I stand with Ann

Apparently someone is getting very worried about Ann Coulter drawing attention to the fact that too many of the Republican politicians appear to care more about Jews and Israel than they do about Americans and the United States. It's even in the British media, of all places:

If you haven’t ever heard of Ann Coulter, you might want to count your blessings and stop reading now. For the more thick-skinned out there, Coulter is essentially the Katie Hopkins of America. Just like angry, mean Hopkins, Coulter seems to be on a personal crusade to become the most hated woman in her country - and by the looks of things, she’s succeeding.

This week, she was labelled anti-Semitic and sent social media into meltdown.

During a Twitter rant about Republican candidates trying to pander to Jewish voters by focusing on the topic of Israel, she asked ‘how many f***ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?’

    Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    Rubio running to be curator of the Reagan Museum.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: "What will AMERICA look like after you are president."
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

    How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 17, 2015

It’s clearly offensive. But in keeping with her Conservative beliefs, Coulter hasn’t let herself get too carried away: she’s starred out the f-word.

Her comments haven’t just been criticised for their racist undertones – they’ve also been pulled apart for their ignorance.

US political hopefuls might be turning their attentions on Israel, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Jews. Many Jewish people living in the West don't have close ties to Israel, while many non-Jewish Americans care about what’s happening to one of their country’s top allies.

What’s worrying is that not everyone on Twitter gets this. Instead Coulter’s ‘effing Jews’ post has had more than 1,500 retweets and sparked the hashtag #IStandWithAnn.

Right. We're supposed to believe that all the Republican talk about Israel has nothing at all to do with the Jews in America. Isn't it convenient how Israel=Jews whenever it suits the media to call someone anti-semitic, but Israel "doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Jews" whenever it suits the media... to call someone anti-semitic.

The reason Ann's remarks are resonating is that a large majority of Americans don't give a flying fuck about what apparently is the primary concern of about one in fifty people presently living in America. And the fact that so many presidential candidates care more about what concerns one in fifty Americans than what concerns the other forty-nine is indicative of a serious problem.

You don't have to hate Israel or Jews, you don't even have to mildly dislike them, to not want your own political leaders to be observably more concerned about their interests than yours. And if Republicans don't like observers criticizing them for always talking about Israel, perhaps they should talk about something of considerably more concern to most Americans, such as the massive immigrant invasion.

Never apologize to SJWs

Or to the media, as both Donald Trump and Ann Coulter, among others, have repeatedly demonstrated:

Appearing with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, Donald Trump was in the mood to tweak his own persona — to a point. “I think apologizing’s a great thing,” he said. “But you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”

It’s funny because it’s true: Trump’s steadfast refusal to apologize for his controversial antics may be the most striking thing about him. A significant portion of the Republican base craves it, and a handful of pro-Trump conservative pundits does, too. None of them looms larger, perhaps, than Ann Coulter.

It makes sense. Trump has given political expression to a model of conservative discourse perfected by Coulter and subsequently emulated by Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and others: 1) Say something controversial or provocative and get a ton of attention in the process. 2) When the media and the Left inevitably demand an apology, adamantly refuse to provide one, driving your critics batty and burnishing your conservative credentials with the base. It’s been Coulter’s modus operandi for her entire, lucrative career, and now Trump has brought it to the campaign trail: A real conservative never says he’s sorry....

Coulter has made a fine living with the same mantra for decades. “Never apologize, at least not for what liberals want you to apologize for,” she advised in her 2004 book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). It’s a rule her critics know she follows all-too-well.

During the George W. Bush years, Coulter’s use of the terms “raghead” and “faggot” in speeches at CPAC generated some furious reactions but no public contrition. In 2012, the Today Show spotlighted a father who was demanding that she apologize for using the term “retarded,” and cease using it in the future. She insisted she wasn’t really referring to the mentally handicapped and said, “screw them!” when asked about her critics in a radio interview with Alan Colmes. (As recently as this May, Coulter wrote a column entitled, “Knowing What We Know Now, Would You Say Jeb Bush Is Retarded?”) Later that year, a Latino GOP group demanded she apologize for a column entitled, “America Nears el Tipping Pointo.” She declined to do so.

Coulter’s remarks have attracted the ire of bigger fish on the right, as well. A few months ago, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren called on her to apologize for saying that South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who is of Indian Sikh heritage, “is an immigrant and does not understand America’s history.” No such apology was forthcoming.

What I find remarkable is the way that despite the clear and conclusive evidence that a public apology always does more harm than good, people are STILL dumb enough to offer up public apologies. Matt Damon is only the latest to learn this very simple and obvious fact; Brad Torgersen learned the same thing when he made the mistake of apologizing to John Scalzi. As will not surprise anyone who has read SJWs Always Lie, Scalzi immediately took Brad's apology and turned it into a weapon he used to launch an attack on the Sad Puppy leader.

Look at it this way. An apology is a confession. And what do prosecutors do with confessions? They use it to prosecute the person who gave it to them. 

If you're ever being put under pressure to apologize for something, ask yourself this question: What are the real objectives of those who are putting pressure on me? If they happen to be your critics or political opponents, you can be confident their real objectives don't happen to include your best interests.

Anti-semitism debate, part one

Louise Mensch and I debate anti-semitism on Heat Street:

Louise Mensch:     This may surprise the people that have been following our debate thus far, but, I feel like those were all small, little, light-hearted warm up debates, because now we’re going to get into it. Because we’re going to debate anti-Semitism. I want to get a bit granular, because I was surprised and disappointed to see you flaming a very good friend of mine, Cathy Young – who is an equity-based feminist, for those of you that don’t know her, reading this debate – and a long time ally of Gamergate and has worked extremely hard to separate genuine feminism from the kind of “fauxminism” that bullies men for no good reason.

I can’t remember the exact tweet so you can correct me if I’ve got this wrong, but: “…as she would know if she were a real American,” as though she were not an American, or she were less American that you are, which I think is a) racist; b) completely ridiculous; c) unbecoming of an alpha-male who ought to show some loyalty to a tried and tested ally. What I don’t like about this, apart from racism in general, and I say it with reverence, because you of all people know that I’ve been #notyourshield forever, is that it seems to give quite a lot of comfort to those fauxminist harridans, who’ve always said that Gamergate is just about abuse etc … This is a woman who stood strongly with movement forever, and the first sign of disagreement on anti-Semitism and you guys throw her under the bus. So I’ll let you come back, what do you have to say?

Vox Day:     Well, I’m perfectly prepared for things to get hardcore, I’ve been listening to Ministry all afternoon in preparation for this. By the way, I did not know Cathy’s work on Gamergate. We are loyal; until now I did not know.

Louise Mensch:     (Laughs) OK, now I’m scared. Go on.

Vox Day:     First of all, let me point out that, in terms of feminism, Cathy Young committed something that is, in the eyes of the alt-right a … A significant error of the sort that removes any right to avoid criticism. She, very very publicly, and very very vehemently, attacked Ann Coulter. The response that she got was a direct result of that, from me and from others. You can even, if you wish to, portray it as the alt-right white knighting for Ann Coulter. I don’t think that would be accurate but you certainly could do that if you wanted to.

