Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Rally Point

This evening, for the first time in the last two weeks, I felt a rally point had been found, when at the gym I saw on the news Bush saying no, we're not withdrawing from Iraq, and no, we won't be talking to (blackmailers) Iran and Syria -- Iraq is a sovereign country and THEY will be doing the talking with their neighbors in their own interest.

Which is a veiled threat because Iraq can -- and should -- strike back (with our backing) if foreign nations are being hostile.

That's a whole different negotiation dynamic than "the U.S. engaging Iran and Syria" which is code for throwing Lebanon and Iraq to the wolves to get the violence off our tv screens!

And because we apparently share the same mind, wretchard at Belmont Club felt it today too for a host of reasons:
Signs that the retreat following the the November elections is starting to end is suggested not by a single dramatic event but by a succession of small ones. Often the change is simply atmospheric. Something feels different. People regain their confidence. But most of all it comes from the realization from those who have formerly been on the defensive that the opposition is not ten feet tall.

I'd rather be in our shoes as we do ultimately hold the real trump cards of power. It just takes a simple act of will, a single cabled order, to eliminate all our enemies from this plane of reality, even without resorting to the nuclear triad.

"Soft power", based on persuasion, fantasies, and dreams, requires the opponent never wakes up.

The Ice Thickens

Not so pat, is it?
Ice 'Thickens' in West Antarctica
New research has found that parts of the ice sheet that covers West Antarctica may be getting thicker, not thinner, as scientists have feared.
How inconvenient!
While the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is considered relatively safe, there have been fears that climate change could cause the WAIS to disintegrate, raising global sea levels by as much as five metres.

That could have a catastrophic effect on coastal communities.

Most researchers are agreed that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been retreating over the last 10,000 years, but the new findings, published in the journal Science, could be evidence that that this trend is about to be reversed.
So it's been retreating since LONG before humans supposedly began ruining the planet with industrial gases in the last 100 years?

Like, for 100 times as long? (100 x 100 years = 10,000 years)

And now that's reversing?

Doubly inconvenient for the 'Global Warming' acolytes.

A thorough fisking of the report is here.


Things sure seem to be getting worse all over, don't they?

Belmont Club calls it a rout, for which no rally point has yet been found.
The argument that this is a necessary mea culpa, a necessary retreat comes up against the question: retreat to what? Every rearguard action has a fallback line of defense prepared. Since the Democrats have not indicated where they want the retreat to stop, and there is no indication that the President has prepared a fallback position the appropriate term isn't a rearguard action. Retreats without an endpoint have another name. They are called a rout.

There is no sense getting excited about Rumsfeld's resignation. It is but the first step on a long road to ... has anyone decided yet? Therefore the only rational thing to do is relax. Take a loaf of French bread and cut off two slices with a utility saw and make another mayo and peanut butter sandwich. Sooner or later the enemy is going to realize what the Guderian knew in 1940. That it doesn't matter how many men, tanks or forts are serried before you. If there is no mind in opposition, and no awareness of the need to set a mind in opposition, then the road to Paris is open. The bread is theirs. The saw is ours. And the sandwich is good.
Rather than be alarmed, this fills me with joy.

Although many tried to get the warnings out, on how to pre-empt and stave off the worst scenarios that any fool can see hurtling towards us, history shows nobody ever, EVER, listens to the Cassandras.

Therefore, it was clear that things would have to get much worse before they got better.

Well, we're moving right along then, aren't we?

Entering much worse, directly ahead.


Because now better will result all the sooner.

Too bad about all the innocents who could have been saved but now have to die in the meantime, however.

The sooner much worse begins, the sooner it's over.

One way or another.

And dragging things out does not favor us; given demographics and nuclear hyperproliferation, time is not on our side.

The idiots trying to recreate the glorious high of engineering retreat and defeat in Vietnam (we stopped a War, man!) think no consequences will follow them back at home, apparently, out of the Middle East:
Viewed from that perspective, it really is America's or Jew's fault that folks are fixing to kill each other in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Now some people are inevitably going to ask why, if the Sunnis and Shi'as are dead set on killing each other across the Middle East because of some disturbance caused by the presence of America or Israel (remember this makes sense in some way), the reason this shouldn't be cold-bloodedly regarded as the greatest act of strategic genius since Alexander beat the Persian Empire. A variety of objections come to mind, chiefly to do with morality and the oil security, the preferred order depending on whether you are an idealist or a "realist". I will add a third. The killing's not going to stop and we're not going to stop it. In another era we might not have cared, but the lesson from 9/11 which we have forgotten already is that they will carry their magically realistic hatreds to other shores with unimaginable weapons. And remember, it's always our fault.
Savor in advance the bitter surprise they will feel.

And when Average American wakes up one day wondering what the hell happened, have no qualms in pointing out how the international leftists and media made their pain inevitable.


UPDATE: I just saw that Prof. Hanson has a similar take on things:
Or is it a deeper malaise that modern liberal internationalism is neither liberal nor international. Lacking any real belief that the United States, now or in its past, has been a continual force for good, the contemporary Left hardly wants the rest of the world to suffer the American malaise of racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation, and consumerism. That self-doubt is buttressed by the idea as well that confrontation is always bad, that evil does not really exist, but is a construct we create for misunderstanding, that the world’s ills are remedied by reason and dialogue.

In essence, the progressive Leftist is often affluent, insulated from the savagery about him by his material largess, and empathizes with those who are antithetical to the very forces that made him free, secure, and prosperous—as a way to assuage the guilt, at very little cost, of his own blessedness.
All that said, the West is encountering something novel, as it fights its first politically-correct war, in which all the postmodern chickens of the 1980s and 1990s have come home to roost. Thus multiculturalism makes it hard to fight non-Europeans from the former third world, inasmuch as it argued there was not just little distinctively good about the West, but rather the once recognized universal sins of mankind—racism, sexism, class oppression, inequality, patriarchy—were to be seen as exclusively Western.
Add into this dangerous modernist soup moral equivalence, or what we know as “conflict resolution theory.” It postulates that any use of force de facto is equivalent to any other. We see those ripples with this Orwellian notion of “proportionality”, that a democratic Israel must calibrate its response to missiles aimed entirely at its civilians by ensuring none of its own aimed at Hezbollah terrorists and their supporters miss.

Then there is moral relativism and utopian pacifism.

So it is going to be hard, but not impossible, to win this war. Why, then, as readers have complained, my dogged optimism?

For two reasons. One, all these nostrums are theoretical, and anti-empirical. Ultimately as lies, they will be disapproved by the evidence before them. A progressive can call the ACLU all day long, but after 9/11 if he stands in line at an airport gate listening to an imam chanting Allah Akbar as he and his friends board, our liberal friend will begin to worry. And second, our enemies have no intention of relenting. They smell blood and want our carcass, so eventually even the progressive mind will give up the pieties of peace and face the inevitable.

Trouble in France

Muslim minorities in France are causing a breakdown in civil order:
French police the target in urban guerrilla war
PARIS (Reuters) - Stoned, beaten and insulted, their vehicles torched by crowds of hostile youths, French police say they face an urban guerrilla war when they enter the run-down neighborhoods that ring the major cities.

"Our role is to guarantee the safety of people and property but the great difficulty today is that police are having problems ensuring their own safety," said Jerome Hanarte of the Alliance-Police Nationale union.
The article only speaks of "youths" and "minorities", but they are islamic invaders.

The article tends to blame the police for the unrest:
The head of the French crime statistics body told Reuters the rise in attacks on police was partly due to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's 2002 decision to order police back into tough areas, to disrupt the black economy that fuels crime.

Some residents complain the move spawned constant police harassment which has only exacerbated tensions with local youths, many of whom come from [muslim] ethnic minorities.
It was shocking to see the Yugoslav Civil War in Europe's backyard.

Now we are seeing muslim-fueled civil disorder in the very heart of Europe itself:
Calm is a long way off.

The plain clothes officer in Seine-Saint-Denis said seven colleagues were attacked recently after chasing a driver who skipped a checkpoint. Their vehicle was torched and they narrowly escaped serious injury.

"The high number of officers hurt means that police themselves don't feel safe," he said.

