenter (mannning, 3 n's) refuted that; the GOP did show up to the plate with several amendments which Pelosi struck out. (Trying to keep all the metaphors on point, here.)

You can say the GOP sucks as much as you want. But that doesn't make the Democrats any better - and if you compare the two, the choice is clearly on the (R) side.

I know, it's the internets. But these blustering bullshitters still annoy me.

UPDATE 6 PM ... and they should annoy Progressives. There was another objector in the Nuthouse, by name "busboy33", who had substantive points and a better attitude. He would be tough to debate. But it's easier for me to play whack-a-troll so I just, well, whack those trolls. It fills up the comment thread with an apparently one-sided smackdown of people out of their depth. It makes the argument seem more settled than it is. On a personal level it's not fair to someone who is there for a real argument, like busboy33, who then has to share space with the circus.

Labels: bullshit, misanthropy, progressives, propaganda, trolls

posted by Zimri on 17:24 | link |

Intelligent-design versus climate change

(Last of the 18 October series.)

Conservatives believe in "reopening the debates" on the theory of life origins and on the reason for global warming. Liberals believe the debate is closed on both: evolution for life origins; anthropogenic gases, mostly CO2, for global warming.

I think Conservatives are wrong on life origins and right on climate change.

Our model of biology comes about because of observations of Charles Darwin, and also a few metaphysical principles such as: leave open how mutations form in the first place, and exclude intelligent designers from the equation. Darwin didn't really come up with a theory so much as lay out the questions.

By doing that, Darwin forced researchers to come up with a genetic theory. Mendel did that. That forced researchers to come up with a genetic mechanism. Crick and Watson did that.

Climate change theorists on the other hand haven't yet cleared the "observation" stage. We have data for hundreds of thousands of years, with much warming and (mostly) cooling in between; but humans were only around for the last 200,000 and, as far as we know, penned up in Africa until well after the Toba explosion. We are asked to solve a problem in geological time with a model that is active only in historical time.

Also, evolution is a general principle. Its analogy in climatology would be the theoretical existence of a greenhouse effect: atmospheric content C, and insolation I, makes for a temperature T. Anthropogenic global warming would come after many stages after that: proof that the temperature trend over the timespan is warming and then proof that the model is consistent with the atmospheric composition at any given point in the time span. And then this has to be compared over past time spans.

It is also telling that climateaudit etc are attacking the research in current journals; Ben Stein and his boys are doing an end run Wedge Strategy, and not engaging current journals.

Evolution and anthropogenic climate change (warming or not) are not on the same level. AGW is open to debate. Evolution is not; those who are "opening" that debate are more akin to Holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers.

Labels: climate, conservatives, propaganda, science

posted by Zimri on 16:07 | link |

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Muhammadan cinematography

I hear that we're going to have another movie about Muhammad.

Yes, "another". We've already had one (and I don't mean "Dune"). The label on the DVD I rented, in 2003 I think, was "Al-Risala / The Message". This would be the one starring Anthony Quinn. Quinn's starring role was... the stalwart believer Hamza. So where's Mo?

The movie made sure not to depict Muhammad himself. Sometimes the Muhammad-based action occurred offstage, but... not always. When they did show a Muhammad scene, for instance his triumphant entry into the Ka'aba, they shook the camera around from the point-of-view of the Prophet himself.

This manoevre brought to mind that verse 33:21, "You have an excellent model in the messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much." Its sura, al-Ahzab, is about the most biographical sura in the Qur'an; which is to say, it was involved in the debates over the sira both inside Islam and against non-Muslim detractors.

The faction in Islam which sura 33 espouses was the Muhammadan faction. This asserted that it is not enough to believe in one God and the Day of Judgement, and not enough even to accept various suras as the word of God. Joseph Schacht in "Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" reports that Iraq held out against implementing the legal rules of sura 33, which hints that Muslims were not at first united as to whether this sura was for real. But once sura 33 became legally binding upon Muslims, then to be Muslim was also to imitate Muhammad.

So, filming from behind the eyes of the Apostle of God is exactly the right thing to do if you are filming a movie from the sira. The audience is supposed to identify with the Messenger. That is what the (present) Qur'an demands.

Labels: islam, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 15:33 | link |

Friday, November 06, 2009

The moderate Muslim

I was trolling Jawa after they got a visit from a moderate-Muslim.

