Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Transitioning to batch mode

My Internet connection is (for the foreseeable future) intermittent, while my computer is as available as always. This means I now have to write my posts offline, and can post them only in that once or twice a week when I can get hold of a relatively private (i.e. not at work) connection. My regular reading of blogs and comments won’t be affected, but writing will be done in spurts instead of serially, meaning gaps in posting followed by single days of multiple posts.

I’m sorry for my regular readers for leaving the future of my blog in doubt lately, but I only just now worked it out. As for the reasons for this change, I can’t go into them here. But baruch HaShem I’m OK.

Shabbat Shalom!


Tip: Haveil Havalim #122

The topmost Jewish blog carnival reaches its 122nd issue, for June 24, 2007, hosted on me-ander. As usual with those issues where the host has graciously accepted my submissions, I now feature the reciprocal, with the posts I liked best:

  1. Our sages say every lesson should begin with a joke, in order to lighten the atmosphere. They were talking about Torah classes, of course, but I’ll apply it here too: Olmert: Hamas Takeover – Opportunity For Peace With Settlers!, on Israel Satire Laboratory, from June 20, 2007. The only trouble with humor in this topic is it nearly always invokes the adage, “This would be funny if it weren’t sad”.
  2. Sultan Knish gets kudos from me both for re-inverting the David and Goliath parable to reflect reality (it has become a foregone conclusion among the Leftscum that the modern descendants of the Jews are Goliath while those who adorn themselves with a name derived from the Philistines are David) and for using the term, “Islam” without all the fashionable modifiers (“radical” and all that stuff), in his post Goliath’s Challenge – Islam and the World, from June 18, 2007.
  3. Elder of Ziyon brings the sixth part of his Psychological History of Palestinian Arabs, from June 19, 2007. One of the things that should be evidence enough that the other side doesn’t want to see a single inch of Jewish sovereignty in this area is that events from about 60 years ago can be converted to today’s news just by changing a few names, and EoZ’s post is a superb demonstration of that.
  4. From Planck’s Constant comes Israel Creates more in One Month than Islam in a Century, from June 18, 2007. The “reality-based community”, of course, prefers to focus on “the inherent injustce of Israel’s founding”. Sweet will be the day of revenge, when G-d throws them in the same fire as their Muslim allies.
  5. On a lighter but still serious note: Go Golan: Life in the Golan Heights has a picture from the Golan Heights which would make any Romanticist drool (at least until the moment he hears we Jews took it from Syria…), in Inspirations from the Golan, from June 11, 2007. Under Islamic management, which so many seem so keen to advocate for the sake of “peace”, the same site would be a strip of scorched earth, same as the Gaza greenhouses after the expulsion of all the Jews.
  6. More on how we’re much better than them (not that it needs proving, but there’s always some chance that it could penetrate the ample diameter of the cranium of a person of sinister political persuasion): Solomonia brings an old story, now made worth reminding by the events, of how Hamas leader’s three sisters live secretly in Israel as full citizens, from June 18, 2007. What a classic example of a-PART-heid! A-PART-heid, I tell you! A-PAAAAAAART-HEID!!!!!
  7. Robert J. Avrech of Seraphic Secret, in his post The Rupture, from June 20, 2007, shows how Israel has always been used as a scapegoat and dumping-ground for every tinpot Arab dictator who couldn’t deal with the self-inflicted troubles in his country. I wish for the speedy coming of the day when Israel has a leader who says to those pinheads, “The buck stops here!”—the words of the American president who signed the birth of Israel.
  8. Speaking of Israel’s leaders, or would-be ones, Batya of Shiloh Musings has the post Bibi has crossed the line!, from June 22, 2007, on Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent plan to bring Jordanian troops into Judea and Samaria to keep the peace. A better (I mean worse) Oslo than the original Oslo, in other words. Beloved Jews, the only adequate test for Jewish leadership is against G-d’s instructions in Numbers 33:51–56; whoever does not believe those instructions should be carried out is not fit to be our leader today.

My post featured on this issue of Haveil Havalim: Dr. Reality-Based and Mr. Fiery Ideologue, from June 21, 2007, where I show the contradiction between the vaunted Leftist “pragmatism” and their insistence on “rooting out every injustice on Israel’s part”, especially in their push for forcing changes that pertain to matters from 1947 rather than 1967, therefore unacceptable to just about 99.99999% of Israeli Jews.

