It's good to see this finally starting to happen, but at the same time, it's a bit telling that this is where the line is drawn now. How much raw evil does it take, in 2023, for *some* of the Left to finally say "this is too much, we can't support this"? The answer would appear to be "a war of genocide."
Those of us trying to understand how our society got to this point — where many of our young people, their teachers and professors, and a sizable portion of the press, entertainment industry, and many others, not only accept and embrace evil and barbarity, but in many cases celebrate it — have probably reached our conclusions or at least formed strong hypotheses. I favor the “Long March” theory espoused by Christopher Rufo, Ted Cruz and others, but I’ve read other convincing conjectures as well.
The big, ugly question remaining is “what do we do about it?” When I see or read about the “protests” and demonstrations, Bruce Cockburn’s 1984 song “If I Had a Rocket Launcher” comes to mind. Satisfying as that may be to think about in the moment, it is not, of course, remotely realistic.
What do we do? Round them all up and deport them somewhere else? Put them in re-education camps? Of course not.
Do we learn to live with them and adjust our worldview to accept theirs and maybe meet it somewhere in the middle? Again, of course not. We can’t do that and remain who we are as a people.
Do we try to educate those who can be reached? Maybe. What about those who cannot? Do we ostracize them, “cancel” them, make them internal pariahs? Maybe.
I truly don’t know what we do to recover the souls of those people. Intellectually, I know we have to try something, and soon. In my gut, though, the rocket launcher sure is appealing.
I read a story, “Sierra Maestra” by Norman Spinrad, back in the ‘80s. It tells of a group of revolutionaries, “Flower People only a few hours from seizing power, not by bloody revolution, but by careful manipulation of The System” (Jerry Pournelle’s intro). It stuck with me, I guess.
Oddly enough, I cannot find the story anywhere except in used copies of the Pournelle edited THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, and on the Internet Archive.
I reluctantly watched Hillary's View comments (Bari Weiss suggested it.). She seemed to suggest that Hamas could be removed, and the Palestinians could improve their lives.
There are lessons from WWII about this, I suggest that only a complete defeat and occupation would achieve this.
Both Japan and Germany were defeated to the point where their citizens were literally starving.
Then an external force had to force a deep rooted cultural change. Because the citizens of those countries were invested in their culture. There were still committed Nazis, but they kept a low profile because they had been cancelled.
Even if the Israelis took the conflict to that point, they could not be the occupying force that drove a deep rooted cultural change.
One last thought, in Japan, we won the war - but MacArthur won the peace.
PS - You might notice that I've gotten better at using commas.
A thoughtful friend told me last week that Israel had to be attentive to the sentiments of the people of Gaza. I responded, "We began to win the hearts and minds of Germans, Italians, and Japanese after the liberation. Not before. If Israel obliterates Hamas, they will do the Gazans a great favor."
But I think it had something to do with the fact that they were starving. I know that was a top issue for MacArthur.
I also have a neighbor who was a teenager in Germany when the war ended. She has told me of the desperate condition of German citizens at the end of the war.
Even if Israel can eliminate Hamas, can it starve the people of Gaza? Then there's the issue of an occupying force. If it's true that Gaza school children are taught the Jews must be wiped of the face of the earth, that's a lot to overcome.
Some time ago you reviewed and commented on a write up I did about AI. You pointed out that I wasn't using '-' correctly. In most cases a comma was more appropriate.
Very little about the last month surprises me (other than the fact that Israel has had California-style gun control laws). I'd say leftist antisemitism is an existential shock to many on the left. I've known it for decades, but the past month has simply made it glaringly obvious to all but the most willfully ignorant.
Senator Fetterman --and this is the first time I've written those two words together -- has been the biggest surprise to me. This may well be the only issue we agree on, but I concede he has been fearless in his position. That alone is worth respecting.
While I can understand your gratitude for the condemnation of Hamas by members of Congress from the leftist cancer that is the Democrat Party, heaping praise upon the likes of Wasserman-Schultz, Torres, Fetterman, and especially Hillary Clinton is like patting a rabid dog on the head for it only biting you instead of ripping your throat out. These people only take a moral stand when it favors their personal enrichment.
That's the thing, though. I don't see how Sen Fetterman benefits from this, other than his demonstrated glee in twisting people's knickers. This is aggravating his base of millennials, not the conservatives he usually scorns. He's been more flagrant in his support of Israel than anyone on the right.
It makes me suspect ulterior motives too, but I can't see any at this point. Until I do, I'll salute him.
It's good to see this finally starting to happen, but at the same time, it's a bit telling that this is where the line is drawn now. How much raw evil does it take, in 2023, for *some* of the Left to finally say "this is too much, we can't support this"? The answer would appear to be "a war of genocide."
We shall see, won't we?
Those of us trying to understand how our society got to this point — where many of our young people, their teachers and professors, and a sizable portion of the press, entertainment industry, and many others, not only accept and embrace evil and barbarity, but in many cases celebrate it — have probably reached our conclusions or at least formed strong hypotheses. I favor the “Long March” theory espoused by Christopher Rufo, Ted Cruz and others, but I’ve read other convincing conjectures as well.
