The Pretty Face of Anti-Semitism Today

On Candace Owens and Contemporary Anti-Semitism

I am not sure what happened to Candace.  But since October 7th, she has been slowly losing her mind.  She likes to talk about her Christianity.  But for the life of me, I do not understand how you can be a true Christian and not fully support Israel.  What does she think will happen to Israel, and yes, to the holy land it occupies, without Christian support?  She's smart; she knows.  Watching her today, and I do, is like watching Howard Beale.

First, why watch Candace Owens at all?  To my knowledge, she is the only person on the planet investigating Kamala Harris' background.  That is, Kamala's family history and genealogy.  Owens' contention is that while the Harris family comes from Jamaica, there is not one drop of African blood in her.  So why the pretense?  Why does Kamala Harris sell herself as the first African American vice president?  Going so far as to insert fake black ancestors into her family tree.  Since she is clearly a person of color, why is this necessary?  What is she hiding?  Owens suggests that instead of being African American, Harris comes from a family of high-caste Indian slave traders.

Yeah, one might want to hide that.

Now, as for Owens (and many others) holding Israel responsible for the deaths of innocent, non-combatants in Gaza:  Given the cowardly manner that Hamas and Hezbollah engage in fighting, using women, children, hospitals, schools, mosques, etc. as shields, of course you will see a high rate of collateral death.  But if you then turn around and hold Israel responsible for that death, as Owens does, there can only be one reason for your logic.  You are a raging anti-semite.

To argue that Israel can simply stop the war is to allow an untold number of combatants, proven killers, to live to kill Israelis another day.  And not just Israelis, but additional Palestinian women and children.  I mean does anyone really believe that the combatants will change their tactics, put on uniforms, and fight honorably?  Everyone who argues this position certainly knows the future result.  They just don't care.  What they want is for the Israelis to simply not fight back.  Or if possible, to be prevented from fighting back.  No, Palestinian fighters need to be exterminated like the burrowing cockroaches they are.

Finally, the argument that Israel is simply creating the next generation of young Palestinians who will hate them all the more.  Well it is those same innocent non-combatants who teach their children to hate Jews.  These people are manufacturing the gleeful killers that we saw on October 7th.  And it should be added, they elected Hamas and then helped them hide the Israeli hostages.  They may be innocent of murder, but that does not make them innocent.

You cannot and should not kill innocents.  Short of stopping the war, Israel does everything it can to limit the deaths of non-combatants.  But long term, they will have to find a way to contain the hate.  If for no other reason, so that Candace Owens can safely pilgrimage to her own Christian holy land.

𓐵

Individual Accountability Warfare, Part Two

How to deal with a dangerous world

Back in May, I wrote about Individual Accountability Warfare.  This is what it looks like.  And the results.  Here's my question:  Would ANY Democrat act this way?  Name one, just one.  But is this story about Trump true?  I certainly hope so.

THIS is how President Trump handled terrorists. It’s why in his last 18 months we didn’t lose a single American soldier in Afghanistan.

President Trump kept America safe because he made our enemies FEAR us.

FULL Interview LINK in BIO. pic.twitter.com/WM5C7MPjZh

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) July 3, 2024

𓐵

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Now, why these questions?  Because without American assistance the state of Israel, which is surrounded by its enemies, would cease to exist.  The surrounding Arab states are too rich, too powerful, and too fanatical for Israel to survive without American support.  We are about two trillion petrodollars away from the Six-Day War.

When people argue that we should not help Israel, what they are really saying is that the state of Israel should not exist.  They may truly believe this, and it may in fact be a legitimate political, anti-Zionist argument (we will come back to this below).  But let's be honest about this existential question.

I think when you put it in the form of these three questions, to ask the questions, is the answer them.  Nevertheless, let's take them in turn:

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

What is the alternative?  The resulting Palestinian state would resemble every other Middle Eastern state.  That is, it would be either ruled by a strongman, like its next door neighbors Jordan and Syria, it would be a theocracy like Iran, or it would be a combination of these two, like Saudi Arabia.  Those are the only possible results.  So we can kiss a western-style democracy goodbye.  Meaning there will be no western-style democracy in the region.

