The Last Gasp of WW1: The End of the Sykes-Picot Lines in Mesopotamia and the Middle East

The time of the Sykes-Picot borders is over. As we “celebrate” the centennial anniversary of the outbreak of the Great War (WW1) it is clear that the Franco-British dissection of the Ottoman Empire’s southeastern marches has run its course.

As a whole the lines drawn on maps in far off Paris and London were irrational and created colonies and mandates irrespective of actual nations and cultures. If the Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of WW2, The Treaty of Sèvres, (the Ottoman Empire’s treaty of capitulation) laid the seed for World War 3.  The State of Israel, Turkey and the Kingdom of Jordan are the only three states with national characters. (And Jordan is just barely so.)

The ONLY solution can be the re-drawing of national borders. A region with a Kurdish majority should be carved out of Turkey, Iraq and Syria. As we recall the Ottomans picked the wrong horse. Thus Turkey ought to have lost its Kurdish region after WW1. Syria is an artificial entity. Its Kurdish majority region ought be amalgamated with the rest of a new nation-state of Kurdistan. Perhaps the rest of Syria and Lebanon could be unified and made into a Federal state. Thus a Federal District of Damascus would house a congress with representatives from regions and city-states: Aleppo, Hama-Homs, Euphrates, and Damascus-Dara’a, as well as Beirut.  The northern coastal region of Syria would be given to a Greater Kurdistan in exchange for gaining Lebanon.  Thus Kurdistan will have an outlet to the sea.  (See first map.) Or perhaps this region would be ceded to Turkey in exchange for its donation of Turkish Kurdistan.

58671,1300195370,kurdistan3Iraq is the most powerful and dysfunctional artificial state in the region. It is doomed. The solution is the erasure of the Sykes-Picot lines and the division of Iraq into its constituent nationalities.
A new nation-state of Kurdistan would encompass the areas with Kurdish majority in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, along with its Turkmen, Yazidi and Assyrian enclaves.  Its capital if it is to be solely Iraqi-Kurdistan would be Irbil.   If a greater Kurdistan incorporating Kurdish Syria and Turkey a more central capital would be picked.
Central Iraq would be an independent Sunni state, or perhaps combined with the “Euphrates State” of Federal Syria into a unitary state of بين الانهار. “Between The Rivers”, with Bagdad its capital.
Finally the new state of Shiite Basra would rule in the south.
These three new states: Kurdistan, Central Iraq and Basra would sign a treaty of Baghdad allowing for a free flow of commerce between them. The ex-Syrian State of Euphrates may also be made part of this Treaty.
By creating these new nation-states the hyper-nationalist and hyper-Islamic impulses would be channeled into constructive energy. Western Aid and investment can also be channeled more precisely into those new states that are becoming stable and humane. Each nation would be capable of self-defense, and as sovereign states would engage in alliance building with the other new states and with the wider world.
It is ludicrous that one of the products of the War to End All Wars contains the seeds of the War to End All Things! The Sykes-Picot lines are as anachronistic as the grass-covered trenches that still scar Belgium and France. These lines risk becoming new scars of destruction upon the landscape.
Historical forces are on the move in this region. The US as a content world superpower is reflexively invested in maintaining the status quo. We are unable to do so at a cost that anyone might justify. Therefore we must facilitate a new order in this region, or at least stand back and allow it.kurdistan Iraq_Ethnic_smMaps: Left Kurdistan, Right Iraq ethnicities.  

Syria/Iraq is dividing into natural nations.

Syria/Iraq is dividing into natural nations.

 