Thanks for the great posts. ’Til next time, with HaShem’s help!


Saturday, June 23, 2007

A Question of Trust

To all those armchair statesmen calling for dragging Israel to negotations table:

Collage: Muslim reactions to slight things, such as the Danish Cartoons; maps of the peace treaties accepted by Israel, and the Muslim reactions to them; caption: "They cannot be trusted to restrain themselves over a few words or drawings, so what makes you think they can be trusted to keep land-for-peace deals?!"
Non-Muslim actions and the immediate Muslim reactions. Click image to view full size.

Yes, I know the replies: “It’s not about religion, it’s about land, it’s a nationalistic dispute between two equal claimants” (that’s why we find this pattern of “resistance” all over the world), “The people on both sides want peace, it’s just their leaders who push for belligerence” (paging Daniel Goldhagen… and see also Ben Shapiro’s recent column, hat tip to Steven Plaut), “Tiny minority of extremists” (yeah, that’s why Osama Bin Laden has never been excommunicated, while a Friday mosque sermon is enough to drive thousands upon thousands into a frenzy). Please, get your heads out of the sand and look at reality: Islamic fascistic imperialism is the elephant in the room, and it can’t be persuaded to stop its stampede by any gifts of appeasement. Fighting back is the only way.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, June 22, 2007

Viva Thailestina!

From the River to the Sea,
From the River to the Sea,
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

From the Mekong River
To the Andaman Sea,
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

We are fighting for our freedom
From oppressive colonizers.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

We have been here in this land
For as long as we can remember.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

The indigenous people
Of Thailestine are rising.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

The aggressive Buddhist state
Fights our self-determination, but
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

We are being brutalized
By a strong military.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

All we have is our bodies,
To strap resistance belts on.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

We are weak and oppressed,
So resist by any means.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

Every Buddhist farmer, and his wife and children too
Are enemy combatants, worthy of beheading [G-d forbid. —ZY], so that
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

We will press on with our struggle
’Til the Bangkok regime bends.
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

From the Mekong River
To the Andaman Sea,
Thailestine– Will– Be– Free!

Viva, viva Thailestina!
Viva, viva Thailestina!

Map: Thailand, with arrows going from the star and crescent in the South to all over the country

And now that we are finished
With addressing Western dupes,
Let us give the real message to ours:

From the ocean to the ocean,
And from pole to freezing pole,
Muslim, the world belongs to thee!

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Dr. Reality-Based and Mr. Fiery Ideologue

There is the accusation of wishing reality to conform to one’s ideology. For example, it is said the “Christian Zionists manipulating the decisions at the White House at AIPAC’s behest” are forcing reality to be in conformance with their “vision of Armageddon”. This is in order to contrast with the “sane, rational, reality-based” attitude toward foreign policy on the Left, which is informed above all by respect toward reality, toward the facts—by going with them, not trying to bend them.

There are examples galore of how this dichotomous view is false, but I think nowhere is it more blatant than in the case of the Israel/“Palestine” conflict. Such a contentious point is I/“P” for the Leftists that they often do not bother to display even the rhetoric of being reality-based, although they spare no effort in blaming Israel and the Neocon Administration for ignoring the facts on the ground.

They speak of “justice”. No, justice is not a bad thing (but pay attention to the problem of “The Grand Sez Who”); however, it must be truthfully acknowledged that standing for justice and being reality-based are incompatible. Why is that? Because justice is an ideal, while being reality-based, as I said, requires compromising on ideals, or sometimes giving them up altogether, in the face of reality.

The Left’s pretensions to being reality-based, as far as the Israel/“Palestine” conflict goes, are all annulled by the recent (since about five years, maybe a little more) trend away from 1967-ism and into 1947-ism—away from the fairly pragmatic vision of land for peace on the lines of Israel’s treaty with Egypt, and into the idealistic, reality-be-damned vision of “fixing” the “mistakes” of the very foundation of Israel.

1967-ism, I have said many times, was a respected and mandated position among the majority of the Israeli Jewish public from 1993 to 2000, and even beyond despite its process of decline after the outbreak of the Al-Aksa Intifada, right until its demise after August 2005. That point and that date are all-important, for they demonstrate the thinking of the Israeli Jewish public—thinking which the “reality-based” Leftists think they can sweep aside, concocting the most treacherous of “peace plans” on the backs of the Jews like Neville Chamberlain on acid.

