Michelle, being dumb as a brick (Have you read the Princeton thesis?)
and so desperately insecure that she can barely maintain molecular cohesion, likes to pal around and be “friends” (insomuch as psychopaths [people who feel no shame or guilt] can really ever have friends) with Beyonce and her spouse, Jay-Z Carter.
Because if famous, rich people like me and come over to my house, then I must be teh awesome. And if I hang out with physically attractive women (which Beyonce actually is when she isn’t dressed like a nickel whore, which is never), then I must be a physically attractive woman too! And all that matters is that I’m popular, rich and that people tell me I’m pretty. And I will burn this ***** down and everyone in it without batting a single one of my fake eyelashes in order to achieve this. Because ME. ME. ME.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Look at them. Do these women look like they could have been in Downton Abbey?
Do they have any connection at all to England? Are their signs even in English? [No.] Make no mistake. The same hatred on display for Jews and Israel is also there for OTHER WHITES. Like the Irish. And the Italians. And the Poles. And the Germans. And the French. And the English. And the Dutch. And the Norwegians. And the Icelanders. And the Spanish. And the Hungarians. And the Greeks. And the Swedes. And the Finns. And the Russians. And Czechs. And the Swiss. No White will escape that hatred.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Detroit: Where expecting people to pay their bills is “racist.”
Not only has the Obama Regime refused to lift a finger to stop the massive invasion pouring across our southern border, he has spent our money to distribute the invaders and the diseases they carry throughout the country. But that wasn’t enough. Now he wants to spare them the travails of travel through Mexico by flying them up — again at our expense — directly from Central America. All he has to do to sell this to cretins is declare the lawless welfare colonists to be “refugees.”
The New York Times does its best to spin this scheme as anything but treasonous:
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
Migrants? They are entering our country in violation of our laws in order to take what belongs to us via the welfare apparatus. They are invaders, not migrants. The claim that making the invasion risk-free and convenient by flying them up from Honduras will “stem the tide” is so far beyond preposterous that I can’t get my jaw to close.
Of course the plan is to inflict this through executive action. Few who have to face voters again will be likely to back a plan so blatantly inimical to American interests, so it would never get through Congress.
How do they figure the colonists are “refugees” worthy of skipping the line in front of legitimate immigrants who might actually contribute to the American economy? After all, violence in Central America, a ubiquitous feature of that savage, backward land, is actually down lately. The Slimes explains:
Many of the children, particularly in Honduras, are believed to be fleeing dangerous street gangs, which forcibly recruit members and extort home and business owners. The United Nations estimates that 70,000 gang members operate in the three nations.
Got that? By importing thousands upon thousands of “children” of all ages, some of whom have already committed murder and are covered in gang tattoos, into American neighborhoods that already are or will soon become gang-infested slums, we are saving them from these very gangs. No wonder liberals glow with such self-satisfied righteousness.
If “successful” in Honduras, the program will be expanded to El Salvador and Guatemala as well.
Our rulers are almost ready to discard the pretense that this is all about children:
According to the draft, the administration is considering opening the program to people under 21. It also suggested offering entry on emergency humanitarian grounds — known as humanitarian parole — to some of the applicants who did not qualify for refugee status.
By “people under 21,” they mean “people who could conceivably pass for under 21.” Undocumented Democrats tend not to have any documentation that would prove when they were born. If you could get carded at the liquor store, you qualify as a child. If not, you get in on “emergency humanitarian grounds.”
By the way, refugees officially qualify for public assistance as soon as they touch American soil. Not that illegal aliens have any trouble collecting the loot that lures them here.
Imagine if Obama had been president in 1941. To spare the Japanese the trouble of having to cross the Pacific on their own, he would be flying them over at our expense to take over our country.