Louise Mensch:     Well Ann Coulter’s been … I mean, you know, please, she attacks herself. She’s been attacked by me and others. She’s said some rabidly anti-Semitic things, about the Jews etc. So …

Vox Day:     I don’t think Ann Coulter’s reasonably said anything that can be considered anti-Semitic. 

Louise Mensch:     How many goddamn Jews do they think there are in America, that kind of thing.

Vox Day:     There’s a difference between … Anti-Semitism, in its historic form, means hatred of Jews.

Louise Mensch:     Yes.

Vox Day:     And there’s a huge difference between hating Jews and wondering why the hell everyone is babbling about them, again, when the subject really has nothing to do with them.

Louise Mensch:     Well in this case Ann Coulter used the words “Jews.” “How many goddamn Jews does he think there are in America,” quote unquote.

Vox Day:     Well yeah, because ..polls show Americans think that 33% of Americans are gay, and certainly there … I don’t know what the exact figure is, I don’t recall a similar study being performed with regards to what percentage of Americans other Americans believe are Jews. I don’t know. But I would guess that the perceived percentage is seriously overestimated, due to the constant discussion of Jews, by American Jews, in the media, because American Jews in the media are prone to navel-gazing.

Louise Mensch:     Vox, Vox, this was Ann Coulter who brought it up herself, who made the remark, herself. Really, as an “Ayn Randian radical,” don’t you recognize this is entirely Ann Coulter’s own fault? She brought it up, nobody else did, she ranted on about the Jews. She outed herself! Nobody else was talking to her about the Jews. On the left it’s people like Ken Livingston in London. He doesn’t seem to be able to go into any interview in London without mentioning the word ‘Hitler’ five times a second. And it was Coulter’s own fault. No one was talking to her about the Jews in Israel. She was commenting on the first Republican debate, and she brought it up, herself, entirely herself, unprompted.

Vox Day:     Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t she discussing the fact that the candidates were discussing Israel, or Jews or something like that?

Read the whole thing there, and discuss it here.

Mailvox: in defense of Ann Coulter

RC still believes Miss Coulter was correct to attack libertarians as "cowardly frauds":

Your article was interesting, but never addressed the substance of Ms. Coulter's presentation. You offer several examples that purport to contradict her statements.

Let's look at one:

"It is worth noting that in some states, such as Washington, all marriage-related information was kept at the county level until 1968. And yet, civil society somehow managed to settle these issues without devolving into total chaos."

What's missing? The fact that there was never previously a major societal push by homosexuals to attack the millenia-long history of traditional marriage. Somehow you fail to identify and address that significant departure from world and US history that you purport to address.

What else is missing? Never have historically bedrock institutions of morality like mainline religious denominations been so tolerant - nay supportive - of aberrant social behavior such as homosexuality.

There are a plethora of arguments and examples that could be given along these lines, all having to do with the current breakdown of societal mores and values at a level unprecendented since perhaps Roman times.

Don't you see the difference? I think Ms. Coulter was completey correct in her wry observations concerning Libertarians. Hopefully you will, too.

Do I see the difference? No, I see a conservative who didn't acknowledge a single one of the errors in Miss Coulter's article that I pointed out. Of course, RC is clearly a historical illiterate with no clue what he's talking about, given his assertion that "the current breakdown of societal mores and values" is unprecedented since Roman times. He should read Boccaccio, Solzhenitsyn, or the history of the Spanish Civil War if he wants to see what a real breakdown of societal mores and values looks like.

American culture is filth, but it is a mistake to confuse the media's Hollywood version of it, very much skewed by its gay Jewish perspective, for the reality. In the real world, the quarterback didn't dump the pretty blonde cheerleader at prom in favor of the ugly Barbara Streisand wannabee, every school bully isn't a self-hating homosexual, everyone doesn't want to move to New York City*, and a crack team of Jewish commandos didn't win the war in Europe.

In any event, the column sufficiently demonstrated that Coulter is very poorly situated to be labeling anyone, let alone libertarians, as "cowardly frauds". As Paul Gottfried noted in "The Mainstreaming of Michelle Malkin", it's only a matter of time before a fame-driven media whore learns to dance to the crack of the party establishment's whip. No doubt Dana Loesch will be the next to look beautiful in chains.

"A recent syndicated column by Michelle Malkin indicates what happens to interesting conservative commentators when they sign on as GOP flacks: They become predictable Republican mouthpieces and attack dogs against the Dems.... As a Republican journalist and media entertainer, Michelle is following in the well-trod path of others such as Ann Coulter. Like Michelle, Ann started out as a very feisty rightwing news commentator, but unlike Michelle, Ann could be devastatingly witty as well as edgy. But she, too, succumbed to various pressures and became a sharp-tongued version of Sean Hannity rather than remaining a figure of the traditional right."

Readership and other trivialities

Being an armchair economist, I often find it interesting to look beyond the obvious numbers given the way they are so often misleading. For example, a few years ago, I used to be the third most-read WND columnist behind Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan. Ann was head-and-torso beyond everyone else, and while I occasionally gave Pat a run for his money, his readership was usually ahead of mine by a decent margin. It's been a while since I last looked into the matter, and since I no longer have direct access to their servers - I prefer to email my columns in so I didn't bother to ask for it after one of the occasional structural reconfigurations - I began by looking at the Facebook Likes that are now attached to each column.

Unsurprisingly, by this metric, Ann Coulter is still the queen of WND. Here are the Likes for her last four columns compared to a few other selected writers, in order of average Likes.

232.0: Ann Coulter (253, 75, 243, 357)
75.5: Chuck Norris (39, 169, 60, 34)
41.5: Vox Day (60, 40, 40, 26)
35.0: Thomas Sowell (34, 36, 52, 18)
22.0: Ilana Mercer (15, 11, 56, 6)
13.5: John Stossel (19, 5, 19, 11)
10.0: Chrissy Satterfield (29, 11, 0, 0)
9.8: Pat Buchanan (18, 9, 1, 11)

From this, one would quite reasonably conclude that Ann's columns are much more read than anyone else's, something on the order of five times more than mine. Chuck's average is high, but it's bumped up significantly by one outlier of a column entitled "The Self-Destructing Republican Party", which went over extremely well with Republicans terrified that their leadership is going to blow their opportunity to knock off Obama. In looking at the actual readers of those same columns for Buchanan, Coulter, and Day - which I requested and cannot directly divulge, but suffice it to say they are in excess of my blog numbers - my WND readership is now 60.7 percent of Miss Coulter's, which is up more than 10 percentage points from several years ago if I recall correctly.

What I found both interesting and slightly depressing is the fact that Chatterfield's columns are now more liked, on average, than Pat Buchanan's. This tends to suggest that WND readers have become more partisan and less partial to intellectual weight as their numbers have grown. While Mr. Buchanan's readership numbers have not actually declined over time, they have declined in a relative manner as my WND readership is now 122.9 percent larger than his. Of course, it must be kept in mind that although his columns were available elsewhere before, it is entirely possible that many of his biggest fans do not read him at WND, but prefer to read him at The American Conservative instead.

