On Auto-genocide

Deogolwulf ('The Joy of Curmudgeonry' blog): How to Commit Genocide

Deogolwulf makes an interesting observation about "liberal" nihilism and the "positive" racism which comes from it:

Some of these glimpses of reality may have pained you; for you had fancied, damned and beloved creatures of wickedness that you are, that the great sin of racial antagonism and aggression had somehow departed the world — except, we may curiously observe, in the case of your own European race, which you believe has remained deeply stained with it. But how are we to find our redemption, we sinful ones? Why, we seek our redemption through the destruction of our own race! Do we not believe that the racial aggression of blacks, for instance, or the seeking of the self-determination thereof, is but a struggle for justice, a healthy expression of their identity, whereas the same of whites is a fight for darkness and barbarity, even despite — no, because of! — the civilisation they have brought, and do we not meet the most pathetic, the most heartfelt, and even the most just cry of a white man — our own fellow — with contempt? But of course we do! Our race and our peoples are for us the repository of sin, whereas other races and peoples are the means of our redemption; for, through them we can destroy our own, and thereby rid the world of sin, and that is the only redemption that is available to us godless men. That is why “the other” is holy to us - it is not us, the sinful ones. Nevertheless it must be understood that it is not we as particular individuals who believe ourselves sinful as particular individuals; on the contrary, as such, we believe ourselves to be close to godliness, cleansed by our embrace of “the other”, enough to deem ourselves morally fit to bring outrage down upon the unclean; - it is our own peoples which are sinful, the very existence of them a dark stain on the world. That is why they must be destroyed and why we must be pitiless in our drive to that end. For us, in our sunken world, it is a war of sinlessness against sin, good against evil, justice against injustice, right against wrong, and it would be dreadful for us to give quarter or sympathy to sin, evil, injustice, and wrong.

It's a very long essay, but well worth Gentle Reader's time to read it.

How Like a 'Liberal'

How Like a "liberal" Lawrence Auster so frequently is in his thinking and published opinions.

Lydia McGrew asserts that I am one "who appears to have a "thing" about the subjects of Lawrence Auster and race." This rather echoes Mr Auster's typical response to valid criticism of his positions, which is to accuse the critic of having "Auster derangement syndrome" -- I know this from personal experience, for I used to try to communicate with the man, and that is how he "answered" my objections to some very inaccurate claims he'd published about the position of someone else.

In truth, I have a "thing" about injustice and about invalid reasoning -- and Auster, for all the clarity of thinking he is able to bring to bear (when he wants to do so), is also much given to invalid and unjust "reasoning ."

Consider a recent post by Mr Auster, The latest wiping out of a defenseless white by a black predator, in which he beats that "racialist" (as distinct from "racist") drum he's forever pounding.

Now, I am not at all saying that we conservatives should behave as "liberals" do and pretend that there is not an "epidemic" of black-on-white crime -- much as there is an even greater "epidemic" of black-on-black crime. Or worse, I am not saying the we should behave as "liberals" do and excoriate as "racists" those who have the "rudeness" to bring the matter to public attention.

BUT, it does no good if we who call ourselves conservatives, much less call ourselves Christians, behave as "liberals" do and refuse to think correctly about the problem. It does no good if we who call ourselves conservatives (and Christians) refuse to free our minds from the prevailing "liberalism" of the wider society.


The on-going existential problem we Westerners are having with Moslems-in-our-midst is not about where they or their grandparents came from. The problem is the spiritual and ideological baggage which Moslems must always cart around with them -- for, if they drop the baggage, they cease to be Slaves-of-Allah -- the problem with Moslems is Islam itself.

Moslems, as Moslems, have a deep and abiding sense of personal inferiority. And, following their collective dealings with the West (over the past couple of centuries, after the internal dynamics of our Christianized cultures had finally got ahead of the terrible drag that a thousand plus years of Moslem raiding into Europe had imposed upon our ancestors), they have a deep and abiding sense of cultural inferiority; as indeed, their cultures, and societies, are deeply inferior to ours, even as willingly degraded as ours are in these recent times.

At the same time, their supremacist ideology-disguised-as-a-religion tells them that they are "the best of peoples" -- simply because and to the degree that they are Slaves-of-Allah. The amazing thing is not that incidents like the recent Fort Hood murders happen, but that vastly more have not.