But there is a difference between the current invasion and the one that never happened from imperial Japan. Eventually, we would have cast off Japanese conquerors and kicked them out of our country. We will never cast off our Third World welfare overlords, because given the open borders and their birth rates, they will soon outnumber us. It won’t be our country; it will be theirs. We will subsist in it merely to serve as their slaves, working so that the government can “redistribute” the wealth we create onto their EBT cards, in return for their votes.
The scale of the treason we are witnessing dwarfs anything Vidkun Quisling was accused of. Yet there is virtually no resistance.
On a tip from Bodhisattva.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
The Harsh Dogma of Liberalism: Gays and Abortion.
If you want to prove you don’t hate gays, all you have to do is worship at their feet.
By Matt Walsh
I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I’ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal’s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, “man, these people REALLY need to chill.”
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
Nothing less will be allowed…
So I suppose my point here is simple: if you aren’t willing to become a liberal, you might as well finally stand up and condemn it. There is no middle ground anymore. There never was to begin with, but even the illusion is fading. Either fight for life, family, and Truth, or else join the ranks of the nihilists and hedonists. The distinction between the two sides is not a murky no-man’s land colored in hues of gray; it is a stark and sudden line in the concrete. You are either for truth or you are not.
Either/or, black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, there are only two options, and you have to choose one. Progressivism says that you are either with it or against it, and on that point I agree.
Way back in the olden thymes, I hired a homosexual. Of course, this was the olden thymes so there was no mention of it. If anyone discovered a homosexual, they were required to report them to the authorities. The homosexual was then shipped off to one of the rehabilitation centers run by Pat Robertson. If that did not “take” then they were shipped to the lavender plantations in the South operated by Oral Roberts, ironically enough. As a result no one ever spoke of homosexuals in public or private. The subject was banned.
Ok, that’s nonsense, but not too far from the official narrative being developed by the usual suspects. The airbrushing of history with regards to this topic is not going to end until the past fits the fantasy. Anyway, in my case the guy was flaming, so it was obvious he preferred the company of men. That and he mentioned it in his interview. He wanted to make sure it was not going to be an issue. I told him he’d have to figure that out for himself, but as long as he did his job he’d have no issue with me.
That was the last time I had any reason to discuss the matter with him. Some of the guys gave him grief, but he was used to it and handled it without help from me. As is always the case, he fell into a role that suited him and everyone else. The point being that in the olden thymes, homosexuals had to put up with some mild inconveniences, but nothing significant. More important, normal people did not go crazy around them. Other than some mild discomfort, normal people got along just fine with homosexuals in their ranks. We were indifferent towards them.
Today, people all over the world are going insane over homosexuals. Throughout the Middle East and Africa, otherwise normal people are going berserk and attacking homosexuals. Uganda, for example, just passed harsh laws against homosexuality. They did it despite stern warnings from Obama, so you know they must have gone mad. Of course, we all know how countries in the Middle East have gone bonkers over this. Iran was driven to such madness as to bring back stoning.
OK, I’m kidding around again.
I wanted to check in on the sports world and I see this on ESPN. David Tyree is against gay marriage, like most everyone. Big deal. Why is this sports story? Every damned week the sporting press is running with a homosexual story. You just know they will make a fetish of Michael Sam this fall. They made fools of themselves hounding the gay basketball player last summer so you know they will go crazy over the football player. ESPN is the worst offender, but even sports radio can’t stop obsessing over the gays. There’s nowhere to hide from the constant chatter about homosexuals.
I’m all fagged out.
I want the love that dared not speak its name to go back to not speaking its name. Now it is the love that won’t shut the fuck up. You can’t escape it. If you watch TV, every show now must feature a homosexual, despite the fact only 3.4% of the population claim to be homosexual. There are more “little people” in this world than “trans” people, yet every newspaper in the country is running at least one tranny tale a week. If I were a midget, I’d feel like I was getting the short end…well…nevermind.