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

The state of Israel protects the holy places of Christianity.  And welcomes tourists and pilgrims of all religions.  Without Israel, these places will simply be destroyed.  And how much Christianity would an Islamic Palestinian state allow?  How many Christian churches would they tolerate?  Tell me again how many churches you can find in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Again, what is the alternative?  Another Arab/Islamic country.  This question is really a summation of the first two.  You must decide:  Is the world a better place with or without Israel?

Now this is not simply a left-of-center dilemma.  There is a branch of the right that believes that Israel's problems are, and should remain, solely Israel's problems.  But they should all ask themselves the above three questions.  When they say, I don't believe in sending American money to other countries, any other countries, when we have so many problems here at home, that's fine.  I actually agree with this sentiment, with the one exception of Israel.  Why?  Again, ask these questions.  There's your answer.

Also, ask these questions regarding any other country, say Ukraine.  I think you will find completely different answers.  No, we do not have to treat Ukraine the same way we treat Israel.  The idea is preposterous.  

Now let's come back to the question of whether or not the state of Israel should exist?  Is this a legitimate political question?  Or is it anti-semitic?  Well, if you honestly believe that the state of Israel should not exist, I think you have a duty to explain what happens to all the Jews currently living there?  If you say:  They should go back to Poland; or, they should live under an Islamic regime; these are not serious answers.  And believe me, many Muslims have much more uninviting ideas.

Don't look to me for an answer to this question; I believe entirely that Israel has a right to exist.  This is a problem for those of you who say it does not have a right to exist.  So give us a reasonable answer to this question.

Or yes, you are simply just another garden-variety anti-semite.

Finally, what about those who say:  Yes absolutely, Israel has a right to exist...but that does not mean America should be supporting them with money and arms.  This is the Tucker Carlson position.  I completely agree with almost every other position he holds.  So I assume his heart is in the right place, and I absolutely give him the benefit of doubt on this.

But I do not see a difference in the result of this position and in the result of the they do not have a right to exist position.  Your motivations may be different, but we will end up with the same result.

𓐵

On Conscription

Concerning conscription, here is the only question that matters:

If a political leadership class cannot rally willing volunteers for their cause, should we allow them to conscript the unwilling?

Two follow-ups:

Is their cause a national cause?  Because so often, the answer is no.

Who should define a national cause, the political leadership or individual families with husbands and sons?  If the families agree with the politicians, they may volunteer.  If not, leave them alone, you murderous egomaniacs.

When I first discussed conscription, I used the US involvement in Vietnam as an example.  As I asked then, can anyone tell me the US national interest?  I don't think so.

I am talking to you, Lyndon Johnson.  And you, Vladimir Putin.  And you, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  These monsters want to force others to die for their respective causes.  And since hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men have fled the draft, Zelenskyy wants their current countries of residence to ship them back to his death machine.

Why?  For Zelenskyy's glory of course.

These men have made the decision that Ukraine is not worth fighting and dying for.  Who can say they are wrong?  Many young American men made a similar decision about Vietnam.  And with all due hindsight, they were absolutely correct to do so.  Who should have died for Lyndon Johnson's murderous pipe dream?

I don't think conscription would work today with American young men.  What, with their participation trophies and social media and video games.  But just as an exercise, can you imagine any cause where the American leadership class would be willing to draft young men to fight and die?  I think a good number of them, the leadership class, would be willing to draft young men to fight for Ukraine.  But if Lindsey Graham wants Americans to fight for Ukraine, give him a gun.

Thankfully, we have a willing and able, professional warrior class.  Let them do their thing.  Ripping some kid away from his video game is not going to help.

But this post is not so much about the unlikely idea of a twenty-first century American draft.  It is about the concept of conscription itself.  I have come to believe that it is never justified, and most often immoral.  I mean, can we consider confederate conscription moral?  How about Nazi Germany conscription?  If American families were unwilling to volunteer their children to fight the Nazis, then we should have stayed out of it.  For what it's worth, I do think Americans would have volunteered.  Enough anyway.  Just as we do today.

Here's another question:  How many Russians would volunteer to invade Ukraine?  I'm guessing it would be close to zero.

Point is, whose decision is this?  Should we allow corrupt politicians, with questionable motives, to make this decision?  Or should we retain this decision for individual families to make?

𓐵

Individual Accountability Warfare

Here's a question:  Why do we say that Russia attacked Ukraine?  Sure, it's true.  But what is more true is this:  Putin decided to attack Ukraine.  Because it surely was not the thousands of conscripts he sent to do the job or die trying.  Or their families.  No, one man started this war and one man could end it.  Why on God's earth are we killing a bunch of non-decision-makers for the decisions of one man?