The uprooting of the entire Jewry of Gaza was followed by rocket fire on Sderot. The charge that the Kassams are “primitive”—though that didn’t prevent them from killing Jews, but of course the weighting of the number of Jews killed against that of “Palestinians” killed will be called forth as counterargument, just as the cry of “Disproportionate response!” was for Lebanon last summer—is a deflection from the real issue. The real issue is that Sderot is situated within the 1949 Armistice Line. And disregarding the significance of the 1949 Armistice Line as an item of Israeli Jewish concensus is the worst mistake a peace planner could make.

The Israeli Jewish public, in contrast to the “Palestinian” one, which is still beholden to the same ideas and slogans of 60 years ago, has known many shifts of opinion. One has only to compare Rabin’s denunciation of the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, where he protested that it was “the opening for setting up an Arafatian state”, to Rabin’s signing of the Oslo Accords just eighteen years later. These were not merely his private decisions—the Israeli Jewish public had really shifted in opinion, from a hardline “No talks with terrorists” stance in 1975 to a pragmatic “Peace is made with enemies” stance in 1993. Post-Zionism is lamentable, but in it is the sign of strength, of a people willing to reconsider their opinions—and, therefore, the current shift toward hardline stances too is a sign of the same strength, however much the Leftists may think evil of it.

But with all those shifts of public opinion, there is one thing, one solitary article of Israeli Jewish thinking, that has not changed, from the first days of Zionism to this day: the vision of Israel as a Jewish state. Except for a handful of far-out lunatics, always ending up cutting themselves from the public, such as the quisling Ilan Pappé, the idea of Israel as a Jewish state has always been taboo, sacrosanct, unquestionable, non-negotiable. This is an immovable reality that the Leftists, in their most un-reality-based idealistic fervor, have since some years ago decided to go roughshod over.

Commenter “another American” on Daily Kos, much though I may disagree with him on some points, is a wise, pragmatic and reality-based one, showing it in his call to reject the One-State Solution (which Steven Plaut calls “The Rwanda Solution”) as something that no Israeli Jew would agree with. In one of his diaries he brings Amos Oz as an example of how “the most dovish of Israelis” does not support the “Palestinian Right of Return”. It was truly said: if Amos Oz says a flat-out “No!” to the influx of millions of “Palestinians” to within the 1949 Armistice Line territories, what chance is there for the Israeli Jewish public as a whole to accept it? For Oz’s dovishness is now a rapidly waning position among Israeli Jews.

It was interesting to watch the comments in reaction to aA’s diary: appeals to “justice” and “reparations for past wrongs” and denunciations of “the ‘Might Makes Right’ attitude that underlies the opposition to the Palestinian Right of Return” were swift and copious. One of the commenters said, when aA repeated his emphasis on Amos Oz’s inordinate dovishness and willingness to compromise on all other positions, that he wouldn’t care if Oz were an angel of light. In other words: uprooting all the Jews of the 1967 isn’t enough, and resettling the “Palestinians” there or in other Arab states isn’t acceptable, but the refugees (or more accurately their descendants—a unique case of inheritance of that status in the whole world) are to be allowed to flow, en masse, back to the same places from which they were driven away in the course of the war of 1947–9. All for the sake of “justice”, of course, and the reality that this issue is non-negotiable concensus among the Jews of Israel be damned.

The participation of Arabs within the 1949 Armistice Lines in the Al-Aksa Intifada of October 2000, the firing of Kassam rockets into areas within the 1949 Armistice Line, and the recent documents by Arabs (Muslims, and Christian dhimmi helpers of theirs—the latter are being cleansed from Gaza by Hamas as we speak) within the 1949 Armistice Lines demanding the dilution of Israel’s Jewish character—all are direct strikes on that inviolable nerve of Israeli Jewish concensus: the founding of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel’s Declaration of Independence states the intention of lack of discrimination against citizens based on religion, sex or creed, but it also contains, written before and after that statement, the clear and unequivocal idea that Israel is a Jewish state, with a Jewish character.