It is getting to the point where it is impossible to engage with popular culture. The preaching is unbearable. Preaching about homosexuals is even worse, given that no one, including most homosexuals, cares about homosexuals. Circling back (or reaching around if you prefer) to my story at the top, I remember a time when no one cared about the topic and they were generally decent enough to keep their feelings about it to themselves. Let’s go back to that.
But, that’s not how cultural genocide works. The lunatics give you two choices. One is you embrace their insane, ever shifting set of codes, or, else. ISIS is telling Iraqi Christians they must convert or die. The Greater American Lunatic is telling normals they must embrace and exult homosexuality or else. Well, nuts to that, as it were. I’ve had enough of the gays. I’m all fagged out and I don’t want to hear any more about the gays.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/
Posted on | July 23, 2014
“Can it be valid to conceptualize ‘girls’ as having certain personal attributes universally in common, except perhaps their youth relative to women? In grappling with this question, we need not to lose sight of the fact that, however different, girls’ actions are oriented toward the same or similarly structured objects that construct their bodies’ social meanings, values, and challenges as gendered. . . . Social rules and practices surrounding menarche construct gender as a principle both for division of labor and for compulsory heterosexuality, thus constituting girls in a relation of growing vulnerability to boys’ and men’s appropriation.” – Susan Laird, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” Philosophy of Education, 2002
“It has been the political policy of lesbian feminists to present ourselves publicly as persons who have chosen lesbian patterns of desire and sensuality. Whether as individuals we feel ourselves to have been born lesbians or to be lesbians by decision, we claim as morally and politically conscious agents a positive choice to go with it: to claim our lesbianism, to take full advantage of its advantages. This is central to our feminism: that women can know their own bodies and desires, interpret their own erotic currents, create and choose environments which encourage chosen changes in all these; and that a female eroticism that is independent of males and of masculinity is possible and can be chosen. We claim these things and fight in the world for all women’s liberty to live them without punishment and terror, believing also that if the world permits self-determined female eroticism, it will be a wholly different world.” – Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
Last week, I mentioned that the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is pushing to introduce “gender studies” to the high school curriculum, “creating innovative spaces for young people to engage in feminism and activism, equity, and social justice in today’s classrooms.” The symposium on this AAUW program featured Ileana Jiminez, a lesbian English teacher from New York. What this indicates is that the radical theories of feminist academics are ultimately destined for the K-12 classroom — and any parent who objects can expect to be condemned as a sexist homophobe.
Consider the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality.” This phrase entered the feminist lexicon via an influential 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” which I discussed at length in April. Rich’s essay, asserting that heterosexuality is not natural for women, but rather is imposed as a condition of male supremacy, has been widely anthologized and incorporated in Women’s Studies curricula.
The phrase turned up in a Google search I did, appearing as the title of a book chapter, “Compulsory Heterosexuality as Mis-education.” The author speaks of “the psychological damage inflicted [on gay adolescents] by years of bearing witness to, or experiencing, anti–lesbian and gay prejudice in countless forms”:
They are the product of a lifetime of learning in the hegemonic ideology of heterosexism. In practice, heterosexist ideology is instilled through numerous mechanisms. Family members initiate children into heterosexist ideology almost from birth, teaching acceptable gendered conduct as well as uneasiness with cross-gendered behaviors. This education is reinforced and expanded by religious institutions, peer groups, and the media . . . By the time children have reached first grade, they have already compiled a significant amount of data about what it means to be gay in a heterosexist society, even though much of what they have learned may well be incorrect, born of fear and prejudice rather than factual information. Schools are in a unique position to correct much of this misinformation at an early age before it ripens into anti–lesbian and gay prejudice and violence.