The moderate admits that mediaeval Islam includes qital (violent jihad). He even admits that Islamophobes are right about it. The moderate reports that moderate Muslims don't know about their faith's inherent ("orthodox") violence. When you get past the tu quoque, the moderate says:

the difference is that this "extremism" is still part of mainstream Muslim theology whereas it has already been pushed to the fringe in many other religious traditions...the saving grace is, the theology is not known to most mainstream muslims in any detail. sounds confusing, but its true

The moderate does not come to non-Muslim sites with a plan for Muslims themselves to "push to the fringe" the "'extremism' ... part of mainstream Muslim theology".

The moderate comes with a plea for "common sense". What is common sense? For the moderate - it's the end of "zionism", and the loss of "permanence" for the Jewish entity in "Palestine". (Yes, this particular moderate hit that theme three times.) He comes with demands.

The moderate is, also, in solidarity with the jihad against the infidel in "Islamic land". The moderate is, ultimately, a Muslim first.

We can commend the moderate for his willingness to present his case. We cannot treat his case as holding merit. And we cannot bargain with him. He is partly tribal, partly in thrall to a faith. He has not reasoned his way into this position.

Labels: antisemitism, bullshit, islam, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 19:05 | link |

Jon Stewart is funny to malinformed people

...and AllahPundit thinks Stewart is funny.

What Jon Stewart relies upon, beyond the parody of Glen Beck himself, is the assumption that Beck is unqualified to opine on Constitutional issues and on American history. And what that relies upon is that these fields require a credential from an organisation which is also accredited according to peer review - in accordance with what Stewart states as the analogy of a medical degree from a decent university.

Unfortunately for Stewart, the liberal-arts side of the whole Western university system has been captured by the radical Left decades ago. For recent history, sociology, and political science the accreditation process is dead. Once you get more recent than the 14th Century, or (for the Middle East) 6th century, I do not start with trust in any college graduate, up to PhD or even (or especially) Nobel Prize laureate, over some anonymous character I'd read two weeks of decent posts from in UseNet.

Beck is a Mormon and I would not trust his judgement on North American archaeology up to 400 AD. However he has proven himself astute on American history from 1800 on. I suspect that Stewart knows this too, which is why he's been drawing deliberately false parallels.

Pity that AllahPundit doesn't know it...

Labels: bullshit, propaganda, science

posted by Zimri on 17:43 | link |

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

V

This evening's plan is to watch V. I saw the first eight minutes online already. It looks pretty clever so far. I am crossing my fingers that it will be good. And that the regular season doesn't kill it.

[9:10 PM] Okay - seen it. 'Twas good. I hope the upcoming episodes are good too. I'm a little worried. The logic of this show is anti-Utopian and, therefore, anti-Progressive and anti-Obama.

The show exposits that the Vs have always been with us, creating the crisis that they're now here to save us from. That's an interesting idea... for anti-Progressives. In the real world, for the most part minus the lizard people, this is the argument anti-Progressives made against (for instance) the Community Reinvestment Act, and against ACORN and other exploiters of liberal government programmes.

Labels: liberty, media, progressives, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 17:44 | link |

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Click it or ticket!

Another signboard: On the left hand, a chalkboard with repeated lines, "I will fasten my seatbelt". On the right hand, a plain message: "OR GET A TICKET!"

It's the same mentality as the commercial featuring a flock of tickets, flying toward a car wherein is some hapless middle-aged white man who has not done his Civic Duty.

Or: the commercial wherein a longer-haired white man is stopped at a light, and slowly surrounded by cop cars. He tries quietly to put on his belt. At that point all five, or more, of the cops turn on their lights. He is caught!

This isn't even a public-safety message. This is just the State saying, do what I say or I will punish you. It's the message of the lord to his serfs.

Under Mayor Bill White, Houston doesn't care about fighting real crime. Houston cares only about fighting that perception.

Under White, Houston is all about criminalising the violation of ordinances. They want the cash from "violators". They want the appearance of being strict. Most of all they want to run up the stats for Group A so it doesn't look so bad when, or I should say if, they should arrest a member of Group B who is committing (say) a mugging.

I've already dealt with this. But it's getting worse.

Labels: bullshit, crime, propaganda, race

posted by Zimri on 16:37 | link |

Oldspeak, Newspeak

The LGF dictionary is gone now. This represents the end of a shared language amongst that community.

The old language represented, for the most part, a community of friends with a shared set of values, and its enemies were shared among enemies of all civilisation: Iranian extremists ("hair rays"), Left-wing trolls ("mobies"). Some were assumed to be insane and naive ("moonbat").