"That's pretty serious, because if police don't feel safe, you can imagine what the ordinary citizen feels," added the officer who asked not to be identified.

To protect themselves, police often move in large groups -- a tactic youngsters say is heavy-handed and overly aggressive.

Comte says the threat to police is so great in some neighborhoods they should exercise their "right to withdraw." That means refusing to respond to emergency calls if they judge they cannot guarantee their own safety.
Reports indicate the "new normal" is to have 200 cars torched each and every day by these "youths."

In fact, these are likely carefully planned and organized operations as part of a broad miltary-political strategy to gain islamic control of France.

And many French left-wingers even embrace the idea, as it captures the infantile romance of revolution:
In recent weeks, torching buses has suddenly become prevalent in the Paris suburbs and other urban areas ... Le Monde, the country's authoritative (if left-wing) paper of record, ran a front-page story about this new development and noted that it usually requires a much higher level of organization and discipline than casual car torching. ... There have also been cases of organized large-scale stoning, or caillassage, as it is called in contemporary French slang ...

More often than not, the CRS or police were not just attacked but ambushed ... "this is not just a matter of angry unemployed youths who get violent at times," but "something carefully planned. ... Since we avoid going inside, where they are, they attack us outside, where we are." ... They forced the last native French or European inhabitants out, and made it increasingly difficult for the police to enter and monitor the projects. Later, fundamentalist Islamic brotherhoods asserted themselves in the projects, or cités, as they are called .... On the one hand, the fundamentalists intended to protect the immigrant community against everything the gangs stood for: drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, easy money from crime. On the other hand, they derived benefits from the ethnic enclave status the gangs had secured. ... The gangs masterminded unprecedented "youth riots"; the fundamentalists then restored civil peace, and won as a reward de facto pardon for most rioters, a "less provocative" police presence in the suburbs, i.e., no "cleansing," more privileges for Islam as "France's second and most quickly growing religion," and recognition for themselves as national leaders. ....

Yet paradoxically, the more brutal the hostile leaders were, the more eagerly French pacifists, liberals and men of the Left courted their support. The sheer capacity for violence of the Islamic immigrant gangs rekindled revolutionary hope among aging socialists who saw a chance to reverse the verdict of history; to to regain the vision of their youth; to mount a new French Revolution. Not with their spindly limbs but upon the broad backs of those who waved the flag of green. The Reds were certain of what would happen afterward. Did not Marx and Lenin guarantee the triumph of the proletariat, the Flag of Red? What was there to fear in temporarily joining forces with the priests of a backward 8th century cult? With that assurance was born the Green and Red alliance: the Green horse of Islam beneath the Red jockey of socialism.

Indeed, there are intellectuals on the left and right who relish the prospect of a new French Revolution, and welcome the suburban rioters as its spearhead. Nothing is more revealing, in this respect, than the success of a feverish political novel, Supplément au roman national (A Sequel to the National Narrative), by 28-year-old author Jean- ric Boulin. Published two months ago, it forecasts a "social and racial" revolution in France in 2007. First a wave of suicide bombings in Paris. Then martial law. Then, finally, the great rebellion of the French poor: the native underclass, the Arabs, and the blacks, who unite under the green flag of Islam and the tricolor of France and march on Paris--as a sort of Commune in reverse. Boulin gallantly supports such an outcome.
That alliance will work out even less well than Canada's hare-brained idea of declaring Quebec and "independent nation within a united Canada" an dhoping that doesn't have any negative or unintended repercussions.

Quebec Now a Nation

Strange things are afoot:
Canada Parliament recognizes Quebecers as a nation
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian Parliament recognized Quebecers as a nation within a united Canada on Monday, backing a controversial proposal that already prompted one minister in the minority Conservative government to quit.

The House of Commons, Parliament's elected chamber, voted 266-16 in favor of the motion, which the government said it saw as a way to head off pressure from French-speaking separatists who want to break away from Canada.

Critics said the proposal could actually bolster the separatists, and the pro-independence Bloc Quebecois said it would use the change to demand extra powers, including Quebec's right to speak at international meetings.
This clever idea is going to backfire.
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong resigned over the vote and said the separatists would use it to sow confusion.

"I believe in this great country of ours, and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada," Chong, whose Cabinet brief included Ottawa's ties with Quebec and Canadian provinces, told a news conference.
Which as of today no longer exists.
"They (the separatists) will argue that if the Quebecois are a nation within Canada, then they are certainly a nation without Canada."

Thanks for playing, Canada.

Now do the same with Alberta and British Columbia so we can annex them and have an unimpeded landbridge to Alaska, as God intended.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Get Lucky

I like this photo:

It happened today, the Philippine Armed Forces (AFP) got a huge catch in the War on Terror! Remember the group of hostages that was taken by the Abu Sayyaf in June of 2001? That’s the same group that included Martin and Gracia Burnham, the American Missionary couple that was held by the Abu Sayyaf. In the end, Martin was killed by his captors, while Gracia was injured, but able to return alive to the United States. At that time, another of the American Hostages, Guillermo Sobrero was beheaded by his Abu Sayyaf captors.

Well, today, the AFP nabbed the very suspect that beheaded Guillermo Sobrero, a huge win in the War on Terror.
Feel Lucky, punk?

More Propaganda Headlines

Here's an interesting headline:
Hamas predicts new uprising if no peace progress
From Reuters, of course.


They're the elected government!

In the text, they say:
The militant Islamist group Hamas warned Israel on Saturday of a third uprising unless there was progress toward a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.


More like Threatens.

The media deliberately obfuscates the truth.

Remedy for Iran

From a brief but insightful essay, a memo to the Administration:
The realists want the U.S. out of Iraq. So do the Iranians. The realists want stability in the region. So do the Iranians. The realists, in light of their record, don’t really care by what means they accomplish this. Neither do the Iranians.

Where they part company is the point where the Iranian solution winds up with the Persian Gulf, and the bulk of the world’s oil supplies, in the hands of men to whom medievalism represents a progressive future. With American policy in the region effectively negated, our alliances dead letters, our influence nil. With tens, if not hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the Sunni and Kurd massacres in Iran’s new provinces. With the world economy in free fall. With Europe permanently cowed. With Asia, home of our closest allies, turning elsewhere for protection (the place to which they turn is spelled “C – h – i – n – a”). With Chavez’s Latin Reich program, which has been looking increasingly ragged in recent months, given a new lease on life.

And the Jihadis? Don’t worry about them – they’ll know what to do.

The realists don’t want this. They really don’t. They think they can finesse it all.
Which brings us to a third alternative: if the U.S. has to leave Iraq prematurely – something that is nowhere near as certain as current rhetoric makes it appear – it will only be after assuring that Iran cannot, at any point in the near future, take advantage of it. That means a military strike. This possibility has been discussed in light of Iran’s intransigence concerning its nuclear program. But the current situation has nothing directly to do with nuclear weapons. It has everything to do with keeping control of the Persian Gulf, and all that implies, in the hands of civilization.

The Iranians, in Dr. Kissinger’s words, believe that they are “in a position to challenge the entire world order.” They need to be persuaded otherwise, and that cannot be accomplished by negotiations, concessions, or even visits from Kofi Annan. The Iranians, as shown by every foul speech from Ahmadinejad, every threatening missile launch, every advanced, Iranian-designed bomb that goes off in Iraq, believe they can play in the big leagues.

Well – we can play, too. We’re not proposing, needless to say, invasion and occupation, which, as Iraq has demonstrated can have its drawbacks. We’re talking about a no-holds-barred attack by air, naval, and Special Forces assets, something along the lines outlined by Arthur Herman in his superb Commentary piece, “Getting Serious About Iran”. A strike that will leave Iran with no navy, no air force, no serious nuclear potential, and an army reduced to pre-20th century armaments and mobility. An Iran roughly in the same state as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

This is the style of warfare for which the U.S. has no equal in history – cutting an opponent off at the knees, leaving him thoroughly incapacitated and utterly shamed, but with the means of national survival intact.
What such an attack will do is take Iran out of the strategic equation for the foreseeable future. It will gain Iraq a fighting chance, even without large numbers of U.S. troops. It will be a serious blow to the Jihadis. (The realists have said nothing about recent reports that Iran is trying to take over al Queda.) It will create a true, if relatively short, state of stability in the Middle East, representing an opportunity for local governments to solve short-term problems – including that of the Palestinians – and begin working on longer-term challenges represented by Iran and the Jihadis.
It will also serve to regain the U.S. a lot that has been lost in Iraq. The international left, along with various appeasers and hysterics, never intended to support the war either in Iraq or the war against the Jihadis in general. Their sole interest lay in attacking the U.S., no matter what the cost to the Iraqi people or the world in general. They knew there would be difficult moments – everyone did, Donald Rumsfeld included – and took advantage of each of them — Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Halabja — to tear yet another piece out the U.S., undermining its role, its intentions, and its plans. Such an attack would rock these people back on their heels, as they well deserve, and go a long way toward restoring the respect that they’ve stolen from U.S. over the past three years.