So, the public schools are to be enlisted to counteract this “fear and prejudice” of “heterosexist ideology”? What kind of lunatic gibberish is this, and who wrote it? This is from Rethinking Sexual Identity in Education, a 2004 book by Susan Birden, and it was originally her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education. Birden expressed her gratitude to her mentor:
While all my committee members have been engaged and helpful, I owe a life-long debt to my committee chair, Susan Laird, for she has been not only an advisor, but also a mentor of the highest caliber. A brilliant scholar, her expertise in guiding me through this entire doctoral process has been a testament to her great skill as an educator. From her comments on my first seminar entry, written some seven years ago, to her comments on the final draft of my dissertation, she has guided me through a maze of philosophic thought, nurturing my interests, pressing me to think more broadly, challenging me to think more specifically. Through it all she has demonstrated profound patience with my leaming, a committed focus and respect for my interests, accomplishing it all with the good humor of a “liver” of life. Susan Laird is both a fierce warrior and a kind soul.
Go read Birden’s dissertation, and you will find it is crammed full of quotes and citations from an all-star lineup of lesbian feminists — Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Charlotte Bunch, and on and on. Which brings us back to the question of exactly what the hell is going on in the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education, where Professor Susan Laird supervised this dissertation.
In addition to her position in the College of Education, Professor Laird has been a member of the faculty of the department of Women’s and Gender Studies since 1995. And her 2002 journal article, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” is worth careful study. This eight-page article has 33 footnotes and cites numerous lesbian feminists, including Audre Lorde, Janice Raymond, Judith Butler and Marilyn Frye, the latter an author whose works I’ve quoted as examples of the anti-male/anti-heterosexual themes that have become commonplace in academic feminism.
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.” –- Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
“Men have been creating ideologies and political practices which naturalize female heterosexuality continuously in every culture since the dawns of the patriarchies. . . . Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction . . . Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices.” – Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 (1992)
Professor Laird cited Frye (although not these passages) in her 2002 Philosophy of Education article about “befriending girls,” an article which begins by relating the plot of a novel in which the young female protagonist “responds . . . with shock upon discovering this teacher who so generously befriended her is lesbian, but feels a new compassion that challenges [her] to unlearn her own heterosexism.” Did I mention that Professor Laird teaches in the College of Education, and that the title of that article is “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice”?
Yeah, Oklahoma, OK.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
See What I Mean?
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets,
and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy.
You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The truth is that Michael Sam seems more interested in being professionally gay
than being a pro-football player; so Tony Dungy’s right to say he’ll be a circus.
In fact, the reaction to Dungy’s innocuous comments prove it. People said the same sort of thing about Tim Tebow a zillion times and guess what? Tebow is out of the league even though Tebow’s popularity, position, and talent level made him much more of an asset to a team than Sam. Yet, you have liberals going nuts because Tony Dungy said what 31 teams in the league probably think of Michael Sam.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
They grab and grub. They never leave. They never go home.
We live in a time when politicians relentlessly enrich themselves.
We are awed and horrified by the wealth they accumulate, by their use of connections, of money lines built on past and future power. It’s an operation to them. They are worth hundreds of millions. They have houses so fancy the houses have names. They make speeches to banks and universities for a quarter-million dollars and call their fees contributions to their foundations. They are their foundations. They grab and grub. They never leave. They never go home. They don’t have a “home”: They were born in a place, found a launching pad, and shot themselves into glamour and wealth. They are operators—entitled, assuming. They “stand for the people.” They stand for themselves.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
The nation thundered no. And Congress sustained the nation.
Indeed, with the massive media coverage of the crisis on the border, immigration, legal and illegal, and what it portends for our future, could become the decisive issue of 2014 and 2016.
But it needs to be put in a larger context. For this issue is about more than whether the Chamber of Commerce gets amnesty for its members who have been exploiting cheap illegal labor.
The real issue: Will America remain one nation, or are we are on the road to Balkanization and the breakup of America into ethnic enclaves? For, as Ronald Reagan said, a nation that cannot control its borders isn’t really a nation anymore.
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote,
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … “
He called Americans a “band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties.” The republic of the founders for whom Jay spoke did not give a fig for diversity. They cherished our unity, commonality, and sameness of ancestry, culture, faith and traditions.