A reality-based person would realize this fact and go from it. Going from it would mean that, in order to achieve a negotiated peace, 1967-ism is the only option. That means making it clear to the “Palestinians” that the 1967 territories would be all they were going to get, and the “Right of Return” was headed to the trashcan. But the Leftists display their reality-based façade only when it suits, for example for bashing Bush, while, in their stances on the Israel/“Palestine” conflict, there is a wide faction among them, possibly already a majority, and certainly growing with each passing day, who are fiery ideologues who couldn’t care less about reality, preferring to bend it to their views of what ought to be—all on the Israeli Jews’ expense, it cannot be stressed enough.

Of course, there is no shortage of justifications for that stand, most common of which is the idea popularized by Dhimmi Carter (may he go to hell soon, amen): that the insistence on the hardline, 1947-ist stance is equivalent to the insistence on the hardline stance against Apartheid South Africa. Never mind that the status of non-Jews in Israel is incomparable to that of the blacks of South Africa of then (was there a black Minister of Science in South Africa before 1994? There is an Arab, Muslim Minister of Science in Israel right now—Ghaleb Majadleh), and never mind that the other side is most unlike the blacks of South Africa in its view of the desired solution and its aftermath. (Consider this: the African National Committee not only lacked genocidal statements in their charter, but followed with peaceful reconciliation with the whites after 1994; whereas the “Palestinians” are genocidal in both word and deed, even unto the education of their children, and even unto killing their own without mercy. And we are expected to trust them?!)

Charges of “racism” and “apartheid” can be leveled without refrain, but the concensus of the Israeli Jewish public regarding the core of the Jewish state will not be moved—it has not budged through decades of manifold events and upheavals, so it won’t be changed by mere boycotts and resolutions. The shift of the world’s stance on addressing this conflict from 1967-ism to 1947-ism, no matter by how severe sanctions and boycotts it is reinforced, serves only to strengthen the Israeli Jews’ conviction that concessions are not in their best interests, and that survival is more important than compliance with international law. The Left’s preference of a fiery ideological stance over being reality-based is a most potent factor in turning Israeli Jews Kahane-ward.

What a pity Barbara Tuchmann is no longer alive. Watching this unfolding of events would have provided her with the most superb example ever for her book The March of Folly.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Putting the Cart in the Right Place

Picture: Top: "The wrong way to ride a cart", with relief of charioteer with order of chariot and horse reversed; Bottom: "The wrong way standpoint from which to make policies", with USA and Israel flags merged, and arrow pointing to photos from the 9/11 and 7/7 Islamic attacks.
For the truth, reverse the directions. (Click image to view full size)

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase meaning, “After that, therefore because of that”. It refers to the logical fallacy of concluding, without further probation, causality on the basis of temporality—that is, concluding that if event Y happened after event X, then X is the cause of Y. Investigation must be made to determine whether this is true. If false, then it can be likened to putting the cart before the horse.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the fallacy we can see in those who assert that the Israel/“Palestine” conflict, or more specifically “the USA’s one-sided support for Israel over the Palestinians”, is the cause of or at least fuel for Islamic terrorism today. The evidence is against this, for Islamic terrorism is a menace in places where not even post-colonial “grievances”, let alone “one-sided support for Israel”, are to be found: Southern Thailand is the most prominent example of this. Also damning is the fact that there is no need for political issues in order for Muslims to be inflamed: a novel, a few cartoons, a medieval quote by the Pope and the knighting of the writer of the aforementioned novel is enough for achieving that effect.

The reason Israel was among the first to bear the continuous brunt of Islamic suicide terrorism is its being a non-Muslim state situated in the heartland of Islam. Therefore, to blame the now global threat of Islamic terrorism on Israel is precisely a case of putting the cart before the horse. Israel had acted as a lightning rod for Islamic imperialism for at least 40 years since its foundation; the fact that the Muslims now feel the time is right for implementing Ayatollah Khomeini’s (long may he roast in hell) exhortation from 1942, for every able-bodied Muslim to do jihad in all infidel lands once the conditions are suitable, is something Israel never had control over.

The Jews of Israel reject, even if their leaders out of sheer stupidity or venality do not, the idea that Islamic terrorism can be appeased by giving the Muslims tracts of Jewish land. The Jews call upon the world to realize that the only way to real, permanent peace is by repulsing the imperialist enemy, in Israel, in the USA, in the United Kingdom, in Serbia, in Ethiopia, in India, in Thailand—everywhere.

Labels: , ,

Re: My Intentions

The good: not deleting the diary.