Realpolitik for the 21st Century

Time for Moscow and America to sit down behind closed doors and talk reality. The so-called national borders of the former Soviet Republics are purely fictional. There never were self-governing nation-states named
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Uzbekistan etc and so on. These were constructions of the Russian Communist Party. The borders were designed to be unworkable outside of a Moscow- dominated USSR. For instance the: The Fergana Valley in Central Asia was divided with no regard to the ethnic populations and carved between Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Throughout the course of the Czarist Empire and the USSR, Russians and Central Asians have spread and intermingled across the entire region. The post-USSR map with the newly sovereign nations was an aberration. For the USA to treat these entities as actual nation states is to attempt to freeze the region in the post-Communist nadir of Russian power. The assertion that Ukraine nationhood is as historically, geographically and culturally as real as that of Poland or the Baltic states is to weaken our moral (and Realpolitik) support for the latter two.
No longer is Russia seeking to be the center of a global Communist movement.  The ideologies of the 20th century are fading and by the end of the 21st century they will seem as remote as the motives of the religious wars are to us.  Putin is no liberal.  But neither is the King of Saudi Arabia, and we support him.
The American dominance of the Post-WW2 era was an aberration.  We had never been involved with the Indian Ocean until this period, now ending.  When the Portuguese penetrated that third ocean there had already been a complex trading system in place.  That five hundred year era of European rule over the entire Indian Ocean ended when the Japanese marched into Singapore, Bangkok, Batavia and Manila.  The rise of India, the Gulf States, Iran and even Kenya and other western African nations defines the new reality.  America inherited the Indian Ocean “problem” from the colonial powers.  But we did so only in the cause of containment of the USSR.  We must return to our interests.  The Indian Ocean does not wash upon any American beach.
The unquestioned power of America in the Atlantic and Pacific must supersede the Indian Ocean and it is simply ludicrous to maintain the fiction that the Black Sea can be navigated against Russian interests by the US Navy.  Reality is what is real.
We should recognize Moscow’s legitimate interests in its near abroad. And by the same token Russian meddling in the Caribbean and Central and South America must be ended. Russia should be an ally against Islam. And there will come a demographic tipping point very soon that will make Russia look to balance Chinese power with the West.

The Death of the West (whatever that was)

Today In London

Today In London

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/can-you-pass-a-uk-citizenship-test-most-young-people-cant–gJ0v-H6BQx
Migrants to Britain hoping to gain citizenship must get 75 per cent or more on the Life in the UK test, which was recently revamped to incorporate “British values” (whatever they are).”  Click link to take Britain’s citizenship test.  

IT IS THAT SNIDE “WHATEVER THEY ARE” addition that demonstrates the reason for the death of Great Britain, and for the emergence of a Little Englandistan, Scotlandistan & Walesabod, along with Eurabia as a whole. And the retreat of Anglo-America back to the Atlantic is another component.

The writer’s desire or need to use that phrase reveals a tome of truth.

Of course the Muslim immigrants in Britain, and the Hispanic in America will not assimilate! Why would they? They may have come for the economic benefits, and they may have been willing to assimilate. It was once a privilege to be allowed to become a prosperous Englishman (or is it now “Englishperson”?) or American. Who would voluntarily choose to assimilate into a culture that is proud to beat its chest in mea culpa? WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO ASSIMILATE INTO A CULTURE THAT IS PROUD OF ITS SHAME? Our societies are completely under the spell of of those who “deconstruct” our history.  We have been taught by our intilektchual elites that we have prospered only by looting the Third World of its wealth, by expropriation of the labor of “brown people”, through genocide and all in all just by being nasty-ass “white-devils”.

And apparently the writer of this little paragraph could not even allow to stand unanswered the assumption that there is any particular system of British Values.

illegalimmigrants

Today in America

This has been the aim of Progressives: the deracination of culture. Nothing goes without saying. There no longer exist norms that are just presumed. What once was a question of morality has become question of taste.  And what was mere taste is elevated into morals!  For example, homosexual marriage is taste; driving a Hummer immoral.  The amazing reversal of tobacco and marijuana is yet another example. Tobacco was one’s taste, marijuana (or being in a false estate of euphoria) a moral flaw.  Now, tobacco is immoral, and whether you smoke pot is a matter of taste!  
 When everything legal is of equal acceptance, one must tolerate everything that is legal. And by the same token only legal activities are required to be tolerated!  Thus legality is no longer the default status.  Nothing is legal except that which is codified.   The only arbiter in this kind of society must be The State. When there are no unwritten cultural norms and taboos, everything must be codified.  In a democratic republic lacking Constitutional limits either the mob, or those who claim to act for the mob’s interests make the codes.  Thus some of the great names in liberal nations are Democratic Republics.  See Wiki for list!    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

This is TOTALITARIANISM. And the Marxist intilektchuals are aware that Totalitarianism is required for total societal transformation into the Socialist Paradise of Earth. (Imagine there’s no countries…it isn’t hard to do.)  

