Author Archives: M. Noonan

About M. Noonan

M. Noonan is a person

The Crisis is Worse Than Imagined

Because most of us don’t really understand how far the rot has gone.

Take, for instance, ISIS – recent polling shows that the American people are a bit out in front of the President on fighting those savages.  By and large, Americans are willing to have “boots on the ground” if it means we’re killing the sort of people who behead Americans and sell women into slavery and that is a good, healthy attitude.  It shows that even as late as 2014 after a century of moral degradation, it is possible to get in the range of 47% of the American people wanting to do the right thing. But here’s the kicker – if we were at all in healthy shape, it’d be 90%.  If fighting ISIS doesn’t command respect from everyone except avowed pacifists, then what would?

But, actually, it is worse than that.  Even among those who are ok with the concept of fighting are not, in my view, fully prepared to understand what it means.  It means quite a large number of American soldiers (a million?) there for a very long time (10 years?) completely re-working the entire Middle East (meaning, re-carving it up along genuine ethnic-religious lines so that everyone gets their own sand box with no minorities around for anyone to oppress) and that implies massive population transfers – but before we get to that we’re talking quite a lot of killing of the enemy until the very idea of violent jihad is viewed with horror by everyone in the area.  I don’t think that even those who wish to fight have the moral courage to really carry it out.  Of course, we could bombs away and just massacre people there…but its a certainty that if we went for massive bombing the overwhelming majority of those killed won’t be those needing killing and such action will just provide fuel for those who are causing the trouble.

But what are we to expect?  We’ve got a nation where our ostensible feminists are demanding that college boys get arrested for failure to obtain written permission for sex, while ignoring the massive problem of sexual slavery elsewhere in the world. We’ve got gay rights activists joining anti-Israel groups indifferent to the fact that the only place a gay man is safe in the Middle East is Israel. We’ve got war hawks who propose to use mercenary Islamist “boots on the ground” rather than being willing to call up the required number of American troops. Basically, everyone has gone yellow – and that stems from the lack of any genuine moral foundation for our lives. You’re only as brave, in the end, as the thing you are willing to die for. The Jihadists, say what you will, are prepared to die for what they believe.  Are we?

Yesterday I took it upon myself to be the cold water on Twitter regarding the Hong Kong protests. My view: yeah, it’ll go on for a bit, everyone will be #IStandWithHongKong and then the Chinese government will crack down, and we’ll move on to something else. In the end, too many people make too much money off China for our Ruling Class to really stand up to the Chinese oligarchs. None of us are going to be willing to fight the Chinese government – one could get killed doing that, after all.

While I have a great deal of contempt for those westerners who joined the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War (in the end, the niwits were fighting to impose a Stalinist dictatorship in Spain), I still have a great deal of admiration for their sublime courage.  Coming from safe, prosperous lives in the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere, they gave up their blood for a cause they believed in. Anyone going to raise an International Brigade to help the people of Hong Kong? Go get our girls back in Nigeria? Assist the Kurds?  Yeah, I didn’t think so.  And why won’t we? Because we don’t believe in anything enough to really fight for it. Oh, we’ll send our troops in – and they’ll spill their blood a bit and we will, with genuine sincerity, thank them and remember them.  But what about you and me, dear reader? What will we actually do?

Not much. Wring our hands. Make a statement. We won’t show real courage, because we don’t really believe in anything. We have neither the kind of courage which had the Crusaders storm Jerusalem, nor the kind which sent St. Francis with a comrade to try and end the Crusades by converting the Muslims. Godfrey of Bouillon and St. Francis had guts – raw courage; the sort of nerve which understands that courage is an intense desire to live carried out with a supreme indifference to death. We just want to live. With our I-Crap. And our scandal-mongering.

If anyone out there has the courage of Godfrey or St. Francis, then it is time to stand forth. We are doomed if we don’t change – if we don’t become a people with a firm moral basis and a willingness to lose everything we have in defense of core principals (that would be “dogmas” for old-fashioned sorts of people). If we don’t become such people, then we will eventually be conquered by people like that.