We were not a nation of immigrants in 1789.
They came later…
Read it all at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-destroying-america
HIV Explodes Among Homosexuals as Ideologically Deranged Authorities Continue to Make Situation Worse
The relentless promotion of homosexuality by the liberal establishment is having its predictable effect:
“We are seeing exploding epidemics,” warned Gottfried Hirnschall, who heads [the World Health Organization's] HIV department.
Infection rates are rising again among men who have sex with men — the group at the epicentre of AIDS pandemic when it first emerged 33 years ago, he told reporters in Geneva. …
In its new recommendations for combatting the HIV/AIDS pandemic, published Friday, the UN health agency therefore for the first time “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection”.
US authorities made the same recommendation in May.
This is equivalent to advising people to take Advil before smashing their fingers with a hammer. More constructive advice would be along the lines of: If you do not want to contract the horrific, lethal diseases associated with homosexual depravity, then don’t engage in it. But that message would run contrary to The Agenda.
Taking pre-exposure prophylaxis medication, for instance as a single daily pill combining two antiretrovirals, in addition to using condoms, has been estimated to cut HIV incidence among such men by 20-25 percent, WHO said…
Morality would cut it by about 100%.
The progressive establishment aggressively aggravates the problem by working to normalize behaviors that spread HIV, on the grounds that this allows greater access to healthcare, thereby facilitating the treatment of diseases that degenerates voluntarily bring upon themselves through homosexuality, intravenous drug use, prostitution, et cetera.
Globally, transgender women [i.e., men pretending to be women] and injecting drug users, for instance, are around 50 times more likely than the general population to contract HIV, while sex workers have a 14-fold higher chance of getting infected, WHO said.
So you can see why we should normalize their lifestyles by decriminalizing and destigmatizing their vices, as WHO demands.
HIV and the AIDS it causes aren’t the only problems closely associated with homosexuality:
Researcher Dale O’Leary, reporting in the prestigious Linacre Quarterly, says the problem of sexually transmitted diseases in the gay community is such that scientists are calling it not an epidemic or a pandemic but a “syndemic,” a linked set of health issues involving two or more afflictions acting in concert within a specific population. According to the medical literature, among men who have sex with men this includes syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV but also such pathologies as partner violence, drug abuse, and psychological disorders.
You could almost get the impression that the Bible has it right about homosexuality being inherently wrong.
It’s a good thing that despite all the promotion and special treatment associated with politically celebrated homosexual status, admitted homosexual/bisexuals still make up less than 3% of the US population, according to the very government that places top priority on imposing reverence for their potentially lethal brand of perversion.
On tips from Artfldgr, Jester, Bodhisattva, Ben S, and Henry.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Obama and This Folksy, Aw Shucks, Bullshit Persona. Does He think That is Endearing? It is Total Detachment from Reality.
When the world starts spinning out of control is no time to find yourself without a president. Please don’t ask me to regard this disconnected, irresponsible clown as a president:
As reports flood in about the recent attack on a Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down over Ukraine, Americans look for answers and await information concerning the murder of 295 people on board, including 23 Americans.
Meanwhile, President Obama has carefully dodged the topic in order to campaign for increased infrastructure spending in Delaware.
It looks like pro-Russian forces in the Ukraine shot down the plane. They ultimately answer to Putin. Although it seems highly unlikely that Putin ordered the attack,
With 23 Americans having been on board, it seems clear that the United States will have a vested interest in learning who was responsible for the unprovoked attack. A similar situation occurred in 1915 when the RMS Lusitania was sunk by either a German U-Boat or a mine. On board the British ship were 159 Americans of which 124 died.
That led directly to US involvement in World War I, the most massive military conflict in human history at that time.