In similar wise, the on-going American problems related to race are not about the ancestry of American blacks.

Rather, the problem is spiritual and ideological; the problem is "liberalism" -- much as Islam teaches Moslems that they are personally worthless, yet corporately superior to "Infidels," so "liberalism" teaches blacks (and whites) that they are personally worthless in comparison to an individual white yet corporately superior to whites-as-a-group.

It is not helpful, it does not address the actual problem, it is not sound and honest reasoning, to adopt a position, as Auster does, which echoes the "liberal" cant. Note, I did not say that he mirrors the "liberals" ... in some regards, he's not nearly as bad, in others he's worse.

Now, the leading lights of "liberalism" tend to be Jews. Or, to be more precise, they tend to be Christ-haters -- atheists-with-a-mission -- whose grandparents were Jews.

Should I "reason" in a manner similar to Auster's? Should I blame the on-going societal and cultural destruction which is logically following from "liberalism" on the Jews?

Or, perhaps I should try to be a bit more nuanced, and lay the blame not on "the Jews," but rather on persons whose grandparents were Jews. You know, persons such as Mr Auster ... and myself (provided that one does not insist upon a literal reading of "grandparents"), both of whom call upon the name of Christ.

No; that would be foolish, that would be sinful. The problem is not "the Jews;" the problem is not "the bagel Jews" (that's what I call the irreligious and anti-religious persons whose grandparents were Jews). The problem is "liberalism" -- and the problem cannot be solved until we honestly appraise it and from that appraisal disentangle from our thinking all the little tendrils of "liberal" "thought" in which we were all so well trained in the public indoctrination centers it pleases us to so quaintly call 'schools.'

Bent or Warped?

Lawrence Auster, in his post What liberals desire, said --

[As usual, Gentle Reader may want to read the entire post I've linked.]

In a speech to a group of Iowa Democrats last weekend Vice President Biden said:

I believe with every fiber in my being with President Barack Obama's leadership and capacity, we have a chance--we have a chance to bend history.

Gosh, I thought that American left-liberals were progressives who want to advance history toward its true fulfillment in a naturally ever-improving realm of equality, freedom, and peace. Now it turns out that they want to bend history. Maybe instead of calling themselves progressivists they should call themselves bendists.

And, as an aide to discussion, perhaps the rest of us could (finally!) just admit that "liberals" are simply bent?

'Bioethics' and the Houben Case

'Bioethics' and the Houben Case ... and asking the deeper question: "Is the 'harvesting' of vital organs for transplant morally permissible ... or is this 'harvesting' tantamount to murder?"

I presume that Gentle Reader has at least heard of the Rom Houben case, that of a (now 46-year-old) Belgian man who, until about three years ago, had been diagnosed for the previous 23 years as being in a "persistent vegetative state" but is said by some to have been conscious the whole time, and in an apparent "medical miracle" is now able to communicate via technology and the help of a caretaker.

And, perhaps Gentle Reader is also aware that "the usual suspects" in "the bioethics community" -- one is featured prominently in the AP/Yahoo news item I linked -- are pooh-poohing this apparent "medical miracle" as merely an example of "facilitated communication" -- which is controversial ... and perhaps as disreputable as the "recovered memories" craze of several years back.

Now, I'm all for a proper skepticism about any claim. But there is such a thing as improper "hyper-skepticism;" there is such a thing as *refusing* to admit the truth which is right in front of your face. And I think that an improper hyper-skepticism is exactly what is going on here with the 'ethicists' (*).


The blogger "Neo-neocon" has a post in which she lays out some thoughtful skepticism about some of the claims being made about Mr Houben's recovery, specifically about whether he really is communicating.

And -- being that I am inherently a highly skeptical person -- I would tend to agree with her on the "facilitated communication" angle. At the same time, one of Neo-neocon's commenters has provided a link to a First Things-hosted
blog post by Wesley J. Smith in which he points out that one of the AP news stories about Mr Houben's apparent recovery answers that very question:

One of the checks Laureys applied to verify Houben was really communicating was to send the speech therapist away before showing his patient different objects. When the aide came back and Houben was asked to say what he saw, that same hand held by the aide punched in the right information, he said.