As for the Muslim ummah – this would act as a good lesson as to the true nature of the strong horse. The Jihadis have run an outstanding propaganda campaign centered on Iraq. DVDs, cassette tapes, the Internet, have all been used to establish a myth of American stupidity and cowardice and Jihadi invincibility. A strike on Iran would make it clear that all the snipers and suicide bombers and IEDs in the world do not, in the end, add up to the power of a single stealth aircraft.
Iran has declared the destruction of another nation a state goal, has carried out threatening exercises in the Gulf, has provided weapons, guidance, and intelligence to the Iraqi rebels – assistance that has unquestionably resulted in the deaths of American troops. All of which is not even to mention Iranian defiance concerning nuclear weapons. Wars have been fought – and quite justifiably—for much less in the way of reasons than those.

Of course, there will be repercussions, most of them unforeseeable, some likely to be negative. But that’s one of the factors that nations must live with. We have a clear picture of what the results of doing nothing would be.
This cannot happen a moment too soon, and it is entirely feasible.

Politically impossible?

There's no way anyone can stop us if we simply choose to just do it.

The President should go before Congress and demand they either explain to the American people why we should continue to ignore the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in a state of War with the United States since 1979, or officially recognize it and act accordingly.

Ingesting Enemy Propaganda

The "fauxtography" scandal of actively doctored or staged photos being contributed by Hezbollah agents to the wire servicers like Reuters and AP during the Israel/hezbollah conflict in Lebanon recently was just the tip of the iceberg.

Jihadist stringers dominate thegathering of new in the Middle East and their propaganda is at best uncritically and at worst gleefully transmitted directly into our newspapers, becoming as good as fact.

Here are other examples.

What is your recent impression of Iraq? Anarchy spiralling out of control, from which our only option is to recoil and retreat?

How about that horrific story of six people being burned alive and four mosques burned down in sectarian strife?

Turnos out that is likely fantasy, made up by insurgent stringers.

And our own news "services" transmit it right to us in a way that would stagger Propaganda Minister Goebbels!

See here, where Flopping Aces investigates in detail the "source" of these anarchy stories:
The U.S. military said Saturday that Iraqi soldiers securing the Hurriyah area had found only one burned mosque and could not confirm reports that six Sunni civilians had been burned to death with kerosene.

I mean the only think I can take away from this report that has a ring of truth to it is the fact that the US and Iraqi forces engaged the enemy north of town killing up to 60 more of the enemy.
But it appears that our MSM is getting the “anarchy” stories from the enemy themselves. That cannot be trusted. I mean the big story yesterday was these six burned alive and now no one can find any evidence that this happened except the word of the enemy.
Doing a search via Google I began reading the stories printed about the burned six and each and every one had one thing in common. The only person stating that this incident happened was one Capt. Jamil Hussein. Every news report printed this man as the source of the information.
This Capt. Hussein is not authorized to speak officially!

And it turns out that this "source" has been responsible for a string of atrocity and anarchy stories dating back to the Spring -- with no other journalistic support than the word of this single unauthorized spokesperson.

This is responsible journalism? Flopping Aces continues:
His name is mentioned quite a bit when Sunni’s are attacked it seems.
Further work received this response from CENTCOM
Unfortunately, people posing as government officials often do call the media to make statements.

We have no confirmation that this event happened; so it is very likely that this is not a legitimate source. In addition, of the four mosques that were suppose to have been burned/destroyed at that time; we only confirmed one mosque was damaged by a fire that lasted an hour and then was extinguished with no casualties.
MOI [Ministry of Interior?] has apparently issued an edict that no one below the level of Chief can speak to the media. We have reminded AP of this but without proof that these spokesman are not employees, they have pretty much ignored us. (If you were a reporter, would who give up a primo source because of rank? Probably not.)
Of note, we definitely know that one IP [Iraqi Police] spokesman - Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq of the city’s Yarmouk police station (a.k.a. police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq) is not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP and the MOI supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning.
Mark Twain has said,
I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the thunders of prophecy.
Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Seeing the Unseen

One of Whittle's infrequent, but amusing and excellent, essays is here.

I just read it now.

It's amazing how certain ideas just spring forth at the same time; I like this essay particularly because he references the very same examples of Lincoln, Rome, Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism, the psychological impact of media misreporting biases, and Democrat statements of Hussein's imminent threat that I have recently alluded to! And ties it all together in the context of the raving 9/11 conspiracy commenter I revealed.

All in one neat package.

I'm rather sure he doesn't read my blog either... :)

Instead, this is some evidence of the sheer correctness and obviousness of what I've been trying to convey.

Some excerpts:
Critical Thinking -- the ability to analyze data, determine it’s usefulness and fidelity, to learn how to assess reliability, question methodology, weigh expertise and all the rest -– is in shockingly short supply these days. It’s not just a shame; it’s an epidemic, it is a fatal metastasizing disease in a democracy where information is used by the public to make the decisions that steer the ship of state. For the ability to think critically allows us to see the unseen; to find the truth behind the falsehood, as well as the falsehood behind the truth.

Today, it seems that legions of people – growing legions – are falling victims to ideas and beliefs that on the face of it are patently false…things that are so clearly and obviously nuts that you really have to wonder what deep, mighty engine of emotional need could possibly drive a brain so deep into a hole. Seriously now, there are millions and millions of people on this planet who will torture logic and reason to mind-bending extremes in order to believe monumentally ridiculous “theories”… theories drawn from an emotional need so warped and debased that you are catapulted beyond anger and disbelief directly into pathos and the desire to call 911 before these people hurt themselves.
People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher and Keith Olberman would not be able to figure out how to close the canopy on an F-102. These people would be weeping with fear when those afterburners light up and you barrel down that runway hoping that engine doesn’t flame out and roll you inverted into the asphalt, or when you’re rocketing through the soup at 300mph watching two little needles chase each other, praying the next thing you see out the window is a runway and not a mountain goat.

George W. Bush is not stupid. It’s not possible to be a moron and fly a supersonic jet fighter, and everyone knows it.

What George W. Bush is, however, is inarticulate. English is his second language. From what I can see he does not have a first language. Abraham Lincoln spoke in simple frontier language in an age of rhetorical flourish. Like Bush, he was considered a bumpkin and an idiot, and like Bush, he realized that there were times when having people misunderestimate you repeatedly was a real advantage. That’s goal-oriented. That’s playing the deep game. That’s cunning.

I personally have gotten to the point where Bush’s malapropisms cause me to look at the floor and shake my head with an affectionate smile, in much the same way supporters of his predecessor used to do with every new revelation of coerced sex from former employees. He is what he is. But he is a damn sight more intelligent than the graphic designer in the Mini Cooper with the Village Idiot sticker. Me, personally, I look at the man’s entire catalog of flaws in the same way Lincoln looked at Grant and his drinking: I can’t spare this man. He fights.
Now, let’s suppose the U.S. went into Djibouti with the Marines, and stole every single thing that’s produced there in a year…just grant the premise and say we stole every goddam thing they make. If we hauled away all of Djibouti’s annual wealth, how long would it run the U.S. Economy, which is 7,481 times greater?

Well, 8,760 hours divided by 7,481 gives you an answer of 1.17 hours. In other words, it takes the U.S. 1.17 hours to produce what Djibouti produces in a year.

If the US really did go in and steal everything that the bottom thirty countries in the world produce, it might power the US economy for two or three days.