Meanwhile, inside the bubble,
While the world tuned-in to learn about the attack on MH17 in the aftermath of the attack, President Obama casually dined at The Charcoal Pit in Wilmington, Delaware, ordering a cheeseburger and fist-bumping patrons in a jovial fashion.
Soon after, Obama spoke to a crowd at Wilmington about the attack for a total of 38 seconds before switching to an upbeat tempo and campaigning. …
After glossing-over the tragedy that reportedly took the lives of 23 Americans, Obama shifted his tempo to “hoot-and-holler” mode and began with his all-too-typical, faux-folksy charm by telling the crowd, “It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden!”
By the way, the Middle East just exploded, with Israel launching a ground invasion of Gaza in response to relentless rocket attacks on civilian populations. Not that this is anything that should interrupt Obama’s fundraising.
On a tip from Wiggins.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
In our modern age, things no longer exist to perform their function. Washing machines aren’t designed to clean clothes, but to save water and energy. Food isn’t there to be eaten, but not eaten. And armies aren’t there to win wars, but to be moral. And the truly moral army never fights a war. When it must fight a war, then it fights it as proportionately as possible, slowing down when it’s winning so that the enemy has a chance to catch up and inflict a completely proportional number of casualties on them.
Forget charging up a hill. Armies charge up the slippery slope of the moral high ground and they don’t try to capture it from the enemy, because that would be the surest way to lose the moral high ground, instead they claim the moral high ground by refusing to try and capture it, to establish their moral claim to the moral high ground, which they can’t have because they refuse to fight for it.
Israel has been engaged in a long drawn out struggle for the moral high ground. The moral high ground is to the modern Israeli what the land of Israel was to their pioneer ancestors who drained swamps, built roads and shot bandits. Then some of the bandits were discovered to be the oppressed peoples of the region, fresh from Syria or Jordan, who then got busy retroactively protesting the settlements built on that stretch of swamp that had been set aside in their revisionist history as belonging to their great-grandparents while dangling oversized house keys to the swamp.
Sadly the only way to win the moral high ground is by losing. Just look at the massive Arab armies who repeatedly invaded Israel, did their best to overwhelm it with the best Soviet iron that the frozen factories of the Ural could turn out, and lost the bid to drive the Jews into the sea, but won the moral high ground. Then their terrorist catspaws spent decades winning the moral high ground by hijacking airplanes full of civilians, murdering Olympic athletes and pushing old men in wheelchairs from the decks of cruise ships.
All these killing sprees accomplished absolutely nothing useful, aside from the killing of Jews, which to a certain sort of mind is a useful thing in and of itself, but that failure won the terrorist catspaws the moral high ground. Their failure to win a war by hijacking buses full of women and taking the children of a school hostage conclusively established their moral superiority and nobility of spirit.
The world was deeply moved when Arafat waddled up to the UN podium, with his gun, wearing a mismatched cotton rag on his head that would decades hence become the modish apparel of every third hipster standing in line with a can of 20 dollar fair trade Lima beans at Whole Foods, because his commitment to killing people in a failed cause that even he didn’t believe in, in exchange for money from his backers in the Muslim world showed his deep commitment to the moral high ground.
In the seventies, after Israel had won a few too many wars, Henry “Woodcutter” Kissinger, suggested that it lose a war to gain the sympathy of the world. Golda wasn’t too enthusiastic about the idea, but with the old woodcutter in charge of handing out the axes, there wasn’t much choice about it. Israel came close to being destroyed in ’73, but just when it might have won the sympathy of the world, its armies of young men dashing from synagogues into overcrowded taxis to get to the front lines, turned the tide. Israel won. The woodcutter of Washington lost and Israeli scrapyards filled up with piles of Soviet steel, which was good news for the big sweaty guys who ran them, but bad news for those pining for the lofty fjords of the moral high ground.