So: are Dr Laureys and the others directly involved in Mr Houben's case lying, or are the 'bioethicists' engaging in an improper hyper-skepticism?

And, if the 'bioethicists' are engaging in an improper hyper-skepticism -- which is to say, intellectual dishonestly -- what might be the reason for that?

Further, there is nothing in principle to invalidate "facilitated communication" as a concept -- does not the famous scientist Stephen Hawking communicate via "facilitated communication?" Does it matter, in principle, that Hawking's facilitator is a machine, whereas Houben's facilitator is a (presumably) highly-trained human being?

The therapist, Linda Wouters, told APTN that she can feel Houben guiding her hand with gentle pressure from his fingers, and that she feels him objecting when she moves his hand toward an incorrect letter.

Is she mistaken, being mislead by false hope? Does she desire so much to help him communicate that she sees what isn't there? Or, worse, is she lying?

Or do some 'bioethicists' have a vested interest in dismissing (without good reason) the claims being made about Mr Houben's recovery and his after-three-years-of-therapy ability to communicate via "facilitated communication" that they will not see what is in front of their faces?

Is there any rational, non-question-begging, reason to believe that Linda Wouters is mistaken (or worse, lying) about her ability or skill helping Mr Houben communicate? One of the commentors on the Wesley J Smith blog-item raises the objection that Miss Wouters, and no one else, is able to "facilitate" Mr Houben's communication. This sounds like it might be a reasonable objection ... but I don't believe it is. Consider: is it not reasonable to believe that over a long period of therapy, Mr Houben and Miss Wouters have both trained one another such that they are able to cooperate to get his thoughts out? How is it surprising that someone who has not spent so much time working with him may not be able to perceive the queues he makes?

When Anne Sullivan taught Helen Keller to communicate, was *everyone* at once able to communicate with her, or did those who wished to communicate with her directly, without going through Anne Sullivan, have to learn how to do so? Mr Houben's disability is far greater than Helen Keller's was; does it not stand to reason that if he is indeed communicating that it will take great patience and skill-learned-over-time to effectively communicate with him?


And that brings me to another, and critical, point -- the apparent "medical miracle" here is not really that Mr Houben may be able to communicate via "facilitated communication," but rather that he is not, in fact, a "vegetable" after all. Look, at the two pictures which accompany the two AP articles I've linked: Mr Houben certainly *seems* to be consciously attending what his "facilitator" is doing with his hand. Are these photos (unintentionally) misleading? Are they intentionally deceptive? Or, do they show what they appear to show -- a disabled, but conscious, man?

The "miracle" is being misframed. And I believe that most 'bioethicists' have no incentive nor inclination to notice, much less correct, that error.

I am reminded of the videos that Terri Schiavo's family made public when they were trying to save her life from the horrible death-by-dehydration which we, as a society, allowed to be inflicted upon her by her husband and the anti-life and anti-morality 'bioethicists.' In those videos, I saw a severely disabled, but conscious, woman, not a "vegetable."

Gentle Reader may recall that I'd once linked to some interesting comments and moral assertions about my character, which were made in reference to a skunk, a mere animal, about which (until I screwed up my courage to get close enough to it to shoot it) I saw no option but to let it die in exactly the same manner that Terri Schiavo was murdered. Interestingly enough, *most* of those persons, so "morally" concerned about a mere and verminous animal, didn't, and don't, give a damn that an actual human being was judicially murdered in a horrific manner.


And now the deeper question: "Is the 'harvesting' of vital organs for transplant morally permissible ... or is this 'harvesting' tantamount to murder?"

I present two cases which occurred in 2008, one from France and one from the US, which ought to lead to serious reconsideration about the morality of "organ harvesting" in all morally serious persons.

First, the French case (as reported in the UK press, for instance: 'Dead' patient comes around as organs are about to be removed [there were other UK news articles at the time, which I've been unable to find now, which went into more detail about some aspects of this; for instance, more detail about the rule change and comparison to the rules in teh UK] ) -- A "dead" man lives!

The incident happened in January of 2008, but wasn't reported to the public until about six months later: a 45-yead-old man collapsed of a heart attack, was eventually pronounced dead -- and "woke up" as so-called doctors were about to remove his organs for transplant (and, as of that article in June of 2008, the man himself hadn't yet been informed how close he came to being junked for parts).