Conversely, the billions and billions of dollars the US spends annually in aid, rent, etc. – plus uncounted billions more from private American charities – would supply the entire GDP of Djibouti for hundreds of years.

Where’s your Imperialism argument now?
Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.
I cannot think of a single example where appeasement – giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves – has provided any lasting peace or security. I can say in complete honesty that I look forward to hearing of any historical example that shows it does.

What I do see are barbarian forces closing in and sacking Rome because the Romans no longer had the will to defend themselves. Payments of tribute to the barbarian hordes only funded the creation of larger and better-armed hordes. The depredations of Viking Raiders throughout Northern Europe produced much in the way of ransom payments. The more ransom that was paid, the more aggressive and warlike the Vikings became. Why? Because it was working, that’s why.
This projection of rationality onto irrational people is the linchpin of the liberal failure to understand human nature.
Telling reasonable people what they want to hear is a survival skill for criminals [and terrorists]. They don’t get very far without knowing how to play people.

Recent reports of the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and the confirmed presence of 700+ chemical shells leaves this chestnut in some disarray. However, even if you take that away, the entire concept is a cowardly and petty retreat spoken by people who know better.

Here is a pretty decent encapsulation of what both Republicans and Democrats had to say about Saddam and WMD’s. You will find Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s rhetoric somewhat less adamant and warlike than that of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and all the rest. These were elected representatives who studied the same intelligence that the White House did, and came to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately for them, Al Gore in his unbridled enthusiasm went and invented the Internet, and so now there is a record of what they said and when, available to the great unwashed masses. It shows a group of people deeply concerned about what was a pressing threat to this country. And now, almost all of them claim they were lied to? Are they capable of reading intelligence reports themselves, or did Bush have to read it to them aloud, with them seated at his knee in My Pet Goat fashion, skipping the parts he didn’t think would make a good sell? Some people say that they did not get the same intelligence that Bush got.
As they say, read it all.

To top it off, I even was entranced by the same advertisement he saw as a boy in comics, about that backyard Nautilus submarine for $6.98 -- and I finally got to find out what it really was, which I had wondered about all this time.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006


This midterm election result is a signal from the voters. Unfortunately it is a rather crude instrument. The future hinges critically on the correct interpretation of this signal.

In the short run, the signal is being interpreted by foreign tyrants as a welcome relief from the pressures of reform and justice; the gloating has already begun. Thug regimes are looking forward to cutting deals, they hope, with a new "pragmatism" and realpolitik headed by a returning James Baker and his Iraq Commission.

They may or may not be justified in that hope.

It is the longer-term interpretation of the signal by our own government that matters most.

On the one hand, if the Democrats believe their own anti-Bush propaganda and take it as a mandate to pretend none of them had overwhelmingly voted to use force in Iraq, and to pretend none of them were saying how much of a threat Saddam Hussein was since at least 1996 when Clinton was bombing Iraq's ongoing WMD programs (which nobody seriously disputes existed at that time), and to refight issues from 3 years ago, then we will be ill-served.

But on the other hand, there is perhaps a ray of hope. Maybe, just maybe, their childish petulance that refused, through their lackeys in the MSM, to attribute ANY shred of positivity to a Bush policy, in retaliation for what they saw as "stolen" elections, will now dissipate.

Maybe, with Dems in power, the media will start to report good news on the economy and on Iraq, to make it appeaer the Democrat policies are magically making the world well again.

Perhaps the stunning success of Phase I of the Iraq campaign will be recognized: the adroit removal of a terrible tyrant who was buying off sanctions through the Oil for Food fraud, and the revelations of the Libyan nuclear program and AQ Khan's WMD technology blackmarket.

Avoidance of that recognition to this point makes no rational sense, but that's the human psychology. The "reaction from around the world" is already jubilation at the "downfall" of Bush policy. The media will portray this as foreigners liking us better, perhaps making much of America feel better about itself too. Perhaps morale will improve if the media stops its relentless propaganda that was designed to get Republicans out of power now that that aim has been achieved.

Those of us who knew what had to be done from the start will find this blatant delusional dishonesty galling of course, but we were always going to contribute to the effort of transforming the Middle East anyway. If this is the price of getting others on board, so be it.

It's that important.

So instead of trying to impeach Bush and Cheney, maybe the Democrats will move away from their smokescreen rhetorical issues, now that they have a way to get credit for success, and will provide some useful ideas.

I have never been a fan of one-party rule. A true loyal opposition, all along, would have been asking the following important questions. Perhaps they will ask them now.

For example, should Iraq be allowed to follow the natural course of history and divide along religion-ethnic lines?

Should the army be expanded by a division or two, and what incentives should be offered to encourage volunteers?

How to deal with a nuclear Pakistan after Musharraf, who can't last forever?

Or, maybe we'll find out that they were commie scum all along, and just can't stop themselves from continuing to destroy America from within for the sheer nihilistic pleasure of it.

Grim Assessment

they are all saying this election is about "changing directin" in the Iraq war. Which can only mean retreating into a fantasyland.

I fear this view is correct:
This is probably what will happen to America. There is now a much smaller chance that the terrorist problem can be resolved at a low level of conflict. There is a great likelihood that it will be allowed by neglect or paralysis to metastize into a canker which will develop into a catastrophic confrontation in five or ten years time. A likelihood, but not a certainty.

The comparison with Israel fails in that the US is the world's security Central Banker. The sheriff of last resort. Other countries could wobble as long as the Central Banker stood firm. Now the Central Banker itself is wobbling. The UK, Europe, etc could count on America to be the security underwriter of last resort. But who will come to America's rescue if America will not come to it's own?

If America is lucky then a national security consensus can be rebuilt before the catastrophe. But America's lucky streak has just come to an end. One philosophical way to look at it is that September 11 simply wasn't enough to fatally damage the appeasers. That plus the missteps of the Republicans. There are some who argue that the Democratic party itself will start to show strains when it tries to govern, because of tensions between its left and right wings. But if it hasn't happened yet, why should it happen now? No. Washington is too insular. It will take external shocks: sad, hearbreaking ones to wake it up. I don't know where it will come from but I'm sure the enemy is thinking to provide it.

At any rate, it's a new political game. With North Korea, Iran, Iraq on the burner and Nancy Pelosi running the House there will be enormous stresses and it may be a challenge to simply hold against the threat. The time of easy security is past. Now the world must fight for its life.
Maybe, just maybe, if they don't now have to worry about losing Congress, the administration can take some real action now.

Unfortunately, the new "bipartisanship" will likely lead to open borders. And the repealing of the economy-saving tax cuts to "pay for the war" which will actually reduce tax revenue (it's up, did you know?) and send us into a recession.

Snatching Defeat

Encouraging news out of Iraq today:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein's former second in command, now a fugitive with a $10 million bounty on his head, has ordered Sunni insurgents loyal to the former president to cease attacks, according to government and parliamentary officials who claimed knowledge of the developments.
This could be significant; this al-Douri is the most important figure from the "deck" that was never rounded up and is likely a key figure in the organized Sunni insurgency.

Four officials in the Iraqi government and parliament, each in a position to hear about largely secret efforts to reach accord with members of the Sunni insurgency, said former Iraqi vice president Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri has ordered insurgent leaders who are linked to Saddam's ousted Baath Party to end attacks within the past two days.
With cut-and-run Democrats apparently gaining power, will that order be reversed?

Would that order have come much earlier,saving lives, had there been no question our effort would be steadfast?

Talking heads on the news attributing Democrat gains to us "losing" in Iraq.

Repeat the Big Lie often enough and it becomes as good as true.

John Kerry's website is clear about this; speaking of this election,
Winning means forcing an end to the disastrous war in Iraq, and getting our heroes home.
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops have broken the back of an insurgency by Taliban militants near the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, the scene of fierce recent fighting, Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Tuesday.

Canada has 2,300 soldiers based in Kandahar. Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, most of them in battles in the south of the country over the past few months.

Although an opinion poll over the weekend showed most Canadians pessimistic about the future of the mission and want the troops to come home, O'Connor struck an upbeat tone.

"It is a critical time in the south. ... I believe that we are going to succeed," he said in a Parliamentary debate on the Canadian military.
Not if Canadians declare themselves defeated and bring everyone home first, O'Connor!