A new lexicon has emerged. This represents a new community. Its enemies are personal enemies of that blog ("downding", "stalker"). Some are assumed to be insane and evil ("bad craziness").

Labels: lgf, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 16:30 | link |

Renewable energy

I mentioned it in passing below, but Understanding E = mc² bears posting again. What it boils down to, is that "renewable energy" doesn't scale for a population of our size.

Solar energy is good only for dealing with peak daylight usage; and it doesn't solve the problem of the baseline energy we must use when the air-conditioning isn't running and the offices are powered off (at night).

Geothermic, wind, and hydro power together won't make up that difference.

There's another equation to keep in mind here: total energy = number of people x energy use per person.

Environmentalists have a principled case to levy against coal and oil (less so, natural gas). If we find a principled environmentalist, who is fine with our population the way it is, and wouldn't mind lower energy bills: he would then support nuclear power. However we don't see this amongst the Al Gore set. Something Else Must Be At Work.

That Something is that these "environmentalists" are not, in fact, environmentalists. They are simply a coalition of those who would set a ceiling upon the nation. Here, the ceiling is allowable power usage. With total energy capped, the number of people becomes too high, and energy use must be rationed.

The Left wants either fewer people, or a return to the Dark Ages - except for the Left elite.

Labels: bullshit, energy, progressives, propaganda, science

posted by Zimri on 00:59 | link |

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Robert Spencer, LGF, and me

Not long ago I draughted a slightly laboured epigram: "If there's a PIG in your library, your library is a pigpen. If you write a book for this series, you're covered in mud." The link in that quote was to The House of David's first mention of Robert Spencer (of JihadWatch fame) in May 2006. That post had a parenthesis which cited the man with disapproval, but the article's main body cited his words with approval.

There's more to this saga between 2006 and now. Believe it or not.

I'll start with the positive. I do not believe that Spencer is a racist. A better such case, in the eyes of today's academy, could be leveled against me. (I'm a "believer" - I would say, accepter - of human evolution, including into the modern period.) Second, I don't have a problem with his belief in Western cultural superiority; except to quibble that by comparison with the Chinese culture, this may turn out to be a matter of preference only. Third, where he argues that democracy doesn't work for some cultures, I can't argue with that. Here too I may be more authoritarian than he is. Lastly, Spencer has an enviable grasp of Islamic history, language, and culture; and has written and edited several books, of which I cannot do other than recommend The Truth About Muhammad. Robert Spencer matters.

My fundamental disagreement with Spencer has to do with the Crusades. Spencer is still fighting them. He argues for the cultural and Christian West. There's a slogan for that in German: ein Reich ein Volk ein Gott. In my opinion this path can lead Conservatives at least to oppressive and, worse, sclerotic government if not to capital-F Fascism. The systems of government I would hold up as alternatives are probably not your cup of tea either, but at least I want a State that can be reasoned with.

Around the time I was lurking in LGF, among the commenters there was one Kejda "Medaura" Djermani. Medaura had already brought up Spencer's associations with the fascist (and not just right-wing) fringe in Europe, but did it in a less sober format than in the link here.

In 2007 I registered with LGF and, in their parlance, became a "lizard hatchling". I was not, then, on Medaura's side against Spencer. I was on her side that Kosovo is Albanian turf. That put me against Serge Trifkovic, a viciously anti-Muslim Serb who even then I knew had at least a literary association with Robert Spencer. At this point I wasn't sure which of the Djermani-said, Trifkovic-said comments I should believe. I reached an internal initial conclusion that Medaura was a troublemaker, and so I did not then wade in.

At some point in early 2008, I believe, Spencer disappointed me finally with his blurb for Hutchison's "PIG to the Bible". At this point I fell in solidly beside Medaura.

12 September 2008, Spencer had noticed (or rather, LGF had informed / shamed him) that racists in Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal were tagging along behind him, and so Spencer turned against them. LGF noted that in post Spencer on Cologne 'Anti-Islamisation' Meeting. I had additional thoughts in #247, 4:16:34pm (but I can't link directly thereto, because I'm an ex-lizard "stalker" now, and links hence may be redirected; so you'll need to research that and scroll):

I am pleased that R.S. has acted against racialist opportunism on that site. (To his credit he has been consistent on this.) However he still troubles me -
"2. To form one group for indigenous Europeans, as has been done in several countries, reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization, works against the idea of representative government, and obscures the common values of Judeo-Christian civilization that are shared by people of many races and ethnicities."
Note that he can't help but slip "Judeo-Christian" into his definition of civilisation in a European context ("common values"). In place of a racial definition of Europe, he wants a religious definition.