Apparently, this particular man's life was spared due to the inefficiencies of socialized medicine. There wasn't a (so-called) doctor available at the time he was pronounced "dead" who was qualified to remove his organs; had they gotten to him at once, he likely wouldn't have awakened. OR, had they injected him with certain anesthetic drugs, as is sometimes done (even in the US) for the express, though unadmitted, purpose of preventing things like this occurring, then barring an act of God, he certainly would not have awakened.

At the same time, the fact that he was slated for organ harvesting in the first place is also due to socialized medicine, and the moral laxity which must eventually accompany any form of socialism -- the "determination" that he was "dead" was made pursuant to new guidelines (i.e. a more lax “definition” of when death occurs) which the French government and medical establishments had put in place for the express purpose of procuring an increased supply of vital organs for transplant.

Here are the last three paragraphs of that article --

Other doctors have seen similar incidents, according to the ethics committee report. "During the meeting, other reanimators ... spoke of situations in which a person whom everyone was sure had died in fact survived after reanimation efforts that went on much longer than usual," the report said. "Participants conceded that these were exceptional cases, but ones that were nevertheless seen in the course of a career."

Le Monde said doctors had feared the new transplant rules would confront them with cases of this kind. They believe the existing rules are imprecise and could undermine public support for the removal of organs for transplant. They are pushing for the issue to be discussed as part of a consultation next year on a proposed, new law on medical ethics.

Professor Alain Tenaillon, the organ transplant specialist at the French government's agency of bio-medicine, told Le Monde: "All the specialist literature suggests that anyone whose heart has stopped and has been massaged correctly for more than 30 minutes, is probably brain dead. But we have to accept that there are exceptions.... There are no absolute rules in this area."

Note that bureaucratic non-concern with the actual morality involved. Note that it's more important to keep the public on-board with respect to organ harvesting than it is to get the morality right. Note that bureaucratic CYA by reference to the "suggestions" of "all the specialist literature."

Note that frank admission that "There are no absolute rules in this area" -- which, in context, translated, means, "We don't really have a good and objective metric for determining when a heart-stop patient really is "brain dead," so we're just going to treat those who have not revived after 30 minutes of correct heart-massage as though we know they are dead. Besides, think of all other the lives we can save be pretending we know that this one is lost!" And, after all, the longer the (so-called) doctors wait to begin chopping up the erstwhile "patient" for parts, the greater the probability that his organs will begin to suffer oxygen deprivation, and thus cellular damage.

Under the rule change, even more so than previously, the "medical professionals" in France are working under a perverse incentive to give up on their actual patient and send him to the chop-shop while he's still "fresh" ... all for the greater good of mankind, of course!

Allow me to state this bluntly: If the doctors do not *know* that a person is dead, then it is immoral -- it is wicked -- to "harvest" his organs. It does not matter in the least that a cute little child will certainly die unless "we" take the vital organs of this "dead" adult to transplant into the child. It does not matter in the least that ten, or even one thousand, other persons may benefit if "we" take the vital organs of this one "dead" person -- if "we" do not know that he is, in fact, dead, then we are murdering him if we take his organs.


Reason is not soft-and-fuzzy; reason does not bow to sentimentality: reason does not fudge truth -- and there is always a horrendous social (and personal) price to pay for fudging such an important truth as the one above.


Now, the American case ( Woman Wakes Up After Family Says Goodbye, Tubes Pulled and 'Dead' woman returns to life ) -- A dead (or "dead") woman lives!

Val Thomas, a 59-year-old West Virginia woman, had died (or "died") of a heart attack, and subsequently had been "clinically brain-dead" for 17 hours, in May of 2008 -- except that she didn't stay dead (or hadn't actually died). She "woke up" as the nurses were disconnecting her "corpse" from the life-support machinery -- to which she'd been hooked up that long only in order to keep her organs "fresh" until her family could be convinced that she was dead so that they would authorize organ harvesting.

Now, either she really was dead -- in which case the fact that she came back to life is a very important thing -- OR she was not really dead -- in which case we have no objective way to know that the persons whose organs are being harvested are really dead ... which means that the harvesting of vital organs for transplant is always immoral.

In the US, we supposedly use the more objective and measurable "brain-death" metric to determine that a person has indeed died. This is in contrast to France (with the newly relaxed rules), and much of Europe, were "brain-death" is assumed ... but, apparently, not generally verified.