Plato’s Retweet: Plato’s Retreat To The Retreat of Aristotle

My first thought was “This is dancing?”

Free-style dancing.

Free-style dancing.

It brought back to me all the thoughts I have had over the years at weddings and Bar/Bat Mitzvah parties. When the “adults” rise to dance after being badgered by the emcees, bandleader or DJ they perform strange rhythmic motions lacking any sense of precision. 

This is yet another “blessing” ma ma ma my generation has given the world: the dance floor of spastic atomized individuals. 

It is troubling to realize that what we all take for granted, as normal would have been shockingly weird not just to our grandparents, or great-grandparents, but to everyone in every society that preceded us within the grand panoply of Western Civilization!
I do not begrudge President Obama the pleasantry of society on a summer’s night. It is political knavery to make an issue of his dancing while chaotic Mesopotamia descends into, well… into more Mesopotamian chaos. Communication technology to connect him to anyone anywhere anytime renders his actual locality irrelevant. I imagine FDR enjoyed society while waging WW2 across two oceans and four continents. 

But it is the dancing that aroused my attention. This is the President of the United States of America. The grace of General, and then President George Washington on the dance floor is legendary. Certainly the Francophiles Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were adept at the latest European dance styles. John Adams the cranky old Puritan lacked grace but knew the steps. As probably Abraham Lincoln was able to waltz or minuet Mary Todd Lincoln clumsily yet serviceably around the inaugural balls. 

There were actual dances that conformed to actual steps, which had to be learned. It is only ma-ma-ma-my ge-ge-generation that discovered that dancing must be an ecstatic Dionysian experience of release and abandonment to the throbbing music. 

I recall the snide commentary about our new style dancing made by those oldsters over thirty. “Like rutting animals.” “Barbaric and tribalistic.” And surely someone with intellectual pretensions must have sniffed out loud the phrase “ecstatic Dionysian”.  We however thought they were just square.  What did they know?

So now, we the parents or grandparents or aunts and uncles at the weddings and B’nai Mitzvah parties are sat at balloon festooned tables.   With hip hop music loud enough to make even the water in the crystal glasses dance we lean forward and shout, “So I hear your new summer house was broken into?”  And the look of “what did you say?” elicits a louder repetition of the question; the question the answer of which is of minimal interest to begin with!

Strained conversation with faces seen only at similar “parties” or funerals becomes thankfully unnecessary as well as impossible, so we turn to look at the dance floor.
OMG! Could it be? It is the Bar Mitzvah girl twerking with a professional party facilitator. Didn’t she just finish telling us how important her Jewish values were going to be to her entire life? Who knew she knew how to so faithfully mime the movements of copulation? Who knew? (The trendies love to ask.)
Free-style, just moving with the music has replaced formal ballroom dancing; with the latter now becoming more of a competitive sport on a par with say ice-skating duets. Much as bicycle riding has been transformed from the means of independent transportation for kids to a dedicated activity in and of itself, the pleasure of the social dance is now just another hobby.
“Dancing” is a category, just as “Music” is a category. I personally had played around with guitars off and on for years. I wanted to learn to play the guitar. In retrospect I failed at becoming a real guitarist because I never learned to play particular songs. I erroneously believed in a Platonic category “Guitar Playing” that could be learned without learning particular songs.   This is the equivalent of dancing without any concrete form. To generalize even further, it is like the category of “Learning”, without the benefit of particular knowledge. Further it is this Platonic metaphysic that underlies most of the worst of the illiberal post-Moderns. How often do they speak, think and act as if the categories we devise have an actual existence, and can be handled as if they were physical objects?
The great debates in the political sphere are predominantly between those who treat categories as real things and those who do not: Plato vs. Aristotle. The example that comes to mind is Economics. The phrase “the economy” is the name of a category. Categorical names are mere abstractions. “The Economy” is shorthand for the entirety of all human trading; not the sum of all transactions, but all transactions, EACH one. “The Economy” is not a real thing. All the debate about using Government to effect the Economy is but Platonic scribbling. It is dangerous to confuse categories with particular objects that have an independent existence. There has never been a time when I desired to do an economic transaction. If I waited until I felt like it I would be waiting as long as I waited to learn guitar without playing particular songs. The Economy does not exist outside of my deciding to buy a quart of milk.
I don’t care if the President is dancing. It is a matter of “optics”. And “optics” in this new political sense is by definition form over substance. It is pathetic that the Media now demand the President to mind his optics!
I do care that the President appears to be as casual as a beachgoer on the dance floor. The conceit that one can dance IN GENERAL without bothering to learn the particular steps (upon which of course, individual expression may embellish within certain parameters) is the Plato in the President.
Plato is the father of mysticism.  In our time he is the father of Marx.  Aristotle is the father of science and the particularities of all existence.  He is the father of the Moderns.  The Modern Age forced Plato’s Retreat.  The Post -Moderns are forcing Aristotle’s retreat.