UPDATE: Yes, I do sound like a nattering nabob of negativism – and I know there are plenty of people, good and true, who wish to do the right thing. But I am worried about whether or not we, on the whole, can muster the courage to do what is right. And for you liberals out there, keep in mind that it covers you, as well. I used the examples of Godfrey and St. Francis on purpose…the former went to drive a sword in as far as it would go; the latter went to convert by love and example. Both took courage – both took an absolute belief in certain, fixed moral principals. We have got to be willing to say to the world, “here is what we absolutely believe in, all of us: and we will brook no opposition from anyone beyond this point”.

So, Will 2014 Be a GOP Wave, or Not?

Here you’ve got analysis that the GOP only picks up a few seats and that works out to a win for Nancy Pelosi. Here you’ve got other analysis which indicates the GOP might get its largest majority since the 1928 election. So, which is it?

Beats all heck out of me. Real Clear Politics currently has the GOP with 47 Senate seats in the bag, the Democrats with 44 and 9 toss-ups, with the likely outcome as of today being 52 GOPers and 48 Democrats (that includes us losing Kansas, by the way – which I don’t think we will, in the end). But another way to read it is that the GOP could end up with as many as 56 Senate seats – an 11 seat gain. That would, indeed, be a wave.

While there is trouble for the GOP on the gubernatorial front (we’re definitely going to lose Pennsylvania and we’ll probably lose Kansas), there is also Democrat governor Hickenlooper’s likely defeat to counter that – and Hickenlooper was supposed to be the perfect person to transition a purple State to blue…now he’s probably going to lose, and maybe take down Democrat Senator Udall with him…all because he’s liberal.  Not fanatically liberal, but just liberal…and that is being rejected in Colorado, to all appearances (and this can’t make Team Hillary comfortable about 2016 – she’s a female Hickenlooper).

I really don’t know where this is heading. But there are some ingredients for a blow out – of course, we must remember the GOP’s penchant for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory (and talk of Jeb or Romney running in 2016 is the GOP Establishment’s way of saying “we’d rather have Hillary than Walker”).

Global Warming Hoax Update

From Don Surber:

After 35 years of telling us carbon dioxide is melting ice in Antarctica, New Scientist is now saying carbon dioxide has caused the ice to grow for 35 years.

What they said before:

From January 2, 2001: “Ice in the heart of Antarctica is retreating and causing sea level rise, scientists have shown for the first time.

From June 23, 2007: “Rising sea levels could divide and conquer Antarctic ice.

From March 25, 2008: “Antarctic ice shelf ‘hanging by a thread’.

From January 21, 2009: “Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change.”

From March 10, 2009: “Sea level rise could bust IPCC estimate: Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast and could end up taking sea levels to nearly twice predicted levels by 2100.

From July 31, 2011: “Antarctica rising as ice caps melt.

Got that?

Year-in and year-out, the editors at the New Scientist have warned us that the ice in Antarctica is melting fast…

So, what is New Scientist saying now? That the Antarctic ice cap is larger than ever, and that global warming is the cause.

Face it, we can’t actually win this debate – if glaciers start to cover half of North America, the global warming alarmists will be out there saying it is because of global warming. It doesn’t matter what the facts are because global warming is replacing religion in the lives of people on the left…they have to believe in something, and they’ve decided to believe that (a) humanity (mostly Republicans, it goes without saying) are destroying the planet and (b) only they – the liberals – can save it. You can’t beat someone’s religious beliefs; you can’t argue them out of it. All we can do is hope to win elsewhere enough political power to prevent these numbskulls from wrecking things in the name of saving the planet.

Life in Liberal-Fascist America

Here’s the story - you’ll recall that Governor Walker was the target of a completely bogus, politically-motivated hatchet job by an out-of-control Democrat prosecutor. Recently, details of the political motivation for the case were revealed – and what did our MSM do? Ruthlessly track down the source of the revelation, and then smear him.

Do read the linked article – it tells you all you need to know about the real power structure of the United States. It is more nakedly exposed in Wisconsin than elsewhere because in Wisconsin it is more directly under threat…and the liberals believe (correctly) that if they can’t squash Walker, then what Walker has done will spread, thus undermining the whole basis of liberal power (which is, ultimately, that liberals are subsidized by government – and if you take away the government subsidy, then liberals will whither away and die as a political force).