So, was Val Thomas really dead? Or are the US "medical professionals" behaving as perversely and as immorally as those in France?

=============
But, even if Val Thomas was not really dead, there goes materialism/naturalism, don't you think? Materialism/naturalism posits (for it must) that the human mind is "just a buzz in the brain" ... yet, for seventeen hours, there was no buzz in Val Thomas' brain. Yet, there she is.

=============
(*) 'Ethicists,' especially 'bioethicists,' seem frequently to be more concerned with explaining away moral obligations -- with justifying rank immorality -- than with helping us, as a society, to think properly and more clearly about 'ethics.'

Ladies, Please!

Ladies (and I use the term advisedly), please! You probably *don't* have the figure to successfully pull off dressing like a 7-year-old girl. And you most certainly do not have the attributes for going out about without underwear

My favorite comment was:
"I see London, I see France ... Damn! I wish I'd seen her underpants!"

My second favorite comment was:
"I’m beginning to think that the ONLY time anyone wears underwear to Wal-Mart is when that’s all they’re wearing."


Seriously, now (whichever your sex). You're not seven years old. Stop acting like you are.

How Many Times?

How many times has this played out, already?

How many times have we already seen this movie? How many more times will we see it while that interloper occupies the Office of the Presidency of the United States?

Kevin D. Williamson (in 'The Corner' blog at NRO): Why Thank You, Your Lordship

President Obama welcomed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House with words that have inspired snickers in New Delhi:

"Yours is the first official state visit of my presidency, its fitting that you and India be so recognised," 48-year-old Obama told the 77-year-old Indian leader.

The general reaction in India has been: Who the heck does this guy think he is? Note to the Great Diplomat: When you do a head of state an honor, you don't remind him, in public, of the fact that you have done him an honor, particularly in self-aggrandizing terms of this sort.

I cannot imagine Dr. Singh responding to Obama: "I am the first state visitor of your presidency, and it is fitting that you and the United States be so recognized. Especially considering that I have the guts to stand up to the Chinese from time to time, while you're basically groveling and praying that they don't decide to divest their dollar holdings. Did I mention our 7 percent economic growth, compared to your ... 3 percent, 3.5? Now, what did you want to talk about?"

How many allies and non-enemies will this fool insult? How many enemies and not-possible-allies will he kow-tow to?


Edit (2009/12/10): Nobel peace prize: Norwegians incensed over Barack Obama's snubs

Is it the plan of Our Zero, The Won, to insult all our allies and potential allies … while sucking up to and bowing down to our adversaries and actual enemies.

The Gandhi No One Knows

Richard Grenier (1983): The Gandhi Nobody Knows

Edit 2012/10/27:
The former link no longer works, this one does - Richard Grenier: The Gandhi Nobody Knows

'Climatequiddick,' Anyone?

Already, following news that the computers of the Warm-mongers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were "hacked" (and allegedly some of the emails and other info they’d prefer stay hidden made public), the ubiquitous "-gate" suffix is in use, rendering this to-do as “Climategate” (even in the UK, I see).

How about, for once, we conservatives and other sensible persons insist upon using the “-quiddick” suffix, thusly: “Climatequiddick?” (Or, to make it easier to pronounce, “Climaquiddick” )

And, after all, have not the Global Warm-mongers been assuring us for years that we'd all soon be under water if we did not immediately turn over control of our economies (and of our lives) to them?

edit (h/t Cathy Shaidle): Another reason to call it “Climaquiddick” is that the Legacy Media can be expected to ignore or whitewash it.


Hide The Decline (a short, and amusing, video)

Iowahawk: Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

James Delingpole (The Telegraph): Climategate: this is our Berlin Wall moment!

edit (2009/11/29) -- Elis Washington: Climate myth: 4 corners of deceit

Just as 150 years ago the academic world replaced scientific skepticism with cult devotion, holding naturalist Charles Darwin's work as the greatest scientific discovery since Newton, and deified his suppositions as beyond questioning, so have we in modern times through the New World Order and socialism worshiped at the pagan altar of global warming ("climate change").

Indeed, the path of the modern-day positivistic corruption of 'moderm science' (i.e. 'natural philosophy') into 'Science!' runs through Darwin.