It's also worth noting that the difference in the size of the Like gap and the readership gap between Coulter and myself tends to indicate that while many WND readers are willing to read my column, they don't like them all that much. Which makes an amount of sense, given that WND's conservative Republican readership are likely to hold opinions that are more in line with hers than with my radical libertarian iconoclasm.

Regardless, because I am unwilling to cede primacy of position to Miss Coulter, however much she merits it, (or however little she values it), I intend to resort to cheatingnew tactics. Now, I like to think that I am unusually good at interviews because I am apparently one of the very few interviewers who makes a habit of a) reading the book or the relevant information beforehand and b) letting the interviewee talk as much as he likes in answer to my questions. However, I have done very few interviews in the last year because it is a tedious and lengthy task to transcribe them.

The solution being entirely obvious, I'm pleased to say there will soon be a second weekly Vox Day contribution appearing on WorldNetDaily. The initial subjects will include economist Ian Fletcher, Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker, and the eminent historian John Julius Norwich, among others. I am also in the process of putting together a Joel Rosenberg retrospective which will feature several notable science fiction and fantasy authors.

That minor misrepresentation

I always know that my critics are hard up for material when they have to blatantly misrepresent something I've written in order to criticize it:

In his Oct. 15 WorldNetDaily column defending Ann Coutler's remarks that Jews should become Christian, Vox Day gets disturbingly anti-Jewish.

Day writes that the apology sought from Coulter by "left-wing Jewish interest groups" "would appear to be an extraordinarily silly demand, except for the fact that Vanity Fair has recently announced that a remarkable 51 percent of the Vanity Fair 100 Power List are Jewish in a country in which Jews make up approximately two percent of the population.

Quoting Vanity Fair? How very disturbing! Actually, it kind of is, but not for the reasons ConWebWatch gave. The little problem here is that I never once mentioned an apology of any kind, nor did I write anything about a demand for one. What I did reference was Ira Forman's demand that media outlets not permit Ann Coulter to talk about politics, in fact, I quoted him directly in my column yesterday:

Scenting a fundraising issue, left-wing Jewish interest groups demonstrated their commitment to human liberty and free intellectual discourse by demanding that the mainstream media stop talking to the best-selling author who also happens to be one of the most popular right-wing commentators in the country. The executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira N. Forman, reluctantly admitted that while Ann Coulter has freedom of speech, he would very much like to see her forced to exercise it in private.

"Just as media outlets don't invite those who believe that Martians walk the earth to frequently comment on science stories, it's time they stop inviting Ann Coulter to comment on politics," he said.

There's a big difference between seeking an apology - however unnecessary - and demanding the media shunning of one of the most popular political figures in the nation. Now, I don't believe Miss Coulter should apologize as she said nothing for which to apologize, and if any apologies are due, it is from Mr. Deutsch, whose persistent questions about Ann Coulter's religion and subsequent feigned outrage were clearly not within the context of a book tour interview. But regardless, I didn't write about an apology, I wrote about a specific and very silly demand made by a specific, very silly left-wing Jew.

Christopher Hitchens has publicly articulated far more outrageous and offensive things in the last week than Ann Coulter, (he even managed to upset a sizeable number of his fellow atheists, amusingly enough), but should a right-wing Christian demand that media outlets across the country stop inviting him to comment on political issues, I would consider that to be every bit as silly.

As I informed Terry K in an email alerting her to the errant nature of her post, I am generally pro-Jew and pro-Israel. However, I also believe that the Israel Lobby is a negative thing for both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans, as well as for Israel. Their thinking, in my opinion, is short-sighted, bellicose, strategically dubious and likely to harm Jewish-Christian relations as well as fostering a dangerous Israeli dependency on the USA.

Feigned outrage

Ann Coulter doesn't even have to try to offend those who are eager to pretend to be shocked. Apparently Deutsch hasn't been paying much attention for, oh, the last two thousand years or so:

Slash-and-burn columnist Ann Coulter shocked a cable TV talk-show audience Monday when she declared that Jews need to be "perfected" by becoming Christians, and that America would be better off if everyone were Christian.

Coulter made the remarkable statements during an often heated appearance to promote her new book on advertising guru Donny Deutsch's CNBC show "The Big Idea."

In response to a question from Deutsch asking Coulter if "it would be better if we were all Christian," the controversial columnist responded: "Yes."

"We should all be Christian?" Deutsch repeated.

"Yes," Coulter responded, asking Deutsch, who is Jewish, if he would like to "come to church with me."

Deutsch, pressing Coulter further, asked, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians?" She responded: "Yeah."

Coulter deflected Deutsch's assertion that her comments were anti-Semitic, matter-of-factly telling the show's obviously upset host, "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."

I'll go Ann one better. Not only would it be better if we were all Christians, it WILL be better WHEN we are all Christians - or at least, acknowledging Jesus Christ. Because every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

The only question is whether you do it now or later.

"Total capitulation"

Ann Coulter is beyond furious with President Trump:

Ann Coulter is taking her criticism of President Trump to the next level following his national emergency declaration, with the conservative commentator declaring Friday, "the country is over."

Coulter hammered Trump in a Friday interview with KABC after he announced he would sign Congress' funding deal and declare a national emergency. "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot," she said, per Mediaite. She also fumed that Trump is just "fooling the rubes" with this national emergency declaration.

The root of Coulter's criticism isn't that Trump is bypassing Congress, as she argued that Trump never needed Congress to build the wall at all. Instead, she suggested the president is actually "hoping" the national emergency declaration will just be blocked by the courts "because for some reason, he really doesn't want to build the wall."

On Twitter, Coulter said that responsibility for the border wall deal, which the president has said he is unhappy with, is "100% his," and she responded to Trump saying in his press conference that he barely knows Coulter by writing, "THANK YOU, Mr. President for admitting that your total capitulation on campaign promises has nothing to do with me."

Maybe he has finally cucked and capitulated. Maybe not. As always with the God-Emperor, wait two days before reaching any conclusions.

It strikes me as more than a little odd that despite the report on Breitbart, no one in the media or in either party establishment is celebrating the President's signing of the funding deal. This tends to lead me to conclude that it is at least possible that he is simply leading them on and that he will not sign it in the end.

Mailvox: lessons in rhetoric

MJ suggests a rhetorical device:

I thought of something while last night about the immigration crisis in Europe.  We should start calling it Vichy Germany (probably could say Vichy Europe, but I feel like Vichy Germany would have more impact for most).  Merkel is acting like Germany is a Client State to the Muslim world.  They allow an occupying invasion force to abuse their own people.  They cover up Muslim crimes and avoid arresting and/or deporting known criminals that are Muslim.  They arrest the German Resistance fighters who have risen up to fight the Muslim occupiers. Multicultism is propaganda to berate the native population into submission to the occupying force.

I don't know what the occupier-to-populace ratio was in Vichy France, but it seems like it probably is similar to the Muslim-to-German ratio in Germany right now.  Anyways, I thought of this last night and thought that you would probably be able to use it as a rhetorical device.

Unfortunately, "Vichy Germany" is not going to work rhetorically for the following reasons:

1. It is fundamentally dialectic in nature. Anything that has to be explained is more likely to be rhetorically impotent. How many Americans or English adults even know what "Vichy" means?
2. It doesn't flow. That's always important.
3. It doesn't move the emotions. No one has any emotions about Vichy France, except perhaps the French.