In ’91 the Israelis went nuclear and decided to beat Arafat at his own game. Rabin and Peres talked the old terrorist out of retirement and down to Washington D.C. where they surrendered to him in an official ceremony at the Rose Garden overseen by a beaming Bill Clinton. Finally Israel had won the moral high ground. And the United States had carved off a chunk of that delicious moral high ground, even though Clinton was forced to fidget in his chair at Oslo when his Nobel Peace Prize went to the greasy terrorist, though perhaps he should have considered that defeat to be another victory of the moral high ground.
But the moral high ground proved notoriously elusive for the Jewish State. There was a brief lull when it seemed that the original sin of kicking ass had been atoned for in the Rose Garden, but then the terrorists started killing Israelis again and the Israelis insisted on fighting back. In no time at all the moral high ground was roped off with a special reserved section for terrorists and a sign reading, “No Israelis Will Be Admitted Unless They Renounce Their Government, Zionism and the Right of Self-Defense.”
Peace was the last best hope of the new Israeli Hatikvah, not to be a free people in their own land, but to be a moral people in a land that didn’t really belong to anyone in particular, but that they were optimistic everyone could live in harmony in.
But peace with terrorists meant not fighting back and there was a limit to what the 70 percent of the country that didn’t go to sleep fantasizing about peace would accept in the name of peace.
And so, terrorists killed Israelis, Israelis killed terrorists, that part of the world located in an ugly modernist building overlooking Turtle Bay, which the turtles would like to have back, condemned Israel and demanded that it resolve things peacefully by surrendering more land to the terrorists in order to build up their confidence in Israel’s commitment to a peaceful solution.
The terrorists were not expected to reciprocate and build up Israel’s confidence in their commitment to a peaceful solution because they already had the moral high ground by way of losing the last thirty engagements with the IDF, including the battle of the school they set up snipers in, the church they took over and the hospital that they used as an ammo dump.
The great quandary for Israeli leaders is how to win a war without losing the moral high ground. This is a tricky matter because it requires winning the war and winning the peace. And you can’t do both at the same time.
Israel’s solution has been to fight limited wars while remaining absolutely committed to peace. No sooner does a war begin, then it is pressed to accept a ceasefire. To show its commitment to peace, Israel is expected to accept the ceasefire. At which point Hamas will begin shooting rockets again and the whole dance will begin all over again. But Israel has trouble refusing a ceasefire because its leaders still believe that they can get at the moral high ground by showing that they are more committed to peace than the other side.
The peace is however unwinnable. It’s not even survivable in the long term. Peace either exists as a given condition or it is maintained by strong armies and ready deterrence. Peace cannot be found on the moral high ground, only the mountains of the graves of the dead.
Seeking the moral high ground is a fool’s quest. Wars cannot be fought without hurting someone and trumpeting your morality makes it all too easy for your enemies to charge you with hypocrisy. The man who spends the most time vociferously protesting that he isn’t a thief, that he has never touched a penny that belonged to anyone else and that he will swear on a floor-to-ceilling stack of bibles to that effect, looks far guiltier than the man who scowls and tells his accusers to mind their own business. The more Israel defends its own morality, the more it winds the chains of the accusers around its own neck.
Refining its warfighting with the object of fighting a truly moral war leads to refined techniques that kill terrorists but still cause some collateral damage, and to soldiers that are more afraid of shooting than of being shot at. And all this painstaking effort goes for naught since it really makes very little difference to Israel’s enemies whether they have one photo of a dead Muslim civilian to brandish or a thousand. Either one makes for the same manner of indictment. In aiming to win the peace, Israel instead, like all modern states, loses the war.
The father of an Israeli soldier told his son after he was called up for duty that he would rather visit him in prison than visit him in the cemetery. “If you are fired on, fire back.” That is good advice not just for that young man, but for his entire country, and for the civilized world. It is better to fire than be fired upon. It is better to be thought a criminal, than mourned in Holocaust museums. It is better to leave the moral high ground to those who worship the romance of endless bloodshed and defeat. It is better to lose the peace and win the war.