Here is an an amusing cartoon dealing with this matter.

Bob Parks: Video of the day # 58

This is an amusing and enjoyable video hosted on Bob Parks' NMATV.com: Video of the day

And Sadly

It's a real shame that this is the first post I've written in some time for my own very minor blog. It's a double shame about the content and the context which prompts it.

The saying, "he doesn't suffer fools gladly," doesn't begin to express the lack of patience I have for foolishness. And, sadly, I have concluded that Lydia McGrew is a fool.

Now, assuming that my single reader cares to understand what I'm on about, I'll have to extract the pertinent posts; it would be most unfair to expect you to read the whole thing (interesting though it is) to pick out what I mean here.

Recently, on the "What's Wrong With the World" blog, in a thread about the recent Fort Hood jihadist massacre, someone posting as "Suburban Yahoo" said:

Equality and non-discrimination are attack weapons against the white Christian West. Any weapon will work, as long as the attack is pressed. One day it is "free speech", another day it is "freedom", another day, "equality". There may be a day where the remnant of Christian European Civilization will be best attacked by embracing a violent totalitarian religion. The cultural Marxists will do it in a New York minute, because like Satan they hate God and Christ.

This is all well and fine ... except for that "white Christian West" bit. I commented:

Culture does not depend upon, and certainly does not equal, race.

Sure, the multiculturalists hate "the white race," but it ain't really the race they're hating, it's the culture you've inherited which they hate.

I am not entirely "white," though casual observation would not reveal it to most (and I have relatives even less white than I), but I am a member of the culture and society you and I are wanting to preserve from the leftists.

Also, I'm a sight more intelligent than the average "pure white" person. Should I think myself better because my intelligence is greater than the average of you "pure-breds?"

This annoyed Mrs McGrew, who said:

Break 'er up, boys. No threadjacking to arguments about race.

Now, of course, there's no reason that anyone else ought to know, or perhaps even particularly care, what sorts of comments or attitudes get my dander up. Nevertheless, the sort of "evenhandedness" or moral equivalency exemplified here is just the sort of thing to do it. I replied (to Mrs McGrew):

Odd that you only *now* (now that I've said, "This is wrong," meaning both morally and factually) notice the race-talk. How "evenhanded."

and expanded (to her and to the general reader):

There is no such thing as "white Christian culture" -- Christianity is not *about* either race or ethnicity.

There is a Christianized culture, to which most persons in these shores belong; but that culture is, and will always be, a distinct thing from Christianity.

While I didn't *explicitly* say this at that time, my criticism is about an non-Christian (indeed, anti-Christian) attitude -- and, as "What's Wrong With the World" is an explicitly Chistian blog, one would think such criticism is almost always on topic.

Mrs McGrew said:

I'm an equal opportunity thread monitor on this, Ilion, believe it or not. (And, no, that isn't an invitation to you to start arguing with me about my putative fairness.) Suburban Yahoo is also required to heed my warning. I'm trying to give him a temporary break for posting at 2:17, as it was only three minutes after mine, and perhaps he didn't see it. But to _both_ of you, I say again, I will not have this thread turned into an argument about race. Can it, or have your irrelevant comments deleted.

I replied (to her):

You insult me (personally), and when I point out the insult, you insult me again. How odd.

I replied (to Steve Burton, whose post I haven't duplicated here):

I don't want to argue about race (what is there to argue about, anyway?).

Suburban Yahoo made some good points - and tainted his whole post by making it about “the white Christian West.” Let us call his post an exemplar of “Austerism” (whether or not Suburban Yahoo has ever actually read the VfR blog).

Fifty-five minutes later, I offered a pointed criticism of that specific invalid, false, and anti-Christian view exemplified in the phrase “the white Christian West.”

Four minutes after that, Mrs McGrew played an analogue to the moral equivalency card.

Would Mrs McGrew have said *anything* had I not said what I said? I, for one, do not believe she would have - I’m not talking about her sensitivity to thread-jacking, I’m talking about her insensitivity to “Austerism.”

Mrs McGrew replied (to those two posts):

Ilion, bag it. I haven't insulted you. I usually like your comments. I've liked nearly every comment you've ever made here at W4. Call me an anti-thread-jacking fanatic if you want.