Once upon a time, a mighty superpower found there were lots of foreigners clamoring to cross their borders in a vast migration. It seemed like an ok deal; after all, these new immigrants were willing to do jobs the citizens weren't. That nation soon collapsed, for lack of interest in keeping it alive.

I'm speaking of course of Rome letting in the various Goths, letting them look after the borders.

Didn't work out too well when the Vandals, Huns and Mongols arrived.

It's amazing how the attitude of giving up is seen to be sophisticated.

The disappointment is that this result will seem to vindicate the predictions of our real enemies and embolden them.

The good news, however, is many of these new Democrats being elected are apparently actually strongly conservative in their outlook, and several more states passed ballot measures banning gay "marriage."

I eagerly await the outcome of Michigan's Proposal 2 discarding the blight of official discrimination ("affirmative action")...

Perhaps the Republicans will learn to get back to Reaganite roots.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

The Only Issue

A comprehensive essay on the only issue that matters this election season by renowned science fiction and fantasy writer, Orson Scott Card, begins like this:
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
In the middle, it explains,
Because even more than they fear terrorist bombs, the pro-democracy forces within Iraq and Afghanistan fear American withdrawal. Every speech threatening withdrawal is a bomb going off in Baghdad, killing, not people, but the will to resist the tyrants.

Bin Laden predicted it [cut and run]. The Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly.

That is certainly not what most who call for withdrawal intend. They see Americans dying and they have no hope of victory. The Iraq War (as they call it) is costing lives and shows no sign of ending. Meanwhile, Iran is getting nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them, Syria and Iran are sponsoring continuing and escalating attacks on Israel -- how can we possibly "win" a war that threatens constantly to widen? Let's cut our losses, retire to our shores, and ...

And will you please stop and think for a moment?

There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.

Every American in the world then becomes a target. And, because we have announced that we will do nothing to protect them, we will soon be trading only with nations that have enough strength to protect their own shores and borders.

Only ... what nations are those?
It then ends with an outline of how there's an actual strategy for victory that is working, but just takes time:
The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning and that the course President Bush is pursuing is, in fact, the wisest one.

Critics of Bush love to cite the many "mistakes" his administration has made. Most of these "mistakes" are arguable -- are they mistakes at all? -- and when you sum up the others, with any kind of rational understanding of military history, the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history, with the fewest mistakes. And most of the mistakes we've made are the kind that become clear to morning-after quarterbacks but were difficult to avoid in the fog of war.

Worse yet, Bush's opponents invariably depict these mistakes as being the result of deliberately chosen policies -- a ludicrous charge, but one that is taken seriously by an astonishing number of people who should know better. The game, you see, is blame. It's not enough to say, Bush made a mistake. You have to say, Bush deliberately did it wrong for evil purposes and he must be punished.
It's well worth reading in full.

Sunday, November 05, 2006


One of America's best-known authors and social commentators called this long-running guerilla war against muslim insurgents a quagmire:
We were to relieve them from...tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority...a government according to [their] ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater.
I'm speaking, or course, of Mark Twain writing about the Philippine Insurrection in 1900.

The parallels, militarily and politically, with Iraq are stunning.

Whereas the "Big Picture" of our own Civil War parallel the situation today as I showed here, in the Philippines the correspondence is at an even much finer level of detail.

It took a long time -- 15 years -- but guess what.

We won.

So rather than seeing this current struggle as intrinsically unwinnable, we can learn from history how to win it.

And the answer isn't more troops.

It's patience and scorched earth.

The real question therefore is not can we win, but do we want to win.

Even the condemnation of the elites, the media, and the Red Cross back then were no different than they are now; the insurgents even hoped to influence our domestic politics by being extremely brutal and cruel, to cause a steady attrition of US forces to allow the anti-war faction to defeat President McKinley's Republicans in favor of the nutty peace wing of the Democrat party, in the form of William Jennings Bryan (who, parenthetically, is remembered best for his attacks on Darwinism, showing that's not an intrinsically right-wing issue):
The Filipino general Francisco Makabulos described the Filipinos' war aim as, "not to vanquish the US Army but to inflict on them constant losses." They sought to initially use conventional (later guerilla) tactics and an increasing toll of US casualties to contribute to McKinley's defeat in the 1900 presidential election. Their hope was that as President the avowedly anti-imperialist William Jennings Bryan would withdraw from the Philippines. They pursued this short-term goal with guerilla tactics better suited to a protracted struggle. While targeting McKinley motivated the revolutionaries in the short term, his victory demoralized them and convinced many undecided Filipinos that the United States would not depart precipitately.
Hear that, Democrats?

You're actively encouraging our enemies to keep fighting by boosting their morale, when we should be united in dashing their hopes.

And whereas we have anti-globalist anarchists and radical environmentalists protesting the US, McKinley was actually assassinated by an anarchist shortly into his second term, when he was succeeded by Teddy Roosevelt.

This was no easy struggle. Overall American casualties totalled more than 4000 after it was all over -- twice the level of Iraq which the media hyperventilates over today:
As of 1900, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans lost nearly 500 men who were either killed or wounded. The Filipino resistance fighters began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.
Having gained the islands from Spain after the Spanish-American War of 1898, the first phase of the Philippine-American War even also had its own false "mission accomplished" in 1901, when the leader of the nationalists, Aguinaldo, was captured in a daring raid and issued a statement of surrender. But as with Hussein,
The capture of Aguinaldo dealt a severe blow to the Filipino cause, but not as much as the Americans had hoped.
Then fanatical islamic tribesmen would continue to fight for another dozen years, until 1913.

The size of the force that won began at 40,000 troops and never exceeded 126,000 -- which is somewhat less but on about the order of the size of the deployment in Iraq.

And of course, the lethality of the troops in Iraq is orders of magnitude over that of the army a century ago!

The effectiveness of our adversaries, from then until now, however, has hardly changed much at all.

So clearly we have sufficient combat power available to perform the Philippine strategy.

How did such a small force back then pacify those difficult natives?

By not being politically correct:
The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 with 16,000 actually counted, while civilian deaths numbered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipinos. These numbers take into account those killed by war, malnutrition and a cholera epidemic that raged during the war. The American military and Philippine Constabulary still suffered periodic losses combating small bands of Moro guerillas in the far south until 1913.
That's how insurrections were always defeated since time immemorial.

If that's not how we're going to fight, we should not only bring the troops home now, but also disband the armed forces and start digging our own shallow graves.

There was at least a spark of self-confidence in the American Way still alive then; McKinley is reported to have said:
"The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.... I sought counsel from all sides - Democrats as well as Republicans - but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night."

"And one night late it came to me this way - I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."
The last part about Christianize, however, is considered by some historians to be probably (but not necessarily) apocryphal.

Doesn't that just sound though like a summary of Iraq? Can't give it back to Baathists, can't give it to the UN, unfit for self-rule...the solution is the same as the Ann Coulter prescription quoted on my masthead!

As backward and primitive and non-Western as the medieval Arabs of Iraq are, surely they are not worse off as raw material than stone-age Pacific islanders, which should put to rest the "not able to have liberal government" arguments often heard.

It will just take time, and the result should be judged by Philippine standards of success. Clearly the Philippines (which we didn't gave independence to until 1946 -- a 48 year gestation period!) have problems, but nobody loses sleep over them here now, do we?

It's not like domestic opinion back then was particularly unified; the rich elites, the press -- and Democrats -- were of course opposed:
Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines...Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had betrayed its lofty goals of the Spanish-American War by becoming a colonial power, merely replacing Spain in the Philippines. Other anti-imperialists opposed annexation on racist grounds. Among these was Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who feared that annexation of the Philippines would lead to an influx of non-white immigrants, thus undermining white racial purity in America.
Look at that, they even had their Pat Buchanan paleo-conservatives opposed to the war then as we do now as well!
As news of atrocities committed in subduing the Philippines arrived in the United States, support for the war flagged.

Except then, the torture was real. The infamous "water torture" involved forcing dirty, salted water under pressure through a funnel into a captive's stomach, for example.