The bad: banning me before I was going to respond (four days after I posted it). My response had been awaited: “[…] Would like to see the diarist respond”, by “decembersue” (among others).

The ugly: near-total focusing on background information and feelings instead of the content of the diary. “Troll” and “links to LGF” are not germane to the points I made. I purposely left out my ideological leanings out of the diary in order to enable debate based on pragmatic merits alone. That this has failed to prevent the degeneration of the diary is of no surprise to me, for, as I said many times, the acrimony of the I/“P” debate in words is but a reflection of the acrimony of the I/“P” conflict on the ground.

Some people ask this:

I do not believe this one's intentions are honorable. I gets [sic] the feeling we are part of some science project for him. At least we know where he'll post the results. […]

by MajorFlaw on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:27:43 PM PDT

And this:

[…] This guy is playing us and intends to publish the results. No thanks.

by MajorFlaw on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:49:23 PM PDT

And this:

Is this diary attempting to elicit remarks that can be used against dkos?

by decembersue on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

And I will answer:

The purpose of the diary was to make the diarists and commenters of Daily Kos think what it means that your website has become a platform where sympathy for Islamic suicide terrorists and advocacy of the end of Israel as Jewish state (G-d forbid) are all but acceptable. Where, despite having these words in their charter:

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. …The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

…Hamas is supported, and its atrocious words and deeds rationalized as “blowback”.

From my reading of the diaries ever since that one, it looks to me as if I had never posted it. Very well, Koslings: you stand condemned—condemned by G-d, and by history. Condemned as sympathizers with today’s form of imperialistic fascism, more commonly known as Islam. Condemned for selling your own stated liberal values for the lentil stew of “expiation of the West’s colonialist wrongs”. Condemned for standing with evil against the good.

[…] since an actual look at his blog was taken a look at, and one can make a case from it that he does not have the best interests of dkos in mind.

by TLS66 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:58:44 AM PDT

My interests regarding DKos are a simple matter of give-and-take: you started that psychotic obsession of yours with Israel ever since the war in Lebanon last summer, so I started my focus on Daily Kos as a result; had you not done so, I would never have written, possibly not even heard, of Daily Kos. The question is not whether I come in the best interests of Daily Kos; the question is whether it is in the best interests for a site concerned with “getting American Democrats elected” to latch so obsessively onto a conflict whose significance, as far as both pragmatic (getting American Democrats elected) and idealistic (standing for equality and justice) viewpoints are concerned, pales in comparison to so many others.

And I know a hate site when I see one.

Screenshot: Daily Kos stitching: Left: "LGF is a hate site. Pure and simple.", comment by "Lefty Coaster"; Right: "Palestine/Israel; 40 Years of Occupation, 59 Years of Catastrophe, and 125 Years of Colonization", diary title by "jon the antizionist jew"

Labels: ,

Racist Inheritance vs. Written Inheritance

No, I have not retreated to living under a rock for the past weeks. I’ve been reading LGF, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch and the rest on the one hand, and Daily Kos, CounterPunch and Common Dreams on the other, just as before; but whereas previously the reading of the enemy’s writings would provoke some anger in me and then a lengthy refutation, nowadays I find they provoke only rage. The Daily Kos diaries, the CounterPunch screeds, all make my blood boil, boil at the injustice of obsessively criticizing the one state that is not deserving of such criticisms, and when I try to write something (as I did twice the last period), I am consumed by rage, and the result is a cursefest which is a far cry from the intellectually argued posts thus far.

I decided to wait until some opportunity knocked, until there emerged a new (or more accurately “relatively unexplored”) argument to address or to make. Such a one has finally come now. The rage is still there, and I don’t think I’ll be able to completely exclude it from the post, but the new material is a good starting point for a post that less reflects the fury I feel.

The Dune series of science fiction books by Frank Herbert has again provided me with food for thought. It is not the particular events but the mere concept of the series that has fascinated me from the start, and filled me with great admiration from the writer. I like to contrast Dune with its contemporary 2001: A Space Odissey, by Arthur Clarke (novel) and Stanley Kubrick (film version, with which most are familiar). To my mind, 2001 strikes me as a cheap, common exercise in extrapolation much like Back To The Future II, while the setting of Dune is derived from the sane, rational view that human nature isn’t, barring miraculous intervention, likely to change, not soon, and not in 10,000 years either.

I wish to engage in literary analysis and comparison first.