images

THE MURDER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: Stand Your Ground

THE MURDER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
I have always dreaded the coming Civil “Unrest”. THEY wish for nothing so much as “armed white Christian militia” to fire at their minions. Then the iron-fisted Police State will be unleashed.

THEY are deliberately importing hordes of foreigners in order to make all people in America minorities, and thus destroy any sense of an American culture and nation.

John Locke and the Enlightenment Philosophers whose thinking informed the formation of America, recognized that human society itself is organic and largely self-governing.
The State of Nature as Thomas Hobbes saw it was “ware (war)as is of every man against every man“. And men’s lives were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Thus, Hobbes attempted to justify the imposition of authority from above to maintain peace. In this case it was the British Monarchy which he defended as necessary.

Locke however, as the first English liberal (in the classic sense, which we must reclaim!) recognized that Hobbes was wrong. Locke had a more optimistic sense of humanity. Society develops organically. It spontaneously self-assembles through organic institutions, such as Religion, Trade and the rules of moral behavior. Government is required only for the purposes of protecting the society from external predatory societies, and from predatory individuals within the society. There are also large complex projects over which only Government can organize: large-scale irrigation, erection of forts (no jokes! I heard that snickering in the back row!), monuments, food storage etc.
WHAT THE NWO LACKEYS and Trendies are attempting, successfully, is the deliberate destruction of the ORGANIC nature of America. There is unmitigated war against everything and anything that once went without saying. Even English is dismissed as the National Language. There is NO AMERICAN NATION allowed in the sense of a nation being the sum of culture, language, borders and People. America is to be a mere geographic expression. There is no specific American culture, language, general belief system or morality. There are Italian, French, Japanese and thousands of other Peoples. But even the suggestion of an AMERICAN PEOPLE is mocked as passé at best, and more likely dismissed as triumphalist, xenophobic, racist, ethnocentric and whatever PC sin comes to mind.
NEVER in all of history do I know of any case in which a nation’s culture was deliberately destroyed by its government!  (With the notable exceptions of the USSR and Red China.  Now that is a very exclusive set, indeed!)
ONLY A GOVERNMENT seeking TOTALITARIAN political power would deliberately destroy all competitive institutions. Organic sources of cultural norms and mores must therefore be “deconstructed“.  ONLY GOVERNMENT can maintain cohesion in such an atomized STATE.
****
I HAVE ALWAYS DREADED THE POTENTIAL “CIVIL UNREST” that will herald the de facto Police State becoming de jure.
We are dying as a People; our organic institutions are under mortal attack. IF WE DO NOT RISE UP AND CLOSE OUR BORDER AND FIGHT ANY WHO WOULD DARE INTERVENE by attacking us as “racists, white supremacists, vigilantes, extremists” etc we shall perish as a People and a Nation. Let us at least be remembered as a PEOPLE who did not shuffle forlornly and meekly into extinction. If America dies, let our death be as heroic as those who gave their last full measure to gain and preserve our Liberty and Independence.

Rolling Stone’s Red Texas Field Survey Part 1

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/lone-star-crazy-how-right-wing-extremists-took-over-texas-20140701

I knew I should not read Mark Benelli’s

Rolling Stone article. The title alone pushes my buttons!