It was only giving back what they were dishing out, however.
Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press.
Ah, the press!
Emilio Aguinaldo managed to smuggle in four reporters—two English, one Canadian, and a Japanese into the Philippines. The correspondents returned to Manila to report that American captives were “treated more like guests than prisoners,” were “fed the best that the country affords, and everything is done to gain their favor.” The story went on to say that American prisoners were offered commissions in the Filipino army and that three had accepted. The four reporters were expelled from the Philippines as soon as their stories were printed.
To counter the bad press back in America, General Otis stated that insurgents tortured American prisoners in “fiendish fashion”, some of whom were buried alive, or worse, up their necks in anthills to be slowly devoured. Others were castrated, had the removed parts stuffed into their mouths, and were then left to suffocate or bleed to death. It was also stated that some prisoners were deliberately infested with leprosy before being released to spread the disease among their comrades. Spanish priests were horribly mutilated before their congregations, and natives who refused to support Emilio Aguinaldo were slaughtered by the thousands. American newspaper headlines announced the “Murder and Rapine” by the “Fiendish Filipinos.” General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, solely to discredit American soldiers.
Sergeant Hallock testified in the Lodge committee said natives were given the water cure, “…in order to secure information of the murder of Private O'Herne of Company I, who had been not only killed, but roasted and otherwise tortured before death ensued.”
The insurrection also had widespread popular support; final victory was achieved by the following:
As one historian wrote about Marinduque, the first island with concentration camps: "The triple press of concentration (camps), devastation, and harassment led Abad (the Marinduque commander) …to request a truce to negotiate surrender terms… The Army pacified Marinduque not by winning the allegiance of the people, but by imposing coercive measures to control their behavior and separate them from the insurgents in the field. Ultimately, military and security measures proved to be the (essential element) of Philippine pacification." This assessment could probably be applied to all of the Philippines.
And General Pershing, who was military governor of the Moro province brought their revolt to an end by 1913 through a thorough process of disarmament begun in 1911:
Law enforcement in the Moro Province was difficult. Outlaws would go to ground at their home cottas, requiring an entire troop of police or soldiers to arrest them. There was always the danger of a full-fledged battle breaking out during such an arrest, and this lead to many known outlaws going unpunished. In 1911, Pershing resolved to disarm the Moros.
1911 was the year, of course, that the famous M1911 .45-calibre semiautomatic handgun was devised, specifically to deal with the muslim fanatics of Moro Province.

Replaced in the peacetime 1990s with a more "modern" 9mm pistol, combat units have demanded the return of the venerable M1911, or at least a new .45 of similar design -- and they are getting it.

P.S.: before anyone comments that Pershing intimidated the muslims by using bullets dipped in pig blood and put their dead bodies in pigskin bags, that's likely apocryphal; please provide a good primary source. But it certainly makes a fine idea going forward!

Demopaths, Dupes, and Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism

Related to the mental disorder illustrated in the post below, is an interesting site that discusses problems in post-modern journalism practice.

See the interesting sidebar of link on the right of its page, such as Cognitive Egocentrism and Demopaths and their Dupes.

For example, this lays out why left-wingers in the form of Democrats are so dangerous and why I am so concerned:
I include this essay on civil society partly because Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism (LCE) fosters a remarkable naiveté about how difficult and rare it is to establish a civil polity. This failure to appreciate civil society may be the single most dangerous factor in our current inability to recognize and cooperate with its friends on the one hand, and to beware its enemies on the other.
And the exploitation of naive idealists by cynical left-wingers is explained here:

The projection of good faith and fair-mindedness onto others, the assumption that “other” shares the same human values, that everyone prefers positive sum interactions. In a slightly more redemptive mode, LCE holds that all people are good, and if only we treat them right, they will respond well. This is a form of empathy that, like MOS, aspires to the radical victory of justice, and robs the “other” of his or her own beliefs and attitudes. It projects onto rather than detects what the “other” feels.


The projection of bad faith onto the other, the assumption that everyone abuses power, that one must rule or be ruled. In deep-seated cases, DCE cannot even perceive the possibility of a positive-sum game: whatever the “other” does, no matter how generous it may seem, is a trap, a covert act of hostility in which the other is really jockeying for superior position in a zero-sum game. Hence DCE has strong affinity for conspiracy theories (the other is malevolent evil that must be opposed at all costs).


Demopaths are particularly adept at exploiting LCE. They speak in precisely the terms that appeal to LCE, insisting that their struggle is for human rights, fairness and justice, even as their notions of these matters differ wildly from those of the liberals to whom they appeal (DCE). Liberals find themselves confused, since both genuine moderates and demopaths use more or less the same language. Forced to judge, many liberals, eager to believe anything civil these people might say and any hope for peace now they may hold out, prefer to project good faith, taking the protestations of demopaths at face value, becoming their dupes.

As a result, a dysfunctional relationship between demopaths (DCE) and their dupes (LCE) has emerged. Under current circumstances, where most liberals cannot even detect the existence of their own LCE nor imagine the possible DCE of others, this dysfunctional relationship works radically to the advantage of the demopaths. When Western authorities empower demopaths rather than sincere moderates, they hurt the forces of civil society and human rights and empower the forces of dominion and war.
Demopaths are people who use democratic language and invoke human rights only when it serves their interests, and not when it calls for self-criticism or self-restraint. Demopaths demand stringent levels of human “rights” but do not apply these basic standards for the “other” to their own behavior. The most lethal demopaths use democratic rights to destroy democracy.

Demopaths differ from civil-society free-riders; the latter enjoy more rights than they grant to others simply out of selfishness or laziness. Demopaths are fundamentally hostile to granting others’ rights, and secretly despise the values of civil society (which demands that they tolerate and respect others). Instead of coming along for the ride, they want to sink the boat.

Demopaths use the jargon of civil society and human rights to convince their targets. Through this progressive discourse, demopaths exploit on people eager to believe that civic values can resolve the problem. Sometimes demopaths are completely hostile to the cultures in which they live, and manipulate human rights as a Trojan horse to enter the city and sack it.
See the rest for a tie-in, of course, with the practices of radical islam.

Mentally Ill

Anyone else get the sense there's a growing mass of mental illness emanating from the far left these days?

I check the e-mail for this blog about once a month, and get to see copies of comments that were left that I don't obviously see on the front page.

In late October, some vile lunatic by the name "Enlightenment" left the following long conspiracy-laden screed as a comment to my posting commemorating Christine Hanson, the youngest victim of 9/11 on its 5th anniversary.

I deleted it from there as it was a desecration which I will not tolerate.

What's worse, if you search the web for any random sentence in those rantings, you will find this idiot compulsively posted that exact same text around 200 times on different blogs throughout October as a cut-and-paste job. Talk about obsessive/compulsive disorder, combined with paranoia!

This was done by hand and not by a 'bot because I have word-verification required for posting comments.

One can only imagine that Enlightenment has been posting various versions of its "eye-opening rebuttal" of the "official" 9/11 "narrative" thousands and thousands of times on other people's blogs for quite some time.

That someone would believe such nonsense, and then effectively deface a memorial to a murdered little girl for their sick obsession, has angered me beyond endurance.

Everyone should note that this fringe is pandered to by the left-wing of the Democrat party.

Of course factions of the Republicans pander to unsavory fringes as well, but one side is clearly more insane in a way that will increase the chances that you will be killed when their fantasy-based policies fail to correspond to a true deadly reality that, you know, only threatens our entire way of life by either paralyzing air travel or wreaking nuclear- or biological-weapons catastrophe.

I post it here so we can all mock and jeer at it and expose the rotten illness of the Michael Moore crowd -- to whose premier of his movie "Fahrenheit 9-11", remember, the Democrat leadership attended and gave a standing ovation.

Then pray for them, so they may perhaps recover their souls.
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Vote Democrat

And appease your islamic overlords.

From the Palestinian Territories:
Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND.

“This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those [Democrats] who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,” said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats’ talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel “proud.”

“As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk,” he told WND. “Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.”

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal “proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation.”
Which is exactly why such talk only encourages more senseless killing.

In Iran,
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Tehran’s interim Friday Prayers Leader Seyed Ahmad Khatami stressed that the savage and devilish performance of the US President George W Bush has placed Republicans in a very critical condition.

