The War That is Politics

That is, of course, a slight reformation of Clausewitz: war is a continuation of politics by other means. But you can also just as well say that politics is war. I think that our problem has been – aside from sheer cowardice and greed – that we’ve seen politics as debate. That is, we feel that politics is an argument and that if we can just argue the right way, we’ll eventually win.

How did that work out?

Well, 60 years ago we were arguing that Social Security had to go. After six decades of refining our arguments, Social Security is untouchable we’re now arguing about what a woman is.

Not too good, huh?

While we argued – and pretty much won every argument – we’ve lost just about everything. This is because the Left doesn’t argue: it states a Party Line and it doesn’t ever stop stating a Party Line unless, internally, they decide a different Party Line will work better. It doesn’t matter that we can prove conclusively by argument that the Party Line is drivel – they’ll just keep stating it and they will, even if only incrementally, enact their Party Line into law. We, until very recently, never understood this. But, now we do. At least, some of us do.

Over the last week or so, we who have a firm understanding of things have started to call opponents of Florida’s gender law, “groomers.” Meaning, of course, that those who want the law gone are attempting to groom kids into sexual degeneracy. Using this term has naturally infuriated the Left but it has also got some of our weak sister’s on the Right to call for the fainting couch. You know the type – and they’re all over the place deploring our use of the word “groomer”. Their argument is that since we are winning this debate, we shouldn’t use such a mean and loaded term. But what they leave out is that we’re winning the debate only because we’re using the mean word. In other words, we’re not trying to out-argue the Left (because the Left isn’t trying to argue), but we are out-fighting the Left. We’re hammering them. And it is working.

Other than their argument that it is mean to call the Left groomers, they also claim that it is inaccurate. That it is untrue. That when we call them “groomers” it is just as bad – and just as much a lie – as when the Left called the Florida law the “don’t say gay” bill. How can we consider ourselves to be decent if we’re lying just as much as the Left?

Well, mostly because we’re not lying. Nobody gets off the hook that easy.

Where the Nazis fully enacted their policy – and set the stage for WWII and the Holocaust – was at Nuremberg in 1935: the so-called “Nuremberg Laws”. Their official German titles were Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and the Reich Citizenship Law. In 1945, when the Germans emerged from the Nazi world, they were dismayed. Shocked. Saddened. Angered. Lots of things. But only a very few, and often only years later, really figured it out. Here’s someone who did:

It is very important what she says at the end – essentially, “I could have known”. That it was only a lack of curiosity which lead her to work for a monster and see him as something other than what he was. The point I’m making: you’ve got no excuse. If you are of normal, human intelligence, you are on the hook. If you don’t know – if you don’t realize the consequences of your actions, it is because you are refusing to know them.

Naturally, if you ask your basic Leftist out there if he’s in favor of grooming children, he’ll say, “no”. And within the Leftist’s mind there might even be full sincerity in that. But the only reason there is that sincere belief is because the Leftist has refused to know. He’s not stupid – if he’s talking to you, he’s at least of normal human intelligence. He can reason. He’s got a situation where teachers are telling kindergartners about sexual preferences – often with the teacher using his/her/xir-self as the example. The only possible reasons someone would do that is stark insanity or they want some sort of sexual validation and/or gratification from the children. And neither insane people nor those who seek sexual validation/gratification from children should be teachers. And every Leftist knows this.

If the Nazis had called their law “The Law for Massacring Millions, Starting a World War and Having Russian Soldiers Take Revenge by Raping Every Kraut Woman 8 to 80 They Get Their Hands On”, even the Nazis would have some difficulty in getting that enacted, even in a police State. But that is what the Nuremberg Laws were for – and everyone could see from the first moment that war and massacre were going to be the result of such laws. That the Germans didn’t – and even years after the war – still didn’t see it that way doesn’t mean there was some impenetrable mystery, but that they just didn’t want to know. My change to the title of the law was a bit of an exaggeration, but make no mistake about it, everyone knew that making a law saying that a certain ethnic group has no civil rights was going to end up very badly, especially when it was enacted by a man who already told you that his goal was conquest of foreign lands populated by the people he just declared to have no rights.

They know! They all know. They just refuse to know – or admit they know. Because that gets them off the hook. “Hey, how was I supposed to know that the guy who calls Jews vermin was going to do something hideous to them?”. Yeah, right. “Hey, how was I supposed to know that the teacher telling the 5 year old about transgenderism turned out to be a perv?”. Uh huh.

They not only know, they approve. And that makes them groomers – and that is why it is right for us to call them that. And by our calling them what they are, they are forced on to defense, which means they’re losing. If you’re explaining rather than telling, you’re losing. We spent decades trying to explain that we’re not racists to people who simply told us we were racists. It is rather fun to have the shoe at least on the other foot. And the can stew in it – because there was never an ounce of evidence that we are racists, but, hey, if you’re teaching transgenderism to 5 year olds, there’s a high chance that you’ve got an ulterior motive…like, say, prepping them to be transgender 12 year olds you can diddle.

Prove me wrong – prove to me that it isn’t that.

And good luck with that.

This is the difference between argument and fighting. Between debate and war. We’re just now engaging in war. And as truth is on our side, we don’t have to lie. But it does take courage to fight – courage we have definitely lacked until just recently. And our engaging in battle is going to cause dismay among some. There will be those who will back off, even join the other side, because we decided to fight. So be it. If we want to win, we have to do it.