The big, ugly question remaining is “what do we do about it?” When I see or read about the “protests” and demonstrations, Bruce Cockburn’s 1984 song “If I Had a Rocket Launcher” comes to mind. Satisfying as that may be to think about in the moment, it is not, of course, remotely realistic.
What do we do? Round them all up and deport them somewhere else? Put them in re-education camps? Of course not.
Do we learn to live with them and adjust our worldview to accept theirs and maybe meet it somewhere in the middle? Again, of course not. We can’t do that and remain who we are as a people.
Do we try to educate those who can be reached? Maybe. What about those who cannot? Do we ostracize them, “cancel” them, make them internal pariahs? Maybe.
I truly don’t know what we do to recover the souls of those people. Intellectually, I know we have to try something, and soon. In my gut, though, the rocket launcher sure is appealing.
The correct theory is probably of how it happened is "all of the above." It is difficult to imagine how the problem is fixed.
I read a story, “Sierra Maestra” by Norman Spinrad, back in the ‘80s. It tells of a group of revolutionaries, “Flower People only a few hours from seizing power, not by bloody revolution, but by careful manipulation of The System” (Jerry Pournelle’s intro). It stuck with me, I guess.
Oddly enough, I cannot find the story anywhere except in used copies of the Pournelle edited THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, and on the Internet Archive.
Sounds interesting! Never heard of him or it.
Good Morning Robert,
I reluctantly watched Hillary's View comments (Bari Weiss suggested it.). She seemed to suggest that Hamas could be removed, and the Palestinians could improve their lives.
There are lessons from WWII about this, I suggest that only a complete defeat and occupation would achieve this.
Both Japan and Germany were defeated to the point where their citizens were literally starving.
Then an external force had to force a deep rooted cultural change. Because the citizens of those countries were invested in their culture. There were still committed Nazis, but they kept a low profile because they had been cancelled.
Even if the Israelis took the conflict to that point, they could not be the occupying force that drove a deep rooted cultural change.
One last thought, in Japan, we won the war - but MacArthur won the peace.
PS - You might notice that I've gotten better at using commas.
A thoughtful friend told me last week that Israel had to be attentive to the sentiments of the people of Gaza. I responded, "We began to win the hearts and minds of Germans, Italians, and Japanese after the liberation. Not before. If Israel obliterates Hamas, they will do the Gazans a great favor."
But I think it had something to do with the fact that they were starving. I know that was a top issue for MacArthur.
I also have a neighbor who was a teenager in Germany when the war ended. She has told me of the desperate condition of German citizens at the end of the war.
Even if Israel can eliminate Hamas, can it starve the people of Gaza? Then there's the issue of an occupying force. If it's true that Gaza school children are taught the Jews must be wiped of the face of the earth, that's a lot to overcome.
Congratulations on your improved comma usage. (Actually, I don't notice any difference. I didn't realize you had a comma problem.) :)
Some time ago you reviewed and commented on a write up I did about AI. You pointed out that I wasn't using '-' correctly. In most cases a comma was more appropriate.
Ah yes!
Seriously now, is the Left's moral bankruptcy really surprising to anyone?
Very little about the last month surprises me (other than the fact that Israel has had California-style gun control laws). I'd say leftist antisemitism is an existential shock to many on the left. I've known it for decades, but the past month has simply made it glaringly obvious to all but the most willfully ignorant.
I’ve known it for a while. It wasn’t hidden. It showed up with the Women’s March loud and clear.
Indeed it was.
Am I wrong to think that Adam Schiff should have voted for the resolution? There are others.
One might have thought so.
Senator Fetterman --and this is the first time I've written those two words together -- has been the biggest surprise to me. This may well be the only issue we agree on, but I concede he has been fearless in his position. That alone is worth respecting.
My thoughts exactly.
While I can understand your gratitude for the condemnation of Hamas by members of Congress from the leftist cancer that is the Democrat Party, heaping praise upon the likes of Wasserman-Schultz, Torres, Fetterman, and especially Hillary Clinton is like patting a rabid dog on the head for it only biting you instead of ripping your throat out. These people only take a moral stand when it favors their personal enrichment.
Credit where credit is due. And it strengthens my arguments when I focus on those who didn't pass this particular test.
That's the thing, though. I don't see how Sen Fetterman benefits from this, other than his demonstrated glee in twisting people's knickers. This is aggravating his base of millennials, not the conservatives he usually scorns. He's been more flagrant in his support of Israel than anyone on the right.
It makes me suspect ulterior motives too, but I can't see any at this point. Until I do, I'll salute him.
Consider me ultra cynical, but there’s a lot more political donor money that flows from the pro Israel side than the pro Palestinian side.
I believe he is enjoying this! His depression seems gone!
Sure looks it!
Today, it hit the news that Fetterman said he is not a progressive.