Remember what happened in this particular case – the truth about an out-of-control prosecutor was revealed and the MSM went out not to investigate the prosecutor, but to smear the man who told the truth. If you think that the MSM has any sense of honor or decency, think again – if liberalism is threatened, the MSM becomes the merest arm of political liberalism. And this brings us to the most important lesson: the liberals are at war with us. They want us destroyed. They will not play fair. They will not obey the rules. They will not tell the truth. Unless and until we internalize the message that it is all or nothing, we can’t do what is necessary to win. There can’t be bipartisanship. There can’t be working across the aisle. There can only be unrelenting conflict all up and down the line.

Scotland: Secession is the Answer

Tomorrow (or, maybe, today? Its kinda late as I write this on Wednesday in the USA), the Scots will vote on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom. Lots of worrying articles have been written about the horror of horrors which will happen if the Scots for “yes” on secession, but I can’t think of a more splendid thing for the Scots to do.  Keep in mind that those most opposed are part of the United Kingdom’s Ruling Class – it would reduce their power if Scotland and England weren’t together.

As readers here know, I’ve long advocated secession as the answer for many ills in the United States – not in the sense of States leaving the Union, but in the sense of States leaving the States.  Setting up 60-65 States in place of the 50 States we have today, many of which are just too large or two different in their constituent parts to make a rational whole. But, still, everyone stays in the good, old US of A: so, why am I ok with the Scots bailing on the United Kingdom?  Because it is probably the only way to eventually get to a Europe which is basically united.  The United States is, so far, essentially united – we have a general sense in our broad majority what it means to be American and what America is supposed to be about…we just have a problem in taming the Big Government beast we’ve allowed to grow up among us. Breaking up the States and other reforms will restore the situation.  Europe doesn’t have that – it has a lot of States which already dictate minutely the lives of the people and in the European Union you just get one more layer of micro-managing bureaucrats thrown into the mix to ensure that there are no local differences, at all.

A lot of places in Europe which are part of larger nations today really don’t have much business being part of their nations. Northern and southern Italy, for instance, are very different and were cobbled together in the 19th century by a set of ambitious adventurers who really didn’t ask so much as a “by your leave” of the Italian people if they wanted to be united in a nation called “Italy” (yeah, they cooked up some plebiscites which allegedly gave the will of the people – but when the army of the group wanting you “in” is already there, kind of a foregone conclusion how the vote will go…). The end result of this is two very different places being artificially fused together – and for south Italy to live a relatively impoverished and parasitic life attached to the wealthy and dynamic north. Same thing goes in Spain where the Catalans are starting to revive their age-old dream of independence – and if you can find me a reason that Bavaria is in the same Germany as Pomerania, then I’m all ears.  Other than ethnic affinity, there is no reason for Scotland to be in Britain, Naples and Milan to be in Italy, Bavaria to be in Germany or Catalonia to be in Spain. To be sure, all of these places are (or, at least were until recently) European (which means, further, Christian), but that is really where the unity ends. For the rest of it, these are different places with different people and different ideas of what is needed – they can be in one nation, but only if there is a limited central government and maximum power at the local level.

The Scots leaving the United Kingdom is, then, to me a healthy development. To be sure, the Scottish nationalist leadership seems to be largely made up of socialist pinheads who are apparently promising more welfare without anyone having to work harder. That illusion will quickly be dashed after independence, if won – but it was just as swiftly dashed in Slovakia when it broke off from the Czech Republic and now once-socialist Slovakia is one of the more dynamic nations of Europe; they no longer could live off the richer part of the nation; they no longer could blame others for their own troubles; they could only look to themselves.  And that is pretty much what they did – and that is what all of the peoples of Europe, once freed from the dead hand of the results of 19th century nationalism and 20th century multiculturalism, will do as well.

Don’t get me wrong, patriotism is a grand thing – but the welding together of things like “Germany” and “Italy” in the 19th century (and “Great Britain” in the 18th) weren’t acts of patriots – they were the acts of ambitious people, some of whom were scoundrels, who didn’t care about the people involved but only about the expansion of their own power (prime examples of this were Bismarck in Germany and Cavour in Italy). It’d be better, in the long run, if the genuine constituent parts of Europe separated and then found a mechanism of unity – some modern revival of the ideal behind the Holy Roman Empire. Some form of government which will keep the peace between the parts and defend the whole against outside enemies: but which will leave the parts pretty much alone to do as they wish (the European Union is the negation of this ideal – it is senseless and remote bureaucrats trying to micro-manage every aspect of European life and no locality having the power to opt out).