Now, if the Front National began referring to the two mainstream French parties that have banded together to stop it as "L'Alliance Vichy", that would be effective rhetoric. But it's not going to work in the Anglosphere because the concept of Vichy is only really applicable to the French.

Contrast with "Vichy Germany" the rhetorical device of "Invader-American". This is effective due to the following reasons:

1. It flows.
2. It directly targets the hyphenated identity of the various New Americans: Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Indian-Americans, and so forth.
3. It works directly upon the emotions. Immigrants get very upset at being called invaders, even though that is what they are. The term also links the children of the invaders to the invasion, depriving them of the ability to wrap themselves in an American sheepskin simply because they were born inside its borders. There is a reason Nimrata Randhawa Haley prefers to be called "Nikki"; it allows her to pass for something she observably is not.

And, of course, the term is quite literally true. Remember, the best rhetoric has a sound foundation in the truth. The children of those who invaded America are Invader-Americans and as such, they are distinct from native Americans... as well as Native Americans.

Ann Coulter is an expert rhetorician. It would behoove her to adopt the Invader-American term, as it would be extremely effective for her. Notice how she managed to trigger the cuckservatives of the GOP establishment with a single tweet.

    Trump should deport Nikki Haley.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley: "No one who is willing to work hard should ever be turned away." That's the definition of open borders.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley says "welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of religion." Translation: let in all the Muslims.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Haley: Let in unlimited immigrants "just like we have for centuries." Has she read a history book? Coolidge shut it down for 1/2 a century.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley: "The best thing we can do is turn down the volume" Translation: Voters need to shut the hell up.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

Can one dodge a dodger?

One wonders how anyone could conclude JD is running and hiding from PZ Myers, when the Fowl Atheist is already fully occupied with running and hiding from me? I attempt to explain the situation to a pair of rather dim-witted Pharyngulans who are having a hard time understanding why those who are not Ann Coulter feel no responsibility to debate PZ concerning what Ann Coulter wrote in one of her books.

Mhich: "I’ve been looking into Vox Day’s blog and he indeed knows nothing about science. Even a fifth grader knows more about science than Vox Day’s. And another thing: the only person I see that is dodging the challenge is you. If you know so much about evolution and consider Coulter’s book to be accurate, accept the Myer’s challenge. What do you have to lose?"

Reynold: "Myers mopped the floor with one of you people who supposedly knew something about science, and I posted a link to where Myers shows that Vox is ignorant as hell about science. Now, how about taking Myers up on his challenge? this is my THIRD ATTEMPT to get you to do that. Or are you still going to dodge?"

Messrs. Reynold and Mhich, why should JD, or anyone else for that matter, answer Myers's challenge for someone other than Ann Coulter to defend Ann Coulter's opinion, especially considering that the individual he is accused of "dodging" is known for doing some dodging of his own? Only Ann Coulter has the responsibility to answer for her own words, the same responsibility that PZ Myers has to answer for his. JD can no more argue with PZ on her behalf than he can argue with me on PZ's. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on PZ's behalf, even if he relied entirely upon PZ's written words?

The claim that JD is "dodging" this nonsensical "challenge" is more than a little ironic considering that PZ Myers is a confirmed coward who has twice dodged public challenges to debate me. The first time, he ran from the Northern Alliance's invitation to debate me after complaining that he had never been presented any intelligent arguments for the existence of gods. Perhaps if he stopped running away to avoid them, he might find one. He followed that up by running and hiding from an invitation to engage in a written debate concerning the scientific evidence for evolution which specifically addressed his justifications for evading the previous challenge.

As for your claim that Myers showed I am "ignorant as hell about science", my response to the error-filled post you cited suffices to demonstrate that he did nothing of the kind.

What you clearly do not understand is that, by his own admission, PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.

With regards to the applicability of economics, as Michael Shermer has pointed out in The Mind of the Market, there are far more similarities between economics and evolution than most people realize, dating back to the singular influence of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand on Darwin's subsequent articulation of his theory of natural selection. Moreover, erroneous theories tend to have much in common, especially when they have become mainstream dogma. As one who has played a small role in demonstrating the critical flaws in Neo-Keynesian/Neo-Classical economic models, I am actually rather well-equipped to identify similar flaws in the Neo-Darwinian conceptual model. For example, I correctly identified that the natural selection component of the mechanism was a philosophical one, not a scientific one, and therefore potentially scientifically flawed, long before most believers in the Cult of Darwin became aware of the lack of genuine scientific evidence for it and the need to present various epicyclesalternative mechanisms.

I don't pretend to know anywhere nearly as much about biology as PZ, but it is always a mistake to assume that an individual with a smaller set of facts at his disposal must therefore be less correct regarding the subject. Aristotelian dialectic may not always be a reliable substitute for science, but it is reliably more effective, more accurate, and more convincing to rational and unbiased observers than science-flavored, emotion-based rhetorical arguments.

It is more than a little embarrassing to the Pharyngulan community that the object of their regard doesn't believe he can successfully win a debate with what they believe to be the equivalent of a fourth-grade elementary school student, especially when he continues to take the occasional potshot in my direction from the safety of his blog. They can manufacture all the excuses and rationalizations for him they like, but the dodging, it is observed.

Your fearless, would-be leaders

More proof of the cowardly, obsequious nature of the so-called "conservative" commentariat, in case you needed it:

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta’s blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
Jane Stewart
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone
Marshall Manson

Lawsy, I nearly swooned when I heard Miss Coulter use that dreadful F-word! No, not that F-word, the other one. Needless to say, I won't be joining this attempt to drum one of the few genuine conservatives left out of the conservative movement. Although now perhaps you understand why I am so content to remain completely outside both the conservative movement and the conservative commentariat; a more spineless group of useless, self-negating pussies have been seldom seen outside of France.

I wonder if Me So Michelle will dare to sign the letter. You know she's just dying to, but she's afraid it might sink her with Ann Coulter's many fans.

Milo chooses Coulter over Cathy

That's the nasty thing about cultural war. As with a civil war, sooner or later, whether one will or no, one is eventually forced to choose sides.

It’s dreadful when two people you admire start beating each other up. Sort of like childhood all over again!

But that’s primary season for you. Particularly this year, it has former allies at each others’ throats. It almost makes you miss the days when SJWs weren’t irrelevant! Almost.

The latest salvo in these internecine conflicts comes from Cathy Young, one of a growing number of libertarians and conservatives who are turning their guns on their own side. She’s gone after none other than Ann Coulter, my only rival for the throne as sassy blonde queen of conservative media.

This is a difficult column to write, as I know both women and enjoy them both in different ways. Both have grappled fearlessly with the worst elements of the left over the years. And now I have to take sides!

Still, it’s Cathy who was the aggressor in this instance, attacking Coulter with the disturbingly leftist tactic of guilt-by-association and unsubstantiated name-calling.

Because Coulter has written for VDARE, a website frequented by the alt-right, Cathy alleges that she must therefore endorse the worst of its authors’ opinions. A tired line of reasoning, one used by those who prefer to debate with shame and taboos instead of arguments.