2001 tries to depict life, politics and technology in that year, and flunks on all three counts: it assumes off-world colonization; it assumes the existence of the Soviet Union; and it assumes the success of Artificial Intelligence. In all three fields, the error is that of extrapolation, born of the belief in inevitable progress.

“One small step for me, and a giant leap for mankind”, said Neil Armstrong when he set foot on the moon. But was it really a giant leap for mankind? I think not. That event in 1969 may be a memorable one for those who lived to experience it, but it soon enough entered the domain of trivia. “1st century CE: Roman Emperor Caligula makes his horse a senator”, “11th century: King Canute stands before the tide in an attempt to end the flattery of his courtiers”, “1969: Neil Armstrong is the first human to set foot on the moon”. Nice to know, but in the real world, nothing changed: humans are still humans, despite all the vain (not to mention bloody) endeavors of the Progressives to engineer them into something new. The drive toward space exploration today is at an all-time low, there being much more pressing concerns here on earth, and no Soviet Union to spur the United States of America into a Space Race.

The Soviet Union. Before 1991, we were all sure it had a long, long time to stay. Sure, in the 1980’s we could see the Eastern Bloc collapse state after state, but the assumption still was that this was only a respite on the part of the USSR to gain momentum, and then the repeats of 1956 Hungary and 1968 Czechoslovakia would follow. The demise of Soviet Russia was a shock to all in 1991 (although, it is often said today that Russia under Putin is the successor of what was before, just not Communist in name).

Clarke and Kubrick assumed the existence of the Soviet Union in 2001 and were wrong. As a perfect match to that failed prediction, they failed to foresee 2001 as the year in which the opening shot for the continuation of the 1,400 year long war between Islam and the non-Muslim world would be fired. A year in which man is supposed to have already colonized the moon, and you suggest it would be remembered as the year in which religious believers would fly passenger planes into office buildings?! How medieval of you! But that’s what happened in fact, and the fallacy of historical scorn (or, in the words of C S Lewis, “chronological snobbery”) is the pitfall where 2001 fell while Dune masterfully circled around it.

Lastly, the error of extrapolation is to be found in technology: the famed HAL, the computer programmed to have human-like intelligence. Artificial Intelligence is a dream dating from the early days of computing, from the 1950’s, when computers were still vacuum-tubed monsters filling whole rooms. It has inspired a load of movies on the theme of the slave that rebels against his master and ousts him, such as The Matrix and Terminator series, to name a few. The best and brightest minds devoted themselves to the pursuit of AI, of making computers exhibit human-like intelligence. Even dedicated programming languages (such as LISP) were invented for that purpose.

Until John Searle’s seminal article of 1980, the assumption had always been the inadequacy of hardware; AI is not succeeding, said its proponents, because our sights are still much too high for the hardware we have in possession. They trusted, then, in Moore’s law (processor power doubling every 18 months, with slight modifications to the rule for other types of hardware) to provide them with the hardware needed to surmount the challenges of AI. As we can see, we now have, on each of our desktops, hardware that makes the original Cray I comparable to the Apple II, and the hardware in possession of research faculties is staggering in computing power. Yet we are no closer to the realization of AI than we were in the 1960’s. How can that be?

Searle’s article, the Chinese Room article, suggests rethinking the problem: it is not hardware but a systemic limitation that prevents HAL from becoming a reality. He framed it as a parable: a man in a room, with the most explicit and detailed instructions for translating Chinese into English; he receives Chinese text from one opening, translates it according to the rules, and then hands out the translation from the other opening. As far as the result seems, the customers of Chinese–English translations think he knows Chinese, English and the art of translation perfectly; in reality, the man does nothing but follow rules, and he knowns no more Chinese than a donkey can evaluate the cholesterol quotient of fruit soup. Computers execute instructions, and nothing more; even the most elaborate “neural networks” have no intelligence, no self-awareness, none of that which separates man from machine, no matter how much the hardware is improved. One could be satisfied with inserting a few coins into a vending machine and getting the desired drink, but if said vending machine neglects to give him the change (at best), then he could not do what he would do with a human vendor—discuss the matter.