Open Thread

The MSM was working up an anti-Trump “he hasn’t visited the troops this Christmas” meme. Until just recently.

Glen Reynolds talks up the prospects of war and how we might have a very lousy 21st century. It’d have to be pretty bad to exceed the 20th century, but there’s definitely a chance we could see that. It has been rolling around in my head that the existence of things like the UN and NATO have pretty much created this bad situation – alliances aren’t supposed to be permanent and a permanent, global talk-shop is a sure-fire way to make certain that cracks continue to be papered over. We do need alliances and we do need mechanisms for addressing international concerns…but the alliances and the talk-shop should be ad-hoc and set up for specific purposes.

Take, for instance, Russian aggression in Europe. NATO is pretty much a dead weight – the NATO “allies” are hoping that the United States will carry the load. On the other hand, if we had no NATO, we could craft an alliance with the nation’s most concerned and we’d likely get them fully willing to put the necessary muscle behind the effort. And as for something like peace in the Middle East, absent a UN – where Russia and China can veto any action which doesn’t 100% suit them – we could put together a group akin to, say, the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to hammer out a settlement…something where no one can stop it from happening short of war, but with the Great Powers insisting, all the smaller fry would have to just fall in line. None of this would assure against war, but I think it would have a better chance than the current system where we’re slowly drifting to war and none of the mechanisms in place can stop the drift.

IQ scores are falling around the world and a prime suspect is the Boob Tube – TV or computer, doesn’t seem to matter which (my Dad was calling the TV the “idiot box” back in the 70’s). I can definitely see this. First off, a lot of the information provided on screen is just wrong: some of it quite stupidly wrong. But as its on a screen and people, especially young people, have been trained to believe the screen, they are believing some really dumb stuff. Secondly, it takes time to learn and digest information, especially complex information. The whole thing about TV – and even more so the internet – is speed. Quick bullet points with pre-determined conclusions are the norm. I don’t think anyone intended this to happen: but if what is wanted is a generation of stupid people dependent upon government, you couldn’t have planned it better.

A Chinese admiral thinks that if he can sink a couple ships and cause us 5,000 or 10,000 casualties, we’ll quit. This was tried before, and it didn’t work out well for those who tried it. But, I think China will try it, in the by and by.

That Saudi “journalist” who got (apparently) whacked in Turkey? Pretty much a paid, Qatari agent. Important lesson here: the MSM is lying. It is lying all the time. It is lying about everything. It even lies when it doesn’t have to – I mean, come on: it was still bad this guy got killed. They didn’t have to make him out as some sort of heroic journalist truth-teller. Now, all fruit from this tree is poisoned.

A New GOP Foreign Policy: How to Get it Wrong

David Goldman over at Pajamas Media writes an article about how the GOP is about to get it wrong on foreign policy:

…We Republicans now find ourselves painted into a corner. The public doesn’t trust us with guns. That’s why Rand Paul has gotten his fifteen minutes of fame (and if it turns out to be more than fifteen minutes, we are in trouble). It’s satisfying at one level to watch Rand Paul beat up Obama’s nominee for CIA director, but he represents a nasty brand of isolationism.

We nonetheless have to state the obvious: The only way to prevent Syria’s living hell from spreading to Iraq and Lebanon is to neutralize the main source of instability: Iran. Republicans should rally behind Gen. James Mattis, whom Obama fired as head of Central Command. Gen. Mattis told a Senate committee March 6 that sanctions aren’t working, and that Tehran ”enriching uranium beyond any plausible peaceful purpose.” The United States should not only remove Iran’s nuclear program, but also destroy Revolutionary Guards bases and other conventional capability that the Tehran regime employs to destabilize its neighbors. And the U.S. should throw its full weight behind regime change. With Iran out of the picture, the local conflicts–horrific as they are–will remain local. I do not believe that either Egypt or Syria can be stabilized, but it is possible to limit the spread of their instability. The prospect of a prolonged Sunni-Shi’ite war in the region will be horrific past the imagining of most Americans. Secondary conflicts will erupt around it, including long-frustrated minorities like the Kurds, who have created a functioning de facto state in northern Iraq.

We Republicans have to cure ourselves of the illusion that we can engineer the happiness of other cultures with an inherent antipathy to Western-style democracy. Where the Muslim world is concerned, optimism is cowardice. And we have to persuade the American people that selective, limited military action against Iran will not draw the United States into a new land war…

Goldman gets it right in that he identifies Iran as the central problem.  He also gets it right in declaring that we have to give up all illusions and no longer seek make the Muslim world in to a pluralist, democratic civilization.  But he gets it flat wrong when he condemns Paul’s “isolationism”, and the reason he gets it wrong is in, “we have to persuade the American people that selective, limited military action against Iran will not draw the United States into a new land war…”.  In other words, we should engage in another round of limited war.  My friends, that is poison.  One thing that I’ve learned – and most especially since 9/11 – is that the one type of war Americans can’t win is a limited war.  We’re just not built for that sort of thing.  In war, Americans are an all or nothing people:  we either go all the way in, or we should stay all the way out.

Continue reading