“Lone Star Crazy: How Right-Wing Extremists Took Over Texas” at least is a fair warning that the writer is a sophomoric rhetorician, and given that his employer is Rolling Stone Magazine it is not a far leap to guess he is a trendy, leftist, and post-Modern.
In regard to the title: It is the left’s rhetorical technique to place the point they want to establish as a “given” in their opening statement. So a headline or title that might have read: “HAVE RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS TAKEN OVER TEXAS?” or simply “Right-Wing Extremists Have Taken over Texas” instead says: “How Right-Wing Extremists Took Over Texas.” Of the two alternative headlines, the first simply asks a question. The possibility exists that either they have or have not “taken over Texas”.   The meat of the article will address the question. The second potential headline/title blatantly and honestly confront one with the stark statement of a fact. However, the honest statement is much easier to dismiss as nonsense. “Right-Wingers Have Taken Over Texas” might be expected to share the page with “Aliens Impregnated My Wife“. In other words, the latter would have been dismissed out of hand, and left unread. By getting us to think about, “how the right-wingers took over Texas”, we are led to bypass the critical question if whether or not this is so!
With great reluctance, as perhaps the sewer man feels upon taking a last breath of fresh air before plunging down into the morass, we begin.
The big picture is that this is an exotic travelogue. To Mark Binelli of Rolling Stone this is his journey to Ixtlan, with barbecue. He is as a travel writer reporting on a strange and exotic culture.
From the beginning of his article his first free association with Texas is of course “Chainsaw Massacres”. That and The Alamo probably account for the majority of his Texas-lore.
His sense of departure from the normal world is revealed throughout these pages in various observations. He comes tootling up to Jimmy Smith’s ranch, on the Texas side of the Texas-Oklahoma border, butting up against the Red River.

The Gathering of the American Patriot, in Burkburnett, on Jimmy Smith’s ranch is the remote and exotic habitat in which he will study these Red Texans.

 

Benelli admits to thinking that tootling up to The Gathering in a rental Prius was not a good idea. He surely is lying writing “in hindsight not the greatest choice for first impressions”. The writer for Rolling Stone was weaned on Hunter S. Thompson’s gonzo journalism. Showing up at a red-blooded patriotic Second Amendment gathering in a rented red Prius is exactly the image this alien from Yuppiedom wished to create. (If I am wrong I will apologize.)
His snide “neutral” commentary begins immediately.
“If nearly everyone present hadn’t also been heavily armed, it would have felt like a low-key rock festival. A guy in a polo shirt and stonewashed jeans, sipping from a Big Gulp, walks by with a scoped rifle on his back. A woman wearing a mesh Lane Bryant top, a semiautomatic hanging from a shoulder strap, stands beside a bored-looking six-year-old poking around in the dirt with a stick.”  Are you taking notes? It might be useful to do so as the trite stereotypes unroll from his travelogue. Big Gulp: what is it with New Yorkers that large servings of soft drinks are so worthy of comment? You get the Lane Bryant dig? Lane Bryant is a clothing store catering to larger women. A “bored-looking six-year old poking around in the dirt”: who agrees that his editor asked him to add, “looking”? “Bored-looking”: because he cannot know for sure if the boy is bored or not. The image is meant to be reminiscent of dustbowl, impoverished white folk or Appalachia. How different the picture might be of a “content-looking six-year old using a stick to draw shapes and letters on the ground”?

 

He notes [A] group of bikers hung out near a long white banner decorated with a pointing Uncle Sam and the words ‘OBAMA YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’. Benelli does not get out much beyond his comfort zone. The first thought that occurred was “so?” Is it news to our reporter that there are people who honestly believe those words? Or is it news that there are those who “dare” to do so openly?

Next he confronts a creature that ancient seafarers might have drawn as a neck-less humanoid on their map. It is a Jew. A Jew in the midst of a band of Red Texans: like “OMG! Right?”

Wolf has a Star of David tattooed on his shoulder and a verse from the Torah written in Hebrew on his back. He’s retired military, originally from southeast Texas – so close to Louisiana that his accent sounds almost Cajun – and he’s wearing a JEWISH HEROES OF THE CONFEDERACY muscle shirt celebrating Judah Benjamin. When I ask who Judah Benjamin was, Wolf gazes at me with thinly veiled disgust.  