I’m less interested in a lengthy rebuttal of Cathy’s allegations — so silly and overwrought that I won’t even say what they are! — as I am in understanding why she, and so many others in conservative and libertarian circles, have adopted the language and tactics of the left during this campaign season.

First, there are the obvious points. They’re in a panic because of the unstoppable rise of Donald Trump, who represents a serious risk to the influence of the DC think-tank set.

Then there’s the alternative right, who many mistakenly believe are as bad, if not worse, than the identitarians of the left.

Cathy Young probably shares both of these inclinations — she wrote a lengthy rebuttal last month after my colleague I decided to co-author an explainer on the alt-right that didn’t descend into meaningless virtue signalling.

But I think the problem runs deeper with Young. She’s often very sensible. But, ironically, that moderate impulse makes her susceptible to fallacies — in particular, her implicit assumption that the “extreme” of the regressive left’s opponents must be as bad as the extreme of the regressive left itself.

Coulter isn’t the first of Cathy’s targets, you see. There’s also Mike Cernovich, excommunicated in her Real Clear Politics column for “vile tweets,” and later blocked for using the word “cuck.” Then there’s Vox Day, an icon of the anti-SJW resistance, lambasted by Young as a racist and misogynist — a charge his wife no doubt stridently objects to.

None of these people is remotely so dreadful as the worst actors in the third-wave feminist movement or Black Lives Matter.

Anyone who has met Day or Cernovich in person — I have met both — knows that they harbour no animosity toward other races or genders. The same is true of almost everyone I’ve met in the much-lambasted alternative right.

Sure, they may be merrily outrageous in their blogs and on social media, but a few hours of conversation with them reveals none of the wild zealotry you see in the eyes of campus feminist or black activists. Yet, because Day and Cernovich also dabble in identity politics, Cathy treats them the same — if not worse.
The truth is, Cathy has never bothered to really get to know her targets, instead preferring to shame them with regressive-left buzzwords. I’m afraid that she isn’t really opposed to the left’s social ostracization machine: she just wants to choose where it’s aimed.

It’s a shame, because Cathy has frequently been a target of that machine herself. In the early 2010s, she was one of the few writers who dared to question the “rape culture” panic that was underway on American campuses.

Despite being vindicated in the wake of the UVA rape hoax and the collapse of the Columbia “mattress girl” case, she was repeatedly branded a “rape apologist” by her detractors on the left.

At the height of the new wave of sexual assault panic, the Federalist Society even dropped Cathy from their list of campus speakers, with a former president of the society citing pressure from feminist activists as the likely reason.

So it’s disappointing to see someone who has so often been a target of the irrational taboos that govern modern debate be so quick to use the same weapons in a vain attempt to appear balanced.

Because that, I suspect, is Cathy’s real motive — to be seen to be taking a stance that’s equidistant between the identitarians of the regressive left and the identitarians of the alternative right.

It’s a worthy goal, and Cathy is far from malicious. But there’s a problem. For her stance to be valid, you must first accept that both sides are equally powerful, equally dangerous and equally zealous. They’re simply not.

The rise of cultural libertarianism, the alt-right and Generation Trump is turning conservatives on each other like perhaps no other time in recent memory. At least there’s one glimmer of hope: history suggests that after their initial squabbles, American conservatives and libertarians tend to get over themselves and come together eventually.

It’s a uniquely American phenomenon, that, and one that terrifies the progressive left, which is more prone to permanent rifts. Let’s just hope the #NeverTrump types come to their senses soon…

I'm not friends with Cathy Young, nor do I admire her, nor do I find her to be even remotely honest. So, it would be very easy for me to side with Ann Coulter, the most courageous female commentator on the Right, even if I did not agree with her with regards to Trump and the dire danger posed to America by immigration.

People sometimes ask me why I stand by Roosh, or why I stand by Milo. If you read that column, it should be easy enough to understand. We're standing in this cultural war together, and we know better than to fall for the inevitable divide-and-conquer tactics that are thrown at us by moderates of the Right and extremists of the Left alike.

And as for being "an icon of the anti-SJW resistance", that's certainly something I am proud to be. Of course, I'm even more proud of the Evil Legion of Evil, the Ilk, the Dread Ilk, and, of course, the VFM.


UPDATE: Fascinating. Breitbart appears to have deleted the piece. So, I've linked to the archive and reproduce the entire piece here.

UPDATE 2: Comments on the article are still up at Disqus.

UPDATE 3: It's back up again.

Cackling while Rome drowns

Miss Coulter appears to be under the extraordinary impression that preemptive surrender is a brilliant political tactic:

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has checkmated the Democrats. He has proposed a bill that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling three times, up to $2.4 trillion, over the next 18 months, but only provided Obama proposes equivalent cuts in spending each time. Finally, the Democrats will be forced to pony up spending cuts – or default on the debt and crash the economy.

Contrary to some hysterical Republicans, McConnell's bill does not forfeit any of Congress' authority: The House and Senate will still have to decide whether to accept Obama's proposed cuts when they write their appropriations bills.

But we will finally get some proposed cuts to federal programs from Obama, and not more nonsense about theoretical savings from "investing" in our children's future with additional spending on Pell grants and prenatal counseling.

McConnell's deal cleanly takes the debt-ceiling issue off the Republicans' back and puts it on the president's back. Either the Democrats tell us what they'll cut or they'll have to admit: "We will never cut anything. Everything Ann Coulter says about us is true!"

McConnell's "schooling" of Obama on the debt ceiling is an epic one and ranks with Chamberlain's schooling of Hitler at Munich and King Guy's schooling of Saladin at the Horns of Hattin. Ann has clearly been spending far too much time orbiting around the New York-Washington axis as she has clearly failed to recognize how Americans who are paying attention to the issue, particularly Tea Party Republicans, are going to view the raising of the debt ceiling, not once, not twice, but three times in advance, with about the same degree of favor as neocons would view the US Air Force giving three SLBM-equipped nuclear submarines to Iran.

The idea that anything negative is going to be blamed on the president by his de facto press agency is completely absurd. If recent articles are any indication, they'll probably just keep blaming Bush and the people who get their news from the news will believe it. It is astonishing that a media star such as Coulter still doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what actually happens, because the narrative remains.

Coulter also demonstrates that she knows literally nothing about economics. A failure to raise the debt ceiling will not cause default but it will crash the economy. Spending cuts will also crash the economy. This is because the private economy has already crashed and all that is preventing this from being completely apparent to everyone is all the government spending, 43% of which is presently borrowed.

As I pointed out two years ago in RGD, this crash isn't something that can be avoided. It was inevitable. It was eminently predictable and it was, in fact, predicted by numerous economic observers. Raising the debt ceiling will only make things worse by digging the hole yet deeper and allowing the extension of the extend-and-pretend strategy. But the strategy is not only logically absurd, we have 21 years of empirical evidence demonstrating that it hasn't worked in Japan and are now approaching three years of showing that it hasn't worked in Europe or the USA.

This is why the political considerations to which Coulter is appealing are not only incorrect - and they are incorrect as the public rejects a debt-ceiling increase by 58 to 36 percent, including 38 percent of Democrats - more importantly, they are irrelevant. The only responsible thing, the only relevant thing, that the House Republicans can do is to refuse to accept any deal that raises the debt ceiling for any reason. The economy will crash, this is certain, but the vital point is that until it does, absolutely none of the necessary restructuring can begin to take place.