The cleric stressed that the only move helping the US administration to escape its present crisis is unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.
Hezbollah's terrorist leaders agree:
LEBANON - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised interview aired Tuesday on Al-Manar TV that the United Nations Forces in Lebanon would not be able to disarm the guerilla group.

Hizbollah has stepped up the rebuilding of its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon despite the deployment in recent weeks of thousands of Lebanese troops and international peacekeepers to limit the Islamic militant group’s activities.

He said America’s plans in the Middle East face “failure, frustration and a state of collapse,” and predicted the U.S. would be forced to leave the region.

The U.S. has “no future” in the region, Nasrallah said. “They will leave the Mideast, Arab and Islamic worlds just as they left Vietnam, and I advise those who are counting on them to draw conclusion from the Vietnam experience.”
The terror leaders are thrilled by the prospect of Democrat policies. LLLs agree with this so much, they are honoring the Iranian leader:
LONDON (AFP) - A US troop pullout from Iraq would be a “major step” towards restoring stability there, Iran’s former president has said, lamenting that US policies in the Middle East have fueled radicalism worldwide.

Khatami is on a four-day visit to Britain. On Tuesday, he was given an honorary degree by Saint Andrew’s University in Scotland, while on Wednesday he delivered a keynote address to London’s Chatham House thinktank.
Democrats and terrorists agree: the US should withdraw.

Democrats. Endorsed by islamic killers.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Life or Death

This post at Belmont Club succinctly describes why I absolutely and thoroughly despise the left-wingers of the Democrat party and their media toadies, and will forever be their foe, because their irresponsibility will get lots of good people murdered:
The New York Times is complaining that information from Iraq's nonexistent nuclear weapons program that was posted on the web by the Bush administration to disprove the NYT's assertion that Iraq's program didn't exist has helped Iran advance its own existing nuclear weapons program. It's Bush's fault. It is just me, or is something wrong with this train of reasoning?
The terrible possibility exists that Bush may be incompetent and yet the political alternatives worse. People who face amputation from diabetes may not like losing a leg, but often they prefer it to losing their lives. One is bad. The other is worse.

But personally I think the whole debate surrounding Iraq's WMDs is glorified misdirection. America did and does face a threat from terrorist-supporting nations of which Saddam's Iraq was one. Before it was taken down. The AQ Khan network, Iran and North Korea were all part of the threat. That America did not find an actual, ticking nuclear weapon in Iraq doesn't particularly mean anything in an era where design work, production and testing can be divided among anti-American allies. Even refrigerators are made that way today. The gleeful assertion that Saddam didn't "have" WMDs has slowly deligitimized any effort to rid the world of the malignant threat that is growing before its eyes. This campaign has made it politically impossible to act against any nation even if it is in as advanced -- oops -- as retarded a state of development as was Saddam's Iraq. That the threat did not exist was a lie and the greatest danger of all lies, including this one, is that it comes to be accepted as the truth.
Nothing I hate more than a liar.

And they put the life of my family at risk for sheer personal power.

Like zombies, there's no reasoning with them.

How does one stop a zombie, I wonder?

To elaborate, a commenter quotes Drudge on the NYT article:
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...

Website now shut... Developing...
I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.


I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.

The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.

The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
This is apparently the Times' November surprise, but it's a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.
That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.

What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:

* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.

* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7

* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it

* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves.
Does anybody care?

Or is it more cathartic to tear down our civilization fof the sheer petulant spoiled-brat fun of it?

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Midterm Elections

The situation: a deeply unpopular Republican President, derided viciously in the press as an unsophisticated backcountry rube and an ape, during a divisively unpopular war considered an idiotic wasteful mistake and quagmire in which nothing but defeat was emerging; and the Democrats, backed by disgruntled generals, running on a platform of "cut and run" (with the approval of the major foreign powers), were poised to sweep into power in the midterm elections.


How about 1862?

The President was Lincoln, but the script is identical.

Democrats. Treasonous surrender-monkeys for 144 years.

Only Divine Providence saved the Union, in the form of a "September Surprise" (things moved more slowly in those days) in which Lee's secret orders for a decisive thrust towards Harrisburg which would have sealed the Union's doom, were found in a field, wrapped around some cigars, by troopers from Indiana. This allowed, finally, a moderate Union military victory to finally hit the papers, and Lincoln was able to then give the Emancipation Proclamation speech which he was waiting to do from a position of strength, which changed public opinion narrowly to the cause of righteousness -- at least long enough to swing the election of 1862.

Gloom would descend again when Lincoln himself was up for election again in 1864.

The story of the 1860s is so parallel to today as almost to defy belief.

One could even snarkily say:

Republicans. Stealing elections to save the country since 1862.

Except the claims of strong-arm tactics back then were, you know, true, and of a wholly different quality than of today.

And yet, the Nation went on, and it was the less bad of the two possible outcomes.

This will be lengthy, so bear with me. Now on to the evidence of parallels.

First Lincoln.

Talk about The Chimp? "Ape" Lincoln was the original Chimpy!

And his social graces were lacking; he would be the anti-Kerry:
New York was convulsed with amusement because at the opera he wore a pair of huge black kid gloves which attracted the attention of the whole house, "hanging as they did over the red velvet box front." At an informal reception, between acts in the director's room, he looked terribly bored and sat on the sofa at the end of the room with his hat pushed back on his head. Caricatures filled the opposition papers. He was spoken of as the "Illinois ape" and the "gorilla." Every rash remark, every "break" in social form, every gaucherie was seized upon and ridiculed with-out mercy.

And for example, this article from 1996 reviews some depictions in the press:
By far, Lincoln was the most frequent target of scorn: "From first to last," noted the initial editorial, "I have maintained the utter incompetence of Abe Lincoln."3 One week later, the writer predicted, "As long as Lincoln is suffered to remain at the head of affairs, there is no real hope for America."4 Although "Our Own Manhattan" decried, quite justifiably, the quality of Union generals, including McDowell, Little Mac, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker, he reserved his most potent contempt for the commander-in-chief.

Simply to suit the purposes of the miserable dotard, the superannuated wood-cutter, Abe Lincoln.... Abe has made a bet of half a million dollars with the American representative of the house of Rothschild, that Charleston will not fall before the 22nd September. Of course he means to win.... Our peculiar exercise of private judgment in choosing as our ruler not a statesman, not an orator, not even a gentleman, has already cost us half a million lives and a national debt, the largest ever created in so short a time, which we have not the remotest intention of ultimately repaying.
Shades of Halliburton! And a busted budget!
The man Lincoln is possibly "honest," but a more helpless nincompoop was never raised down in Illinois.... Any citizen of ordinary intellect would have contracted to crush the rebellion in ninety-one days. The plain truth is, that Lincoln and his men do not really desire to put down the South. No, Sir. It pays them too well.... Abe has really been purchasing property down South; that he has bought a plantation in Louisiana; that, as soon as circumstances permit, Mrs. L. will be sent away, and her place supplied by a bevy of African belles; and that the chief overseer, with unlimited powers of using the cow-hide, will be our intelligent ... friend, Horace Greeley.
War profiteering!

Even the famous Gettysburg Address couldn't please anyone; so what could Bush possibly say?
In the aftermath of Gettysburg, the Comic News's special correspondent derided Lincoln's ability as a speaker [in giving the Gettysburg Address]. "The language of Abraham Lincoln, President of the Minor portion of the Dis-United States of America, is commonly of so vulgar a nature as to be, in the language of the Comic News Police Reporter, 'totally unfit for publication.' Mr. Lincoln has made himself almost hymn-mortal by his disgusting song-singing on the flat of Gettysburg, and for further immorality he must get his character improved, or he will never be recognized as a genius by the genial correspondent of the Comic News."
And whereas the earlier Morgan exploited the rural simpleton, awkward oaf, incompetent buffoon, and inept president imagery, the later version imputed more malevolent motives. Themes of blood, death, tyranny, intimations of war crimes, and even the propriety of hanging Lincoln exemplify the more hostile content.
Abe lied, people died! Gitmo!!!

I now turn to the book, What Ifs? of American History, subtitled Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been.

I will combine excerpts from two essays, in their outline of the situation. The first "What If?" is about what if Lee's order's hadn't been lost and then found by the Union -- the dissolution of the United States was then highly likely.