A friend of a friend, a physician had never heard of Ayn Rand. Ignorance in high places is no longer a surprise.   And perhaps depth of knowledge of American History is not to be expected any longer even in college graduates? But Wolf is correct in “Secretary of war under the Confederacy. You don’t know that?” Wolf shakes his head morosely. “Most Jews don’t know that. Most Jews don’t know what the Yankees did to us during the Civil War. And now everyone hates us for this gun-control thing…” Most Jews do not know that Benjamin Judah was essential in floating credit to the South. And even fewer may know about U. S. Grant’s General Order 11.

In 1862, Grant’s Army of the West was trying to capture Vicksburg. This was the last Confederate city that linked the eastern states with the western across the Mississippi. In addition our Union strategy included blocking the South’s export of cotton. Cotton was the South’s sole source of foreign credit. However Lincoln and the North needed cotton too. So there were actually licensed sellers and buyers of Confederate Cotton for US greenbacks. Where there is buying and selling, it is true, that one is likely to find Jews engaged. Thus General Order 11:

  1. The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
  2. Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
  3. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits.
    Signed by US Grant, but canceled from above almost immediately
    .

Of course Wolf is disgusted! Here is this trendy New Yorker writer for Rolling Stone whose every cell is emitting disdain for the whole Gathering, and is ignorant yet judgmental.  

 

Why do Trendies think they are so clever? Benelli thinks he can pass himself off as merely a neutral observer? That is doubtful.   “American Patriots like Wolf, excited by concerns both real and obviously paranoidrevolving around gun rights, land rights, the surveillance state, genetically modified food and assorted other “liberty issues” – have come to this field to make their voices heard.”

His disdain is palpable! His use of quotes around “liberty issues” demonstrates the Left’s beliefs that the issues that so energize Tea Party types are false: that they are codes to be “deconstructed” to reveal their inherent white supremacist nature. Thus finding a Jew amongst these folks is like discovering a family of Swamp People living in the next door in your apartment at East 82nd St and First Ave! “OMG! Right?”

I couldn’t have put it any better myself. They don’t know; that’s the problem. After nearly six years of pumping out cynical horror stories involving our nefarious president and a Washington bureaucracy run amok, the right-wing fear machine has managed to reduce its target audience to a quivering state of waking nightmare, jumping at shadows. Yes Mr. Mark Benelli we are KNOW-NOTHINGS, yet it is you who did not know of Benjamin Judah, nor US Grant’s Order 11!
A Washington …run amok? Why, yes! We as a nation must apologize to Richard Nixon! Belated statues and schools named in his honor are needed to make amends! For if Obama gets away with: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, the VA, collapse of the southern border, threats to use and actual use of Executive Orders to enact the laws that he demands Congress to pass, and all the rest, Nixon’s missing 18 minutes of tape is laughable.

The scene is set: in the depths of Red Texas. Now the actors are brought into the light. “Three days after the rally, Republican primary voters in Texas overwhelmingly chose ultraconservative Houston talk-radio host Dan Patrick as their nominee for lieutenant governor.”

Are there any “ultra-radical leftists” in Rolling Stone’s Universe?  We are told breathlessly that if he wins in the fall he will be one of the most reactionary figures to hold a statewide office anywhere in the country!   “Reactionary”: who even uses such language anymore? The many terms spittled about by the chattering classes derived from the French and then Russian Revolution make no sense or nonsense in the American context!
America has no mythic past to which true Fascists might point. There has been only the ONE UNIQUE revolution in all of history. And that is the Revolution by which the Middle Class created, built, populated, made work its own nation-state.   There can be no “Reaction” because there was never an entrenched aristocracy, clergy and monarchy. Now were their peasants. Thus there was no revolution against the established classes. No revolution, and so there is no reaction.   The only revolution is the one being waged against us by Obama and his thuggish party.   And since it has not triumphed there is nothing yet to react to. YET! And it is because of Gatherings such as this one in Texas that there will never have to be a Reactionary effort to restore our Liberal (classic sense, and we must reclaim our word) Republic.