Is there a fainting couch on that ship?

The delicate Captain Ed is overcome once more by the vileness of it all:

Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths....

This represents the downside of provocateurs, even those entertaining enough to enjoy for 80% of the time. Instead of arguing facts or philosophy, the provocateur usually relies on ad hominem attack in order to degrade and dismiss their opposition. A little of that goes a very long way, and unfortunately Coulter delivered it in droves yesterday. She owes these victims closest to 9/11 an abject apology and a retraction of her remarks, and she should pray that she doesn't ever experience the kind of loss that these people have had. Regardless of their politics, their grief was and is all too real, and that drives their public engagement. I doubt a single one of them wouldn't gladly trade their influence for one more day with the ones they lost. Shame on Ann for implying otherwise.

How, precisely, does questioning the obvious enjoyment and employment which these women derive from their dubious celebrity - however tragically it was obtained - "deny them their humanity"? They've been grieving publicly for nearly five years now! This is politically correct nonsense of the first degree and full credit to Ann for pointing out the complete lack of credibility possessed by these women to speak out on anything but their grief.

Perhaps in the Captain's kinder, gentler world, no wives ever leave their husbands and no one ever kills a family member for the insurance money. Sure, it's possible that some of these women would trade in the money, fame and influence to have their husbands back, but it's equally possible that they cackle gleefully in secret at the Faustian deal they have so visibly accepted. I don't know and neither does Captain Ed, but Coulter's point would not have inspired such a reaction if everyone didn't know exactly what she was talking about. The idea that there are holy women ennobled by grief whose pronouncements must be accepted unquestioningly is absurd; given that there are no shortage of similarly grief-stricken 9/11 widows that Coulter is not criticizing, it should be clear that the Captain's point is just another attempt to showcase indignant drama.

And his point, such as it is, is particularly ironic considering how Ann Coulter is the one pointing out relevant, if uncomfortable facts, while the Captain himself is doing nothing but pointing his finger and decrying others, again demanding an apology is rather less likely than seeing the Stanley Cup settled on Hell's home ice.

Another day, another example of faux outrage. When did the conservative movement come to be dominated by such a bunch of whiny, oversensitive scolds?

UPDATE: The White Buffalo points out a similarly "despicable" post from the Captain robbing the famously bereaved Cindy Sheehan of her humanity:

SOTU Psychotics On Parade

The inevitable parade of nutcases will be in full flower tonight as the President delivers his State of the Union speech. (Sheehan is one of the two individuals mentioned.)

Given that the good Captain previously accused Sheehan of having "gone seriously off-balance with grief", I can only think that he owes her "an abject apology and a retraction of [his] remarks". What's more offensive, accusing someone of enjoying fame, political influence and millions of dollars or accusing someone of being a seriously unbalanced nutcase?

Young Americans for freedom

At least, as long as they don't have to fight for it or take any risks.

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) has pulled out of Ann Coulter’s Thursday event at UC Berkeley, blaming the college for allowing left-wing extremists to terrorize conservatives on campus. “When Young America’s Foundation confirmed Ann Coulter would speak at UC-Berkeley as part of YAF’s nationwide campus lecture program on April 27, we assumed UC Berkeley would take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of students attending the educational event,” the group declared in a blog post on Tuesday. “In the meantime we discovered that the University of California Police Department at Berkeley has an official ‘stand-down’ policy for any situation that develops on campus as long as the situation doesn’t involve the imminent loss of life, allowing the leftist thugs who have terrorized Berkeley’s campus to do so without consequence.”

“As of 4:00 p.m. today, Young America’s Foundation will not be moving forward with an event at Berkeley on April 27 due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators,” they continued. “Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.”

YAF added that they are still pushing forward with their lawsuit against the college, and that the group “looks forward to the day when First Amendment freedoms are enjoyed by conservative students.”

“Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” they concluded. “For information on Ms. Coulter’s plans, please contact her directly.”

I seem to recall Ben Franklin had something to say about those who value the safety of their staff and students more than their liberty....

This  is yet another reason why the Alt-Right is replacing the conservative movement. Conservatives are social cowards who are manifestly unwilling to fight for their sacred principles against internal enemies. Sure, they'll bravely fight external enemies to the death so long as they have the State's blessing, but they cave every time they don't have its approval.

That, in the end, is the fatal weakness of the conservative movement; the need of its members for the approval of authority. As long as the Left can wield the trappings of authority, conservatives will fall in line.

“Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.”

For shame, Berkeley. For shame! Strong words indeed.

Tears of a Cuck

David French demonstrates that he definitely wasn't the man for the job as he cries about how mean the Alt-Right is to NPR, of all places:

In September or mid-September of last year, I had noticed that Ann Coulter, who is a very prominent supporter of Donald Trump, was tweeting out a lot of thoughts that are common to this part of the right - even though I hate to even call them part of the right, they call themselves part of the right - called the alt-right that were explicitly white nationalist in their tone and tenor. And so I wrote in our group blog on National Review called The Corner that Ann Coulter was deliberately appealing to these people. And I - and basically and politely said this is something that's inexcusable and it has no place in the conservative movement.

And then I had no idea what was about to happen next. My Twitter feed basically exploded. I have - did not have that many followers - in the thousands, certainly not like the more prominent folks in politics, but it was unbelievable. I began to see images, for example, of my youngest daughter, who we adopted from Ethiopia many years ago, who at the time was 7 years old - images of her in a gas chamber with a - Donald Trump in an SS uniform about to push the button to kill her. I saw images of her Photoshopped or, you know, artist's rendering of her face in slave fields.

I was called all manner of unbelievable names, which is kind of par for the course for Twitter, but among them was this term that has gained currency in recent years called cuckservatives. Cuckservative is somebody who's been cuckolded by the establishment, by the liberal elite. And then people began to refer to my wife as having sex with black men when I was deployed to Iraq in 2007, 2008. And it just descended from there. And that's a side of Twitter I know that others had experienced, but I had certainly never experienced it before. And then it just got worse.

GROSS: So this was all because you criticized Ann Coulter?

FRENCH: Yes, it was because I - not just criticized Ann Coulter. I mean, that happens all the time. I mean, she's a frequent target of criticism. It's because I criticized this group called the alt-right. It's - and for, you know, those who don't know what the alt-right is, it's a collection of mostly younger people who are rebelling against mainstream conservatism, rebelling against progressive liberalism and have really began to adopt white nationalism, white identity politics.

All I did was politely try to John Birch conservatism's most popular writer out of conservatism! And then they were mean to me! They sent me pictures!

The horra, the horra.....

What all this whining indicates is that the ruthless, relentless meming of the Alt-Right is effective. When they cry racist, send them King Kong and field hand memes. When they cry anti-Semitism, send them swastika and oven memes. The reason they are attempting to ban memes from social media is because it is powerfully effective rhetoric. It is rhetoric that resonates and persuades.