The second, discusses the development of the "Northwest Conspiracy" of Democrats to take over the "Northwest" states (now the Midwest) and declare a second Confederacy, because of Lincoln's shifting war aims, and what would have happened if not for an informant in the secret Confderate-sympathizing Democrat militia, the Sons of Liberty.

Any events I quickly summarize are in brackets.

The situation in 1862. Or is it 2006?
Dispirited Union troops retreated to the defenses of Washington to lick their wounds.

This startling reversal caused Northern morale to plummet. "The feeling of despondency is very great," wrote a prominent New York Democrat...His words were echoed by a New York Republican... "Things look disastrous... I find it hard to maintain my lively faith in the triumph of the nation and the law"...

Lincoln lamented privately: "It seems unreasonable that a series of successes, extending through half a year, and clearing more than a hundred thousand square miles of country, should help us so little, while a single half-defeat should hurt us so much."

Unreasonable or not, it was a fact. The peace wing of the Democratic party stepped up its attacks on Lincoln's policy of trying to restore the Union by war. Branded by Republicans as disloyal "Copperheads", the Peace Democrats insisted that Northern armies could never conquer the South and that the government should seek an armistice and peace negotiations. Confederate military successes boosted the credibility of such arguments. And worse was yet to come...[in the form of Union defeats in TN and KY.]

Rather than give up and negotiate a peace, however, Lincoln and the Republican Congress acted dramatically to intensify the war.
Bush, take note!
Northern morale continued to fall. "The nation is rapidly sinking just now," wrote a NY diarist... "Disgust with our present government is certainly universal."

Democrats hoped to capitalize on this disgust in the upcoming congressional elections. Republicans feared the prospect. "After a year and a half of trial," wrote one, "and a pouring out of blood and treasure, and the maiming and death of thousands, we have made no sensible progress in putting down the rebellion...and the people are desirous of some change." The Republican majority in the House was vulnerable. Even the normal loss of seats in off-year elections might eliminate this majority. And 1862 was scarcely a normal year. With Confederate invaders in the border states, the Democrats seemed sure of gaining control of the House on their platform of an armistice an dpeace negotiations.

[The British and French were looking for an excuse to recognize the Confederacy and force an armistice for access to precious cotton]
No blood for cotton!
The US consul in Liverpool reported that "we are in more danger of intervention than we have been at any previous period...They [the Europeans] are all against us and would rejoice at our downfall."
But with the loss of the Special Orders, Lee's movements were known, and he was turned back at Antietam, saving the day temporarily. Providence would also have to intervene again later, at Gettysburg.

But Democrats were seething for many reasons, leading to the curious Northwest Conspiracy. Many in the border states of Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois were very disgruntled at the Republicans and their freeing of slaves -- something they hadn't signed up for:
Thus was the Northwest Conspiracy born...The plotters proposed to take these crucial states out of the Union and set up a third nation -- the Northwest Confederacy...

The plan called for auprising by 100,000 angry Democrats in these states during the summer or fall of 1864...
But why?
This visionary scheme grew out of the frustrations of the Copperhead movement, in particular anger over the fate of the first leader of the antiwar forces in the Midwest, Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham. He was arrested by Gen. Ambrose Burnside in 1863 for making supposedly treasonous speeches and tried before a military commission. The trial was a farce. The federal judge advocate general had judicial as well as prosecutorial powers.
He was deported and ended up in Canada.
Beneath the heartland, Democrats' hostility to the war was something deeper and less recognized -- the extralegal tactics of the Lincoln administration, especially in Indiana and Kentucky, where the Republicans created something very close to military dictatorships that manipulated elections and used terror tactics to retain political control. By 1864, the Democrats of KY and IN were a seething mass of rage in search of a target...
Once in control of KY, Republicans armed the people of Appalachia, the Cumberland "knobs," as they were called. These folk had a long history of hatred for the pro-Southern aristocrats of the Bluegrass...Tens of thousands of resentful KY Democrats vowed to get even at the polls.

Republicans responded with brute force. On July 21, 1862, Union general Jerry T. Boyle threated to arrest any Democrat who had the temerity to run for office against the admin's slate...The Republicans carried the state in the 1862 midterm elections by stationing troops around polling places. When a Democrat showed up to cast his ballot, he was often told by the officer in command that he would not be responsible fo rhis safety if he voted...

These tactics carried KY for the Republicans and helped give Lincoln his narrow margin of control in the House in 1862.
Karl Rove, are you listening? That's Old School. Somehow "hanging chads" just don't get my attention compared to what this nation has successfully endured in the past.
When the state Democratic convention met in Frankfortin Feb 1863, Col. Gilbert marched the 44th Ohio into the meeting hall and dispersed the assembly at bayonet point...No less than 17 newspapers were smashed up by mobs, often with soldiers in uniform helping out or watching with warm approval.

When leading politicians...protested these tactics, they were arrested and held in various federal prisons where they endured verbal abuse and semistarvation until they pledged allegiance to the federal government.
That's one way to deal with the MSM and its lackeys.

Democrats won the state of Indiana and immediately voted to cut off war funding. The Governor dismissed the legislature and ruled by decree for the rest of the war, using money supplied directly from Lincoln's government.

How about that!

Talk about "shifting rationales" for war!
After the Emancipation Proclamation, disaffection with the Lincoln administration in both IN and KY became intense...2,300 men deserted from IN regiments in Dec 1862...the western army was 'demoralized until it is worthless...Soldiers are deserting every day.'

Democratic newspapers published letters denouncing 'Old Black Abe' and his proclamation. The editors saw the document as a perversion of the war's original aim to preserve the Union. Democrats regarded it as a double cross because Lincoln had previously promised not to interfere with the institution of slavery.
Once again, Abe lied, people died!

From then on, things spun out of control in the border states politically. The Democrat convention in Indianapolis of 1863 was a fiasco, in which an actual melee broke out and Federal troops ran the delegates out of town with cannon and cavalry.

By 1864,
Nobody, including Lincoln himself, thought he could be reelected. Divided and discouraged Republicans began talking about finding another canddate...There was a near certainty that the Democrats were going to nominate General George C. McClellan, the man Lincoln had dismissed as general-in-chief. If he won, "Little Mac" made it clear that his first act would be to call for a negotiated peace with an independent South.

The possibility...filled many minds with demoralizing gloom.
Shades of Wesley Clark!

This all led to secret societies and militias forming in the border states, that developed treasonous political ideas -- including the uprising plan of the Sons of Liberty to converge on Chicago and release Confederate prisoners by the thousands to form an army. The plot was unraveled by an informant and, paradoxically, the low ebb of Lincoln's popularity made many think no uprising was necessary to defeat the Republicans in 1864.
Hines and a handpicked group of ex-Morgan cavalrymen met nothing but disappointment when they attempted to organize the two regiments of the Sons of Liberty for action...General Carrington sent cavalry ranging through the state, arresting Dr. Bowles, Dodd, Milligan, and dozens of other Sons of Libery leaders. More than 30,000 rifles and pistols were seized, along with tons of powder and ammunitions. In a few weeks between 300 and 400 minor leaders were under lock and key...
Then Sherman would take Atlanta, raising everyone's spirits just in time for Lincoln to be re-elected.
The Republicans used the Sons to bolster their 1864 election campaign...

For years they had been trying to smear the Democrats with the treason label. The Northwest Conspiracy seemed to prove it...The accusation that the Democratic party was disloyal remained a favorite cry for Republican orators until the Spanish-American War.
And once again, apparently!

To make one final connection with today, what of the head conspirators? Convicted by military tribunals, Lincoln agreed for the sake of healing to pardon them after the war. But with his untimely death, Andrew Johnson who then became President knew nothing of those plans.

Forced then to appeal, the Milligan mentioned above would be immortalized in the postwar Supreme Court decision of 1866, ex parte Milligan, which factors into the issue of illegal combatant tribunals at Guantanamo today -- the connections just get stranger!

Having served a year or so hard labor, their convictions were voided on procedural grounds, the Supreme Court adding to its opinion that otherwise they were "scoundrels who deserved to hang."

Milligan would sue for wrongful imprisonment, and was awarded an insulting $12 in damages.

And today history is repeating.

But as Tragedy, or Farce?