And then came the The Great Halloween Ban. Here's my wrap-up (not among those I've apologised for - #655 / 6:25:58pm):

A certain Albanian atheist poster and I were banging on this theme for some time back in the day, that the cut of the jib of this Spencer fellow was not as likeable as one might, uh, like. Colour me unsurprised. I absolutely guarantee you that the Lady M, for her part, is dancing around right now to the strains of New Order's "Told You So".
There have been signs for months that this was in the works. Spencer's pro-Crusades contribution to the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series was a freakin' HUGE sign. Providing the blurb to the obscurantist P.I.G. Guide To The Bible was, in my view, worse.
My understanding, which I believe I shared with That Other Commenter, was that Spencer holds himself as a believer in European civilisation as European, and defines Europe in magical terms. He always claimed that his beliefs were Catholic - and maybe they would be, in Pope Innocent III's Vatican.
I hope everyone has learnt something. You see someone ranting about "culture", no matter how well you think you know him, watch out.

Some months after that LGF sent sporadic swipes at Spencer, with varying degrees of fairness. I don't even remember if I said anything.

Then, on Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:33:16pm: commenter "Bubblehead II" announced that Spencer's friend, the shrill blogger Pamela Gellar, was about to take a trip to Cologne on behalf of Manfred Rouhs's group ~~Für Volk und Heimat~~ uh, "Pro Köln". (These guys assured us they were NOT racists, because they'd invited a guy from the Society of Pius X. Apparently.) 3:37:33 pm PDT, Johnson followed up on this with a post devoted all to her - Pamela Geller: Poster Girl for Eurofascists. In this post we learnt that Pro Köln had announced Spencer as one of the other speakers.

I mused, 5:07:24pm, in #268:

Recneps Trebor has to be thinking hard about this one. He wants to be taken seriously as a scholar and overt participation in a fascist conclave would undercut that. On the other hand if he doesn't go, Geller and Belien might squeal that they've been "thrown under the little green bus".

Soon enough Pro Köln breathlessly reported Spencer's agreement, as Johnson reported the next morning 8:38:01 am PDT. Longtime commenter "Ayatolla Ghilmeini" 4:35:37pm relayed an email from Spencer that he was NOT going; but there was still no word from the man himself. Instead Johnson reported 5:43:00pm, that Spencer had posted, he was "looking into the group and the people involved".

I'd given this fracas a semi-pass at this point, but then Spencer said that Rouhs "has no neo-Nazi connections and is not an extremist". Big mistake. Charles posted the Rouhs library Saturday, April 25 at 3:56:17 pm PDT, Pro Koln Organizer's Nazi Merchandise. We all found a LOT of bad shit in that library. The merchandise Charles himself showcased included a Hess book, which I found was more properly Nazi themed than Nazi, but that was just nitpicking. In its place I found two books by Herbert Taege: a truly evil man, who was in the Waffen SS when they burned down the Warsaw Ghetto, and who graduated to guarding Dachau; I have no idea how he avoided the hangman. And it had holocaust apologetic from Dirk Bavendamm. And it had Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein, Jewish Bolshevism: Myth and Reality. Other "lizards" found other material. A man's library shows the man's mind: Rouhs was absolutely an extremist, and he would have supported the Nazi regime if he had been alive. Why Spencer covered for this refuse is beyond me.

The whole mess sprayed egg upon the faces of all involved, as summed up by gegenkritic. Spencer has shown that there are few far-right and, yes, Nazi alliances he will not accept; and he has to be shamed into not accepting those. Both he and Gellar would be blogospheric footnotes by now, were it not for the subsequent self-footnoting of Lord Charles himself.

At any rate: since then, Robert Spencer has compared me to Ezra Pound, so I gather these opinions are mutual.

Labels: fascism, lgf, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 19:08 | link |

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Funny pages

I'm reading up on Obama's talking-points which he sent to his media lackeys (h/t Ghost of a Flea (itself found via Table 9)). Obama is pushing for these stooges to run stories "about service and volunteerism".

In the Houston Chronicle comics this week: the daughter in Baby Blues has signed up her mother for "all" of the volunteer-work her school offers; Mutts refers to volunteerism; and (less surprisingly) so does Luann.

If you read a mainstream newspaper, there is no escape.