It is touching the compassion this ethnographer evinces. “This was supposed to be the year Texas turned blue, or at least purple, the year female and Hispanic voters turned out in droves and carried Democrat state Sen. Wendy Davis to the governor’s mansion. Battleground Texas, a group founded last year with the bold goal of transforming Texas into a swing state, targeted the swelling Latino population, which by 2020 is projected to overtake the white population of Texas.
There are so-called “Establishment Republicans” especially those who hectored us to read this benighted article who become heated about “national Tea Party groups” having the nerve (the noyve I tell ya!) to “intrude” into State and Local politics. Yet when dedicated enemies of America do so in spades, there is… what is that sound? Oh, it was a pin dropping! “Battleground Texas” is openly a race-baiting attempt to enroll enough registered voters whose sheer numbers will make massive voting fraud impossible to detect. Why would anyone but a traitor and without dramatics? It is treason to actively work for the overthrow of English-speaking, Protestant-leaning (in sociology not theology), European-based America. And these people do it openly, proudly, and confidently.
The Democrat nominee for Texas governor, Wendy Davis’ seat in the State house is now in contention. The left and the establishment GOP (apparently) disparage the Republican Tea Party candidate for defining herself as “a life long Christian [sic]”. Yes, they left out a hyphen, sick. Can her campaign come out of this grammatical faux pas? Not if the RhINO’s and Democrats can help it! Konnie Burton has been done in by a missing hyphen.

 TO BE CONTINUED.  

In The Week: A WEAK Shot at Ayn Rand, Ron, Sean and Glenn

http://theweek.com/article/index/263601/glenn-beck-and-sean-hannity-are-boosting-a-profoundly-un-christian-movie-mdash-and-no-one-cares
Elizabeth Stoker writes about Christianity, ethics, and policy for Salon, The Atlantic, and The Week. She is a graduate of Brandeis University, a Marshall Scholar, and a current Cambridge University divinity student. In her spare time, Elizabeth enjoys working in the garden and catching up on news of the temporal world.
Rarely does one come across such ignorance posing as intellect as that proffered by the writer at “The Week” Elizabeth Stoker. What is even more disturbing is that her academic background as noted above implies she is among the best and brightest!
Once, a woman, a graduate of Brandeis, a Marshal Scholar, and a Cambridge University Divinity student might have been expected to be a free-thinker. But no longer is that so. Alas.
Image

Her essay touching on Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, political philosophy, Objectivism, and Christianity might have been expected to raise interesting observations, given her education. But, no: her massive educational expenses were wasted. A grad from the Community College might have written this.

It is hard to know where to begin the task of deconstructing this essay. And so when in doubt, begin at the beginning.

The first paragraph sets the jarring tone. If you haven’t seen Atlas Shrugged Ior Atlas Shrugged II, you’re hardly alone: both film adaptations of Ayn Rand’s novel fared poorly at the box office. The filmmakers evidently haven’t received the free market’s message.
The filmmakers evidently haven’t received the free market’s message.” From such a paragon of academia it is surprising she counts popularity amongst the proles as conferring any imprimatur of quality. Odds are that her summer reading consists of those literary novels written by and for other literary novelists, and book reviewers. She would turn up the nose on her very young face at the latest Stephen King, David Baldacci or any other popular book.   The cinematic summer blockbusters: Puh-leeze!

Liz has learned to evoke the bitter ironic tone of academia. Ron Paul does not just make an appearance in the up-coming third and presumably final part of the filmed Atlas Shrugged. No, “Ron Paul will be metastasizing from the small screen to the silver screen in his acting debut in the upcoming film.” She places “metastasizing” as a hyperlink. Not to something to do with cancer, but merely to a general article about the cast of the film. That is rather harsh, to liken Ron Paul to a metastatic and thus cancerous tumor! But when discussing older white males, with Constitutional constitutions, from fly-over America the venomous tone is quite acceptable, at least to Brandeis grads.

 

Adding Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to Ron Paul she asks “why the sanguine agreement on the part of three outspokenly Christian political players to appear in a film so deeply and totally antithetical to Christian ethics?” Just as there is an initial difficulty in distinguishing individuals amongst a crowd of very foreign-looking tribesmen, these three individuals are indistinguishable to her elite eyes: SeanGlennPaul. The three men have very different beliefs. A Catholic, a Libertarian and a Mormon walk into a bar one day and….. . Sounds like a joke.
Ok, she has conflated them into a single dragon. That is merely her ignorance. But to the core of the issue she turns. And so must we.
To repeat her question: “why the sanguine agreement on the part of three outspokenly Christian political players to appear in a film so deeply and totally antithetical to Christian ethics?” Her answer: “A charitable person might chalk it up to ignorance…” Why that is mighty nice of her. Especially since I just gave her the same pass in her conflation of SeanGlennPaul.   Here is where her parochial education shows through. Only one educated in a small, inbred intellectual atmosphere could be so wrong about the numbers of people who are extremely conversant with Ayn Rand, and who can discuss Atlas Shrugged in great depth.

