Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Tlaib: Playing the Blame Game

In a way, I think that our Democratic friends deserve the Terrible Twins, Congs. Omar and Tlaib (D-Ummah). As thoroughly modern Muslims they are anti-Jewish, and especially anti-Israel.

And I get it. It is humiliating and monstrous that the Jews returned to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the Levant in the 20th century, in consequence of the Zionist movement, and have shouldered the Muslims aside.

I'd be mad as hell too if I were a Muslim from "Palestine."

But hey, you win some and you lose some. My dad was born in Russia and left in 1918 as a refugee (I actually never thought of him as a refugee until about a week ago, but hey...). And my parents had to leave India, the country of my birth, on account of the British Raj winding up business and handing the subcontinent over to the inhabitants thereof -- or at least the folks surviving after the various invasions and Mughal empires and British Rajs over the centuries.

Truth is: history is hell, and rape and pillage and slaughter of the innocents, and the Levant has seen more than its fair share of that down the millennia.

We all know about the monstrous Trail of Tears, native Americans forced from their homelands into the West. And the massacres of the Armenians and the Kurds. And the Ukraine famine. And the Great Purge. And the Holocaust. And the Great Leap Forward.

Hey, did you know that in France after the Liberation in 1944 there were probably more people massacred than in the monstrous Reign of Terror? Or that about 2 million German soldiers mysteriously never showed up after World War II. Or that maybe as many as 10 million Germans died of starvation in the Allied occupied areas after 1945? I didn't either, and it may all be revisionist conspiracy theory. You tell me.

The point is that the winners write history and the losers are lucky to be alive.

Which suggests that if the Left ever really takes over the US their current hegemonic narrative, the removals of statues and paintings, will be a walk in the park compared to what comes next.

But back to Tlaib and Omar, in the context of my belief that all identity politics, from globalism to nationalism to racism to Muslimism is "fake tribalism."

There are no tribes. Never were. It is all made up by political leaders and priests and government teachers and Mean Girls and criminal-gang homeboys to enlist the people into the rank-and-file of their power plans.

And in the modern era, we could say that fake tribalism started with the national idea. Totally fake. Before the nation state people were organized into smaller political and cultural units and knew that was the way of the world. Or, with Mohammed, they got organized into the Ummah, the worldwide community of believers. Except that the Muslim world is divided into Shia and Sunni, each of which is descended from the Prophet and the sole representative of Islam on Earth.

Now, our liberal masters want to de-emphasize the national idea in the US, because they experience themselves as the global educated elite that is going to create a global society that will end war and racism and sexism and homophobia and climate change.

But isn't it interesting that they way they are doing this is to sow discord and division in the US, between race and race, gender and gender, religion and religion? Well of course they are. Politics is division and to divide you have to order people into different fake tribes than the fake tribes of the old days. So if you want to break up the idea of America and Americans, you must set American against American and get people to identify with something other than America. Since most ordinary people aren't ready to identify as global humans, and our lefty friends have condemned the American nation out of hand, that means that some lesser group identity must be created to replace the American national identity: fake identity politics tribes to replace the old fake American tribe.

Really, this is not rocket science.

And you can understand the liberal rage at President Trump. He is out there reviving the old fake American national identity: Make America Great Again. How dare he! Why even Nietzsche, the "Nazis' favoriate intellectual," knew that nationalism was a bad thing.

And your Congs. Tlaib and Omar are pushing the Muslim identity. There's a risk there, in that it might encourage millions of Americans who never thought about it to identify more strongly as Americans.

And it might even scotch Slow Joe Biden's cunning plan to paint Trump as a racist. Compared to what? Congs. Tlaib and Omar? How does that work exactly, Joe old chap.

Hey, Joe! Keep your arms off my wife, you creep!


  1. Not to belabor the point, but I'll speak in defense of my Country:

    The "Trail of Tears" was actually a mercy by the US Army. It's certainly not a mercy any Indian tribe would offer a white settlement (or an Indian settlement, mind you).

    Andrew Jackson, more than anyone, knew that the Indians were capable of treachery and only trusted those individual families (not "tribes") that fought with the Americans in the intervening years:

    (A) Most redskins had allied with the British and were a constant threat of insurgency/invasion even after British defeat. It is important to note that throughout America's existence through the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century, America's greatest enemy was the British Empire, who's strategy was to use Indian tribes to deny/delay the Americans from achieving Manifest Destiny - lands which would later be conquered by Britain when its resources were mustered. Historic maps bear witness to Britain's claims on North America, from California (New Albion) to Alaska. It was not a mistake that Britain violated treaties with America upon signing them, supplying Indians with weapons and materiel to massacre American (and foreign immigrant) settlements and homesteads - in fact the tactic was one of the causes of the American Revolution.

    It doesn't take much imagination to see the damage the Indians in the American South could have done once allied to the British Empire and the Confederacy (which does not exist without British support) during the Civil War.

    Jackson was prescient to say the least.

    (B) Most of the Indians could not live in a civilized/settled society, and rescidivism was common, defaulting back to banditry - "nomads", "savages", "hostiles", "the uncivilized", they're all synonyms for Indians unable or unwilling to adapt to civilization; developing the land for farming and industry. The inability to make an "honest living" devolves always into returning to "warring on - and stealing from - other tribes". For all the post-hoc self-righteous nobility with which white (and often British Tory) propaganda up to today couched Indian raids on American settlements, the truth was most Indian attacks were motivated by naked thievery and murder - not a surprise, the same is true today, including the majority of "insurgents" that were in Iraq; they were "criminal gangs", not an army that was fielded for warfare against another army. While most Indian tribes no longer resorted to cannibalism by the time of the removal, their reputation for annihilation warfare in attacking white settlements was well-earned (they didn't treat other Indian tribes any different) and reciprocated.

    Only those for whom loyal Indians (such as the "Lower Creeeks") could vouch for, having fought on America's side (some even with Jackson himself) were allowed to stay and build their lives - historians have attempted to overstate and even fabricate how many actually sided with America - and there is no greater judge than Andrew Jackson. Any who did were exempt from teh Indian Removal - not as savages, but as civilized people - and most have since blended into the American gene pool long since.

    The vast majority of Indians at the time had no concept of land ownership - and unsurprisingly, no written language or cartography to stipulate such ownership.

    Combined with past treachery, and the same reason America can't claim the Moon or, they were removed from lands in favor of more productive and loyal people (American and Indian) to America.

  2. To put it simply, ISIS and Al Qaeda are pikers compared to the "Indians" of yore.

    Were there some "Civilized" Indians? Sure, and where there were exceptions were made.

    But there are far, FAR more "Civilized" Muslims today - and the moral equivalency is still sickening.

    And we're all on our way to forgetting how savage Muslim culture is by contemporary standards, and being told of their unimpeachable victim status.

    Bottom line: Muslims and Indians had it easy - they were treated far better than they deserved. They were and are CERTAINLY treated better than contemporary Americans were treated at Muslim or Indian hands.