The Scots may take the first step – or they may decide that cutting lose from London and the money therein is too risky. We’ll see.  But I think that the concept is growing in the public mind both in Europe and the United States that remote, central governments simply cannot answer for the needs of the people and that while a central government is necessary for a few, limited functions, most power had better be in the hands of the people and their local governments.

What Media Bias? Part 198

There is a Media Research Center study which shows that from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 the MSM reported on Bush’s crumbling poll numbers 124 times.  Fast forward and between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2014 the MSM has reported on Obama’s equally crumbling poll numbers a total of nine times.

This is what media bias is all about: its not so much the outright lies (though they are a problem – and an increasing problem), but the way that the same sort of story will be reported quite differently depending on whether it involves a Republican or a Democrat.  Take, for instance, when a politician is arrested – you can just about bet your life savings on it that if a Republican politician is arrested, his party affiliation will be front and center. Meanwhile, if a Democrat is cuffed, you’d have to read to the last paragraph where it is revealed that the offender may have had some slight connection to the Democrat party.

This is common across all elements of the MSM – doesn’t matter what organization, they all report things pretty much the same way. There is, however, no cure for this – the hard left people who make up the MSM simply will not change.  The only thing we can do, as conservatives, is to create a duplicate MSM to compete.  Fox News has shown the way, but we need a genuinely conservative news network; we need newspapers and magazines and all that MSM infrastructure which drives the narrative. And we need to start ignoring what the MSM is saying because it is all presented in a manner to help the Democrats and harm Republicans.

Obama’s Non-War

The usual course of action is that when the guns go off, we citizens are to rally ’round the flag and back our forces in the pursuit of victory. But that is a bit impossible right now – Obama and his Administration are telling us, over and over, that this isn’t a war. That we’ll be bombing the heck out of things and that lots of people will die horrific, violent deaths at our hands doesn’t count: per Obama and Co, war is only in existence is U.S. troops are on the ground doing the fighting.

So, no war – and thus no rallying ’round the flag. And even if we decided – correctly – that Obama and Co are just full of “stuff” and that this is a war so we’d better rally anyways, what would we be rallying for? Not for victory, because there can be no victory in this non-war. Its not like the enemy commander can offer to surrender to a drone. We’ll bomb a lot and kill a lot of people and this will help those who are fighting the people we’re bombing – and that, in turn, might lead others to victory. A Kurdish victory would be ok, as the Kurds seem a lot of very decent people – but it could also lead to Assad’s victory in Syria and Iran’s victory in Iraq; not exactly ideal outcomes for us. It could also lead to victory for non-ISIS, non-Assad forces in Syria, this might not work out well, either. Let’s just say I have my doubts about Administration assurances that they can pick the non-Islamist-screwball forces in Syria for us to back.

We can also get the worst of all worlds – we blow a lot of stuff up and kill a lot of people with attendant video showing what a bunch of hideous war criminals we are but after all that, Assad still rules his part of Syria, ISIS still rules vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and Iran has secured itself the part of Iraq it cares about (ie, Baghdad plus the oil fields). That sort of outcome is made doubly bad because if ISIS survives in any form, it will become the Islamist hero as it stood up to us, endured a pounding and emerged from the welter of slaughter with victory. Of course, all of this won’t fully come out until after Obama leaves office, so he probably doesn’t care in the least about it, even if he’s aware of the possibility.

This whole thing is the terribly bad decision of a man – Obama – who knows nothing of history, nothing of the world and yet sits assured that he’s the smartest guy in the room. I hope it works out – and I hope our losses are small. But the rule of thumb for war is that you either go all in, or stay all out. Our choices for ISIS were two:

1.  Go all out to war against them until they are all killed or taken, regardless of cost.

2.  Surrender to them and allow them to do as the wish.

Either course of action can have rational arguments to back them up. We have failed to choose between them – we’re just going to bomb a bit and hope for the best. I believe we will be disappointed – and maybe in a vastly worse geo-strategic situation two or three years from now.

UPDATE: Reeling from criticism about us not being at war, the Administration has decided we are at war with ISIS, just as we are against al-Qaeda. Meaning? I guess that six years from now ISIS will be around and a threat, just as al-Qaeda is still around and a threat after six years of Obama…