She writes: “Atlas Shrugged is a clunky doorstop of a book so massive and exhausting one can imagine even its proponents are only dimly acquainted with it.” Does she really think that? I do not know which is more disturbing: that she lied and in fact can imagine proponents being deeply aware of the novel, or she honestly believes that which she claims. The frightening thing is that I believe it is the latter. It is becoming dangerous to presume that well-educated Americans share at least a common literature. Agreement on the meaning or quality of particular piece of the literature is not required. But a common acceptance of a certain canon, a common core if you will, of English literature may no longer be assumed. If a woman can graduate Brandeis and study at Cambridge and yet not have met many people who are well versed in Atlas Shrugged is stunning; and believable.

Ms. Stoker, Brandeis scholar that she is ably summarizes the kilo-page novel as “It’s a shrill thousand pages following the heroic adventures of wealthy, dashing, outrageously beautiful Dagny Taggart as she solves the “mystery” of why the world ground to a halt; without spoiling it, the solution has to do with the world-animating genius of industrial technocrats and their billions.”

 

How wrong must a reviewer be in her summary so as to raise the question of her actually having read and understood the book in question? Technocrats and their billions? It was not the “billions” of dollars that the Titans brought out with them on their strike. In fact they walked away from their billions. They walked away with only one asset. And that is the asset that cannot be nationalized, redistributed or made equitable… their minds.
But it is not our intent to debate Atlas Shrugged with Elizabeth Stoker.
She comes to the crux of her critique, (pun noted, unintended). “In short, both Christianity and Objectivism are mutually exclusive comprehensive doctrines; that is, each make claims about the nature of reality, moral goodness, and right action which contradict the other. And conservatives used to have the guts to admit it.
She cites Whittaker Chambers and William F. Buckley as (at least?) having the guts to admit it. Although Ms. Stoker would be hard pressed to say a word of praise for either man, their critique of Atlas Shrugged is taken whole. I would be surprised to know of any work of Buckley that she has read. In an echo of the frightening question I asked above: what if anything about Whittaker Chambers does she know?
She uses Whittaker Chambers as a sock puppet. Yes, I suppose he did write those words in review of Atlas Shrugged.   But does she know why? It is clear that she cannot, for she describes Whittaker Chambers as Buckley’s “fellow right winger”.

It just so happens, as these things often go, that I am reading “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers this past week. The phrase “fellow right winger” in regard to either man is ludicrous. It is so ludicrous that again it strains credulity that this woman knows a damn thing about either man.   Certainly, she must be unaware that Buckley read the John Birch Society out of respectable Conservative discourse (for better or worse, though surely Stoker feels the former).   She must know that Whittaker Chambers was the former Communist who had a Road To Damascus-like experience that converted him into an ex-Communist. Seriously, I believe it is quite likely she does not know the name Alger Hiss.
Of course Chambers who personally experienced a spiritual midlife conversion holds a strong critique for Rand’s atheism.
But her citing Chambers as “proof” that Conservatives must necessarily oppose Objectivist philosophy is a sophomoric argument. It merely demonstrates the lack of subtly of her thought: as if like Brandeis students, all conservatives are in lock step.
If she had known much or anything about Chambers she would have known that he believed that Communism was the highest form the human society could achieve without there being God.
In that he was wrong. It is the Objectivist Philosophy that would be the second-best.
Ayn Rand would be correct if there were nothing above Man.  And if she had limited her Objectivism to the realm of Economics and Political Philosophy it would have been sturdier. However, there is nothing in Objectivism that forbids charity. She merely points out that involuntary, or forced charity is theft, and thus is immoral no matter its wrappings.

However this sort of reasoning, of shades, nuances and inferences escapes the stark Marxist Hegelian theocracy of which Brandeis is itself a shining light.   Like its sister cloisters it is a magnet for aspiring and ambitious future Priestesses and Vicars (or is that Wiccars?)

This is our best and brightest???