Labels: obama, progressives, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 20:49 | link |

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Obama's NEA

I was reading over my past articles. It looks like Obama may have read over it too, back when the articles were up, and printed out "For whom does the artist create?". That piece had argued that the National Endowment for the Arts must belong to the Executive. That is currently the elective office which Barack Obama holds.

Under a partisan President like this one, who is Serrano's pipe dream brought to life: the result is predictable.

UPDATE 10/29 - Ave Caesar!

Labels: fascism, obama, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 16:10 | link |

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Conservatives and history

Among the "Conservative library" - and not just the Politically Incorrect Guides - there are books on slavery and on American history. (Some of this is being hashed out at the blogmocracy.) Since we've established that the PIGs are works of propaganda, we should look for what the PIGs are squealing about with respect to the Southern Question.

The PIGs (i.e., Conservatives) don't have much of a theme here; but in general, are arguing "we're not as bad as you think".

One point they raise is that slavery didn't start out because of racism. It's often pointed out that slavery was about profit. It isn't as often pointed out (on any side of the debate); but I think it's relevant - in the 1620s while slavery was growing in the American South, it was also growing in Barbados. Labourers had a price tag in the Caribbean - might it not be profitable to carry them further north? So at the root of slavery in Virginia, we might blame greed and bad decisions by courts (like Johnson vs Parker, 1654). The racism came later, to justify what was being done; there was already a racist literature, Goldenberg has shown, from the Arabs, and this could be and, so, was imported.

However Conservatives are still stuck with the racism from 1700 to, well, now. Virginians (and white Bajans) had the opportunity not to indulge in outright Zanji slave-taking. They failed. Going on a nitpicking tear is fun and educational. It doesn't absolve the Colonies, or their State successors, of a damned thing.

Conservatives get themselves in more serious trouble over Abraham Lincoln, who they claim was (among other faults) racist. That's not true; for a start Lincoln is documented as becoming personally more well-disposed to blacks' rights over the 1860s. As a rule if it cites DiLorenzo with a straight face, it's propaganda.

Conservatives have cognitive dissonance over Lincoln. On the one hand he's the one who won the first election for the Republicans, today a generally Conservative party; and he united the nation (although that's arguably more a fascist notion than a Conservative one). On the other hand Lincoln interfered in local governance; which then led to Reconstruction.

Conservatives tarring Lincoln as racist is a mere tactic (tu quoque specifically). Conservatives don't believe it themselves. Liberals and "neo-con" Republicans have always claimed Lincoln's values as their own. Conservatives by contrast want Lincoln to be a "complex" character, which their opponents can't use against them.

What we're dealing with, in both the case of slavery's origins and that of Lincoln's motives, is myth. Conservatives love their country; they want to keep loving her, and they want to defend her against those who don't. They also define "their country" in terms of family and local community; to which country, Lincoln delivered its greatest defeat.

Labels: conservatives, propaganda, race

posted by Zimri on 17:49 | link |

The Conservativally Correct Guides

There exists a market for quick-lookup guides for neophytes on a variety of subjects. These guides are prone to following conventional wisdom, and some have been hijacked by propagandists. Those people who dispute, and cannot get their views heard in the mainstream, have struck out on their own.

Hence the Politically Incorrect Guide series, abbreviated "PIG" and decorated with the expected cutesy porcine icon. The PIG series lays out cases for several ideas, which it associates in a bundle. It assumes that the reader who likes one would like the rest. The PIGs survive because their editors were right; there is a market for such a series. The market in question agrees entirely with the market for the Human Events.com Book Service. To sum up: the PIG series represents White American Conservatism, and is propaganda for that sect.

That's not necessarily bad. It's a truism that one can do propaganda for righteous causes, and that it can even be true. Capra's "Why We Fight" series is propaganda. It may as well be history.

Seen that way, some of the PIGs' cases are better than others. Spencer's guide to "Islam and the Crusades", one of the first, remains one of the better ones. Kantor's guide to Western literature was the best.

But as we'd expect in a pig-trough, there's rubbish mixed in with the good stuff. Wells' book on "Darwinism and Intelligent Design", Bethell's on "Science", and Hutchinson's on the Bible are all rotten. I'd argue that Hutchinson goes as far as an assault upon history and is, therefore, the worst of the lot.

If there's a PIG in your library, your library is a pigpen. If you write a book for this series, you're covered in mud.

I also venture that the Conservative library shows us the Conservative mind. It is great on literature, good on Islam... bad on science.

Labels: conservatives, propaganda

posted by Zimri on 17:00 | link |