Passing comments are one thing, arguments are another. Arguments become sub-arguments and sub-threads. I made my warning in response to you not because of some sort of bias against your position (actually, you don't have any idea what I think about any of these issues), but precisely because you offered a "pointed criticism" of a view that came out merely in passing in another comment and that has nothing to do with the topic of this post or thread. "Pointed criticisms" are the stuff of discussion and debate on a particular topic. I don't want that particular topic debated on this thread. My blog colleagues can attest that I am _very_ sensitive about thread-jacking and that I try _very_ hard to run a tight ship. This has nothing to do with moral equivalency. I haven't made any claim of moral equivalency. I don't even know what you could be talking about. I have told you and S. Y. not to have a debate about the topic of race on a thread that isn't about race. Heck, if anything, it's usually the "racialists," the people on the other side from you, who are obsessed and want to argue about the topic at every turn, even when it is off-topic. I've run into that problem elsewhere and, yes, I have demanded that the thread-jacking stop from that side. Now it's you doing it. Stop it. I've made my request clear. I like you as a commentator, but when you're on my threads, you play by my rules. Don't act like a kid arguing about whether you're arguing or not. Please.

And while we're at it, I'm not going to debate whether I have insulted you or been fair to you or engaged in moral equivalency or whatever. That's just more childishness. I don't know what you are upset about, because all I did was to make a simple and reasonable request. But I do have access to a delete key, and I will enforce my rules here from here on out, so be warned. Please rein in your desire to argue every point and meta-point, because I'm not going to allow it.

I don't wish to call her "an anti-thread-jacking fanatic" ... and while I don't wish to, I conclude that I must, call her a fool.

My last comments to her will not be found in that thread, as she deleted them:

(actually, you don't have any idea what I think about any of these issues)

I know that you are very reticent about criticizing Lawrence Auster ... or "Austerism."

Please rein in your desire to argue every point and meta-point, because I'm not going to allow it.

There is so much I could criticize, everywhere, and I let so much pass … because I don’t, after all, have a “desire to argue every point and meta-point.”

For instance, I noticed your silence on Auster’s defense of Norman [sic] Polansky [sic] and his attempted savaging of the “stupid” (that was at least one of his words) conservatives who were outraged at the “liberal” defense of Polanski. I noticed that not long after that deal died down, you said in passing something to the effect that you didn’t want to criticize Auster (but I, for one, already knew that).

Have I ever before said anything about that? I suppose that my comment which played on the rhyme about the girl with the curl could be taken as a vary [sic!] indirect criticism of that.

As I said above, "What's Wrong With the World" is an explicitly Christian blog. Also, that "white Christian West" bit is not just an example of bad reasoning, but also reflects a very anti-Christian attitude; one which it has long seemed to me that Mrs McGrew shares.

Now, Mrs McGrew's object in starting that thread was not to discuss the jihadist massacre at Fort Hood, itself. Rather, her objective was to criticize -- from a distinctly and explicitly Christian perspective -- the damned-of-God and suicidal-to-our-society "liberal" response (may I be forgive for so misusing the word) to the atrocity.

Therefore -- as the perspective from which to criticize the "liberal" response is meant to be distinctly and explicitly Christian -- how can it really be "thread-jacking" to criticize a distinctly anti-Christian attitude which crept into the thread?

Furthermore, anyone who is going to get her (or his) panties in that great a twist over "thread-jacking" really has no business writing on a blog which allows comments. Going off on tangents is just the way human beings are and the way we discuss things; there isn't much to do about about except to be patient. A face-to-face converstaion between only two persons rarely follows a linear track; why would anyone expect that conversation between multiple persons and taking place over many days would stick to a single narrow topic?

It seems to me that Mrs McGrew's real objection was not to the "thread-jacking," but rather to my criticism of (for lack of better term in this particular context) "Austerism." Lawrence Auster (and it has long seemed to me, Lydia McGrew), is like a mirror-image of "liberals," being fixated on race. But note: I didn't say I think that either he or she is a racist.


My sole reader may notice that I have long had Lawrence Auster's "View From The Right" blog on my blogroll. On certain topics, Auster is fool, but he's not stupid; when he's not being a fool, he says much that is good and thought-provoking; I presume that you don't need me to police your thoughts, nor which blogs you read.