Well because that is how war has always worked, right?  But let's think about it....

How many actual decision-makers were involved in German aggression during the Second World War?  Hitler and a few others.  How many Germans had to die for those decisions?

Did the Iranian people decide to fund Hamas and Hezbollah?  Or was it a small group of ayatollahs? 

What if we could have just killed Hitler early on in the war?  Not only would many lives have been saved, but the decision-maker would have been held accountable for his decisions.  Sooner, prior to countless deaths.

Could we possibly just kill Putin?  Maybe not.  But we sure as hell could kill the ayatollahs.  We know where they are and we have the capacity to kill them.  We should hold them accountable for their decisions.  Hamas leadership is reportedly living in Qatar.  No doubt the NSA knows exactly where.  Don't ask the Qataris; just send a team.

Here's a proposed new rule for twenty-first century warfare:  Whenever and wherever possible, instead of killing a bunch of twenty-year-old conscripts, hold the decision-makers solely and individually responsible, and kill them.  Tell everyone in advance that this is how you will respond to any attack.  No, we are not going to kill the children of your country, we are going to kill the decision-makers.  In fact, I would simply make this US policy moving forward.  No more skirmishes off the coast of an aggressor nation.  No, no, we will target the leader, and we will kill him.

Now, I can hear the naysayers already:  But without a trial, this is simply murder.  But here is my response to that:  How is killing conscripts any less wrong?

Today we have the technology for this.  Maybe not against Russia or China, but surely against a country like Iran or Venezuela or Cuba, or against any African tinpot dictator.  It is the difference between our technology and their technology that would make this new type of warfare possible.  Exploit this delta to save lives.

In this developing century, let's bring individual accountability to warfare.

𓐵

Crazy Times Demand Principled Choices

Compliance is always a choice

Yesterday we made a trip to the Philippine Bureau of Immigration in order to extend my visa.  While our local office is never particularly busy, naturally one does tend to run into other expats.  Yesterday this fellow walks in behind me and he looked American or European.  He was late twenties, early thirties.

So I asked him:  "Hey brother, where are you from?"

"Russia."  I did not expect that.

"Oh" I said, thinking that he was definitely conscription material, "well, I'm glad you're here."  He smiled and gave me a knowing look.  I think he must have instinctively known I was referring to Putin's war in Ukraine.

After a bit of chit-chat in perfect English, I learned that he was waiting on his Russian (not Filipino) wife to join him here.  How interesting is that?  Then he asked me:  "So why are you here?"

I thought about giving him my customary answer to this question:  "My wife is from here."  It's true, but essentially evasive.  Instead I said:  "Well, the US has gone crazy."

He did not miss a beat:  "Yes...Russia too."

We both nodded knowingly.

By this time I was done, and he was being called to the counter.  So I left wondering how many of his contemporaries are here?  And in other countries?

I wish them good luck and long life.

It is one thing to be patriotic, and fight for your country.  It is quite another to risk your life for the whims of a corrupt political class.  Clearly this applies to Russian conscripts in Ukraine; just as it once applied to US conscripts in Vietnam.  Some people, especially in the US, especially during the Vietnam War, viewed conscription as a no choice situation.  Or worse, a patriotic duty.

But looking back at the Vietnam War, can anyone explain the US interest?  Of course not.  It was not about patriotism, much less fighting for your country.  No, it was about a corrupt political class and their self-serving misconceptions.  Remember, these are the same people who let Cuba go, but decided a poor country on the other side of the world, was worth dead Americans.  No, no, Cuba may have been worth war, but certainly not Vietnam.

I think it is worth noting that even George Kennan, father of our containment strategy, thought involvement in Vietnam was a preoccupation and a mistake.  But Johnson and McNamara, and Nixon and Kissinger, did not care about poor dead midwestern farm boys anymore than Putin cares about young dead Russians.

Here's a rule for you:  If you give corrupt politicians the tool of conscription, they will use it to further their corruption.  Every time.  And they only get away with this with our sanction.  Just don't give it; always question everything.  And just like with the Covid vaccine, there is always a choice.  Unpleasant though it may be.

Compliance is always a choice.

𓐵