White nationalism and white identity politics are the future for whites. The inescapable future. There is no future for "I don't see color" posing anymore, because even if you want to pretend you don't - and we all know you do, because you make such a particular point of your faux moral preening - every single black, Muslim, Jew, Japanese, Han, Mexican, and Pakistani most certainly does. They see more than color, they see culture and creed too. Even if you're unwilling to accept that your color, culture, and creed is your uniform, all of those things will be their target.

And if we're lucky, you will be what you'll superficially pass for.

I understand this is difficult to accept for those with mixed blood or mixed families. It doesn't matter. Human nature has not changed. The patterns of history have not changed. Ethnic conflict and ethnic cleansing are going to happen in the United States just as they have happened in almost every other polity that allowed itself to become seriously mixed. Homogeneous societies do not appear ex nihilo, they are born from heterogeneous societies.

Guess how?

In fact, the primary reason the ethnic conflict now taking place in the USA is happening at a relatively low level is because the ethnic cleansing is still voluntary. We call it "white flight" and "Hispanization", but the effect is still the same. Don't delude yourself. The socio-political disintegration of the USA is already underway. By the time the mainstream notices and is willing to admit what it is and why it is happening, it will be far late to even slow the process down.

In the meantime, enjoy this confession:

I know journalist after journalist, writer after writer, public figure after public figure who literally dreads opening their Twitter app right now.

Give them the gift of fear. They deserve it, for they are the 999 lying mouths of the Devil.

On Clarke and Coulter

TS writes: I must take issue with your comments regarding Ann Coulter’s column on Richard Clarke. I thought that it was, basically, spitballs against a battleship, to use a time-worn phrase. You’ll note that Coulter’s column mentions only two specifics regarding Clarke, his “interpretation” of Condeleeza Rice’s facial expression (taking half the column) and “6 unanswered attacks” (not true, by the way). This is hardly a “demolition of Richard Clarke”.

I think it was a demolition of Richard Clarke, the man, not necessarily his case. I have little respect for someone who, while in power, can't be bothered to do anything, but now that he's out of it, is claiming that he was ringing the alarm bell. He certainly didn't think it was important enough to risk his career over, did he. His points about Rice were not only inaccurate, but downright strange.

I watched all of Clarke’s open-session testimony yesterday on C-SPAN and found it quite believable (not to mention riveting). Attempts by panel members to go after him, especially by Gov. Thompson, were failures. Where do you think Clarke told untruths/lies? Yes, terrorism happened on his watch. He acknowledges this and apologizes for it. But there’s plenty of blame to go around here, and his is the voice of (bitter) experience. Why do you insinuate he is a “left-liberal”?

From what I heard on Hannity's radio show yesterday, the entire panel is a charade. The Clinton administration did have an opportunity, several, apparently, to get not only bin Laden but also the two financial backers of the attack on the Cole, and turned it down. Both sides are covering this up; we'll see if the woman who called in and claimed to have the documents - she was an non-governmental intermediary - can back up her story, which puts the lie to both sides. I don't think Clarke is a left-liberal, I think he's being used as a hammer by left-liberals. His personal views are irrelevant, as I neither question his motives nor care about them.

As I’m sure you must know, he also was a member of the Reagan and Bush (1) administrations. I’m not Conservative, nor Liberal, but Libertarian. I’m only interested in the truth here. And Ann Coulter’s column made no contribution to this…

It's true, Ann is sometimes more interested in playing Republican attack dog than delving into the truth. As much as I adore her, and today's column was a lovely piece of slicing-and-dicing, she does not always appear to be particularly interested in discovering the truth, much less the whole truth. I expect that far from both administrations being innocent, the truth is that both were guilty of extreme incompetence at the very least.

Mensch vs Day: Anti-Semitism Debate

Alt-Right Anti-Semitism Debate: Vox Day vs Louise Mensch
By Vox Day and Louise Mensch
11:43 am, May 28, 2016

Louise Mensch: This may surprise the people that have been following our debate thus far, but, I feel like those were all small, little, light-hearted warm up debates, because now we’re going to get into it. Because we’re going to debate anti-Semitism.

I want to get a bit granular, because I was surprised and disappointed to see you flaming a very good friend of mine, Cathy Young – who is an equity-based feminist, for those of you that don’t know her, reading this debate – and a long time ally of Gamergate and has worked extremely hard to separate genuine feminism from the kind of “fauxminism” that bullies men for no good reason.

I can’t remember the exact tweet so you can correct me if I’ve got this wrong, but: “…as she would know if she were a real American,” as though she were not an American, or she were less American that you are, which I think is a) racist; b) completely ridiculous; c) unbecoming of an alpha-male who ought to show some loyalty to a tried and tested ally.

What I don’t like about this, apart from racism in general, and I say it with reverence, because you of all people know that I’ve been #notyourshield forever, is that it seems to give quite a lot of comfort to those fauxminist harridans, who’ve always said that Gamergate is just about abuse etc … This is a woman who stood strongly with movement forever, and the first sign of disagreement on anti-Semitism and you guys throw her under the bus. So I’ll let you come back, what do you have to say?

Vox Day: Well, I’m perfectly prepared for things to get hardcore, I’ve been listening to Ministry all afternoon in preparation for this. By the way, I did not know Cathy’s work on Gamergate. We are loyal; until now I did not know.

Louise Mensch: (Laughs) OK, now I’m scared. Go on.

Vox Day: First of all, let me point out that, in terms of feminism, Cathy Young committed something that is, in the eyes of the alt-right a significant error of the sort that removes any right to avoid criticism. She, very very publicly, and very very vehemently, attacked Ann Coulter. The response that she got was a direct result of that, from me and from others. You can even, if you wish to, portray it as the alt-right white knighting for Ann Coulter. I don’t think that would be accurate but you certainly could do that if you wanted to.

Louise Mensch: Well Ann Coulter’s been … I mean, you know, please, she attacks herself. She’s been attacked by me and others. She’s said some rabidly anti-Semitic things, about the Jews etc.

Vox Day: I don’t think Ann Coulter’s said anything that can reasonably be considered anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: How many goddamn Jews do they think there are in America, that kind of thing.

Vox Day: There’s a difference between … Anti-Semitism, in its historic form, means hatred of Jews.

Louise Mensch: Yes.

Vox Day: And there’s a huge difference between hating Jews and wondering why the hell everyone is babbling about them, again, when the subject really has nothing to do with them.

Louise Mensch: Well in this case Ann Coulter used the words “Jews.” “How many goddamn Jews does he think there are in America,” quote unquote.

Vox Day: Well yeah, because polls show Americans think that 33% of Americans are gay, and certainly there … I don’t know what the exact figure is, I don’t recall a similar study being performed with regards to what percentage of Americans other Americans believe are Jews. I don’t know. But I would guess that the perceived percentage is seriously overestimated, due to the constant discussion of Jews, by American Jews, in the media, because American Jews in the media are prone to navel-gazing.

Louise Mensch: Vox, Vox, this was Ann Coulter who brought it up herself, who made the remark, herself. Really, as an “Ayn Randian radical,” don’t you recognize this is entirely Ann Coulter’s own fault? She brought it up, nobody else did, she ranted on about the Jews. She outed herself! Nobody else was talking to her about the Jews. On the left it’s people like Ken Livingston in London. He doesn’t seem to be able to go into any interview in London without mentioning the word ‘Hitler’ five times a second. And it was Coulter’s own fault. No one was talking to her about the Jews in Israel. She was commenting on the first Republican debate, and she brought it up, herself, entirely herself, unprompted.