Deep insights though 2001: A Space Odissey may contain (personally, I think it’s the most boring movie I ever saw), its predictions were consistent flops, of the type of the early technological “visionaries” who predicted that, in the year 2000, computers would no longer weigh hundreds of tonnes and occupy twenty rooms, but instead would weigh just one tonne and occupy just two rooms. Extrapolation is the visionary’s prime pitfall, and 2001 is one of the best examples of that. In contrast, Dune is amazing in its sanity—in its carefulness not to extrapolate, in its assumption that human nature is not easily changed, if at all, and in its view of history as tilts of the pendulum.

The late Frank Herbert assumed space colonization (but that’s OK when you project 10,000 years forward), yet his view of humanity is something “retrograde”: the Imperium is nothing but the medieval Holy Roman Empire updated to a Space Age setting, with feudal lords owning planets as fiefs, a Spacing Guild monopolizing space travel (Venice and Genoa), an all-valuable spice growing on one planet only (comparable to the nutmeg and cloves of Indonesia), troubadours, pervasive religion, and so many more of that which springs to mind when we think about the Middle Ages, the Age of Feudalism, the Age of Faith.

The “Progressives”, from the 18th century freethinkers to the Dawkinses and Harrises of this day, have constantly predicted the demise of religion. Herbert gives their view some room in his series, as “the agnostic Guild members”, who view all religion as a plot to keep the public docile (the Royal Lie Theory of religion, itself an example of unwarranted extrapolation; for it is one thing to point out clergymen fleecing their flock, which no one would deny, but quite another to assume religion was invented for that very purpose), but he places them in the framework of a universe that is mostly religious. Not for Herbert was this “Progressive” idea that religion would die out; he was far too perceptive of human nature to assume that the advances of science and technology could be humanity’s promised Messiah. His view, I hold, is the most rational: I see nothing reasonable in the thought that stone-cold, dry-fact science and technology could address timeless human concerns. Far from disrespecting science and technology, I think this view is the most respectful, for it does not (as does the “Progressive” view) make an idol out of them.

And now, finally, after this literary excursus, I come to the point, to what is more directly related to this blog: the narrator’s religious worldview in Dune.

The various religious worldviews in Dune, including the agnostic (“Royal Lie”) one, are all narrated. But there is, of course, the storyline itself, not attributed to the mind of a character, but belonging to the narrator, at least in that particular story. What religious worldview encloses all the others in the Dune series?

It may be tempting to answer, “None”. Seeing the admirable impartiality of Frank Herbert, his descriptiveness in telling us of the multitude of religious beliefs and unbeliefs throughout the Dune series, it would be tempting to regard him as having been totally detached, empty of thoughts of his own, absolutely neutral. But such a thing is an impossibility.

We are alive and we have minds of our own, therefore we have opinions of our own, however much we try to deny it. I do not believe in such a thing as being “unbiased”; there is always some bias (and therefore my complaint with the Leftstream Media isn’t that they’re biased, but that they have the wrong bias). Far too many times have I seen an “analysis of the Bible from the unbiased, detached, scientific point of view” that is actually biased toward explaining away all the supernatural events in any way possible. To call such an “unbiased opinion” is fraud! Be honest and say your analysis is from an anti-supernaturalist, atheistic point of view, for that is the truth; analyzing the Bible from the atheistic point of view is no more unbiased than doing so from the Islamic point of view. I give Frank Herbert full credit for objectivity in depicting all the religious worldviews of Dune; for neutrality, however, nothing, because it is an impossibility. He definitely did write the narrative of Dune from a religious worldview in its own right. What was that view, in my opinion?

The short version: I think Dune is written from the worldview of paganism. The longer version: I deduce this not from occasional expressions like “gods below”, which are narrated expressions (i.e. uttered by the characters), and anyhow are beset by monotheistic expressions (you can find “Allahu Akbar” in Children of Dune). I deduce this from the narrator’s overarching emphasis on genetic memory.

In truth, I tell you I have found next to nothing that is purely spiritual in the narrative of Dune. That which we can call spiritual experiences, such as visions and prophecies, are strongly anchored to the matter-based, blood-based narrative, a narrative that puts genetic memory at the center. Though the author contrasts between the common, ignorant people, who know nothing beyond the timebound dream following “birth-shock”, and the special, enlightened few who can recall the memories of their ancestors from within their blood, tracing their past to ancestry in Terra 10,000 years back, the difference is not a qualitative one. The former just aren’t “developed” enough; if they were, their “spiritual experiences” would still be derived from the material basis of genetics. That is paganism.

People think paganism is about polytheism, idolatry, nature worship and material sacrifices. That is true, but those are surface manifestations, while there are other, less-known, characteristics lying below the seen and familiar layers. The belief in genetic memory is one of the most pervasive of these: pagan peoples from all over the world have held that a storehouse of memories, from the present to the beginning of the nation, is available in one’s blood. Much of pagan ritual and mysticism is devoted to finding ways to extract those secrets from one’s blood: vision quests, blood-letting, dream catching and necromancy.

I have often wondered about the Torah’s prohibition of talking with the spirits of the dead (King Saul’s last sin). In most cases the explanation has been, “It was a pagan-like practice”. But the animal sacrifices of the Temple could also be said to resemble (repeat: resemble; far be it from me to compare G-d’s holy ordinances to pagan filth) the practices of the idolators, therefore that explanation can at best be a partial one. I think the prohibition of necromancy is not (merely) out of guarding G-d’s people from imitating the ways of the pagans, but is one of the most potent laws given unto them in order to break any spirit of paganism in them. All methods of gaining spiritual knowledge by tapping into the genetic storehouse are a direct affront to G-d’s concept of memory and inheritance.

It is written, “Moses has bequeathed us Law, an inheritance to the community of Jacob”. Gone, gone away is the pagan idea of maintaining the heritage of the nation by shamanically consulting the deceased ancestors; to Israel, the guarantor of the future is the copying of the text and passing it to the children. The importance of writing has been given its highest boost under Judaism—wherever there is the danger of forgetting, things must be written down. Thus, the Oral Law, given to Moses at Sinai as the key to the correct interpretation of the Written Law, was passed down from person to person until the decline of education in Judea under the Romans prompted its writing down (as the Mishnah). Nikkud (points indicating the vowel-sounds) and cantillation marks were added to guard against reading errors (though the Torah Scrolls do not have them, for they are but reading aids). The development of Jewish Law, from the Talmud to the modern-day responsa, has been codified in its entirety. With few exceptions (mostly concerning the services at the Temple; HaShem will fill those gaps when He builds the Temple again, speedily in our days, amen), there are no missing pieces in Jewish religion. Thus, it is not an excuse for a Jew to say, “I wasn’t brought up on the religion, so I can’t practice it”—zil g’mor, said Rabbi Hillel, “Go and study”, for it is all written down, waiting for you as an inheritance.

In contrast, the pagans seldom wrote down their religions, and then only in fragments, certainly not enough for their recovery. Why should they have written their religions down, when they believed that, even if something were lost, it could be regained through connecting to the blood-based library of the Volk? Yet it is not so—it is not factually so. Irish-Americans have had little success in gleaning the religion of their ancestors through necromantic methods, instead having to rely mainly on the writings of that indisputably biased enemy of the Celts, Julius Caesar. Those of Teutonic heritage are more fortunate: they have the Eddas and Sagas to read, recorded by Christian Norseman Snorri Sturlusson in the 13th century. But aside from the fact that even those corpuses are not sufficient in order to restore the religion dumped by Harald Bluetooth, have you noticed that this preservation is by a mode that is not pagan but Biblical? Whatever happened to the usefulness of tapping into the secrets within the coiled coil, Teutonic, Celtic or otherwise? What’s with this… this Biblical reliance on the written word to secure memory? G-d always wins.

Paganism has always been racist to the core. That is evident, because the exclusion of person X from the secrets of nation Y on the grounds of ancestry cannot be called anything other than racism. The mere concept of blood-based or genetic memory is racist without any possibility of dispute. It is therefore the height of irony to see those “anti-racist” Leftists (oh, another example of Leftist hypocrisy! So what else is new?) express such an admiration for paganism, for “pre-Biblical religion”, many of them even being members in the movement to revive those religions (again: in the Sturlusson way rather than in the Witch of En-Dor’s way). They wholeheartedly buy into the racist narrative of Dune that people have not just a material (lands, water etc.) heritage but also a spiritual one by virtue of their blood.

And those same “anti-racists” embrace the Khazaria Hypothesis. I have never ceased to wonder at that: why is it that, the more a person veers to anti-Zionism, the greater his likelihood to give credence to the Khazaria Hypothesis? What does this hypothesis serve? After all, more than 50% of the Jews of Israel are admitted, even by the Muslim enemy, to be of “original Semitic stock