Vox Day: Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t she discussing the fact that the candidates were discussing Israel, or Jews or something like that?

Louise Mensch: They aren’t the same, are they?

Vox Day: They’re not the same but it’s certainly related. I’ll be the first to point out that they’re not the same at all.

Louise Mensch: Because you said basically you owe no loyalty to Cathy Young despite an extraordinarily long time defending Gamergate in general, or Gamergate in particular I should say and men in general from the false persecution of the bating fauxminist movement. Now she insulted your girl Coulter – by the way, I consider Coulter as something lower than the stuff I find to scrape off my shoes – and all of a sudden, you more or less said that she deserves all the anti-Semitism that she gets.

Vox Day: No, what I’m saying is that Cathy Young has made it necessary for people to choose between her and Ann Coulter, and people like Milo and I made it very clear that we choose Ann. That’s all.

Read more »

The threatened Alpha

Why on Earth is the God-Emperor attacking Ann Coulter?

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border. Major sections of Wall are being built and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly. Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built. #MAGA

I think the president's response is better understood via the socio-sexual hierarchy than through politics. Trump knows better than anyone else that he's failing to deliver. He can sense his support crumbling; alphas are very sensitive to these things. And alphas highly value female opinion, as it is female approval of them that most clearly highlights their distinction from men lower in the hierarchy.

So, Coulter's brutal appraisal of the president's near-complete failure on the most important issue of his campaign stings him to his core. Coulter, by the way, almost certainly knows this and she is not attempting to tear the president down, but rather to motivate him to stop listening to the cucks and foreigners and bad economists around him and start living up to his promises.

The challenges are manifold, even though Trump is genuinely doing more to address the problem than any president since Eisenhower and he is meeting staunch and formidable opposition. But he is betrayed by his own preference for negotiated settlements and expectations of rational behavior on the part of his opponents, and by his own civic nationalism. Unless he is willing to declare no-quarter, go scorched earth on the issue, and actually behave as if he is facing a genuine national emergency of existential proportions - which he legitimately is, whether he is able to grasp that or not - he is going to fail on all three of the primary issues upon which he was elected.

That doesn't mean he has been a failure. Far from it! He has been an excellent president and he will be justifiably re-elected in 2020. The problem is that after more than 50 years of relentless foreign invasion, the situation is so dire that mere excellence will not suffice.

Conservatives move right

The Z-man observes the very transformation I have been predicting for some time now as the bankruptcy of the conservative movement becomes more and more obvious to everyone on the Right:

The real lesson, the one most useful to the alt-right, is seeing the controlled opposition confirm what many have been pointing out for years now. As soon as things got a little tough, the College Republicans folded their tents and blamed the “extremists” of the alt-right. The Young American Foundation, a Conservative Inc. racket to recruit college students, made a show of “defending free speech” but made sure they did not offer any material support. It was just another way to raise money for their racket.

In contrast, a handful of rednecks down south were able to force Auburn to host the notorious Richard Spencer, a guy everyone seems to think is Hitler in a cardigan. They went to court and quickly forced the school to honor its legal obligations. They were also able to rally a security force and get the cops to enforce public order. The result being a peaceful and orderly event. Conservative Inc. has tens of millions in cash at their disposal and an army of elite educated lawyers and they could not even defend Coulter.

What they could do though, is attack Ann Coulter when she correctly pointed out that the summer soldiers of Conservative Inc ran and hid as soon as things got difficult. David French is a mentally unbalanced crackpot, but he does speak for the dwindling number of Buckley Conservatives, who claim to be the vanguard of anti-Progressive forces in America. French speaks for all of the so-called conservatives when he is more upset at Coulter’s noticing than he is at black clad thugs shutting down her speech.

The whole affair is insignificant in isolation, but it is a another reminder to those who have begun the journey away from Buckley Conservatism, Libertarianism and boomer politics that those well-paid heroes of the Right never win these fights. They invest so heavily in the symbolism of conservatism because they conserve nothing but their own place at Lefty’s table. At best they are well-intentioned losers. At worst, they are willing props deployed by the ruling orthodoxy to disrupt the opposition.

The people in the dissident movements are not without their problems and many of them are certainly nuts, but that’s the nature of outsider movements. What’s increasingly clear is the fact that it is the outsider movements who are scoring the victories. They are the people changing minds and forcing the the fight onto the turf of Lefty. It’s not the dorks in blue blazers mooning over photos of Reagan. It’s the guys with home made armor decorated with sun wheels and cartoon frogs.

The other day, an old friend, who was a “happy warrior” type, mostly in the libertarian wing of the Buckley Right, quoted Mike Cernovich to me. I cautioned him to not take everything Cerno says at face value and he responded with, “Hey, no enemies on the Right.” A year ago he probably would have sided with David French or at least frowned upon the alt-right guys raising hell. When given the choice between those who are not afraid to be called a heretic and those who live in fear of it, people naturally choose the former over the latter.

As I said in the Darkstream the other night, it's going to be very important for the Alt-Right to be patient and allow the civic nationalists, the conservatives, the libertarians, and those with various identity complications the time to process the information and work their way through the emotions that their senses of grief, loss, betrayal, and despair will likely inspire. It's natural for people to instinctively side with family over nation, even when that instinct is at war with what they know intellectually and can see happening all around them.

Ironically, the reasons behind the Alt-Lite's very rejection of the Alt-Right case often tend to materially support it.

As for the Alt-Retards who have been showing up here lately - and yes, I will use that term and permit use of it by the VFM and Dread Ilk here and here only as long as various Alt-Retards continue to violate the truce we had established with the Alt-White here - they provide the Alt-Right with an excellent model of what not to do and how not to win people over to your side. (Translation: don't use it on Twitter and Gab, or on your own sites, at least not yet.) Also, I should note that I will respond accordingly to Alt-Retards who attack me on Gab.

You'd think they would have learned their lesson, but then, if they were intelligent, they wouldn't be running around wearing swastika panties on their heads.

Anyhow, the more complicated one's identity, and the more ethnically and culturally intertwined one's family, the more frightening the global rise of nationalism is going to be, and the more "what about MEEEEE" is going to be sole perspective initially utilized to consider events. But eventually, reality will intrude, as it always does. Nothing we do or say or think is going to change the fact that liberalism has failed, conservativism has failed, civic nationalism has failed, multiculturalism has failed, and globalism has failed. Like feminism and communism, all five of these ideologies contained the seeds of their own destruction within themselves. Internal incoherency is why ideologies fail; we are merely observers of the inevitable failures.

The correct response is not to condemn adherents of these failed ideologies for their past choices, much less for who they are, but rather, to give them time to observe, understand, and accept the reality of the changing historical trends, and to calmly offer the viable alternative. No one capable of dialectic makes an ideological shift of this magnitude overnight; I didn't and you probably didn't either. So, be patient and be calm, no matter what ludicrous arguments or outrageous accusations they happen to make. It's not you with whom they are upset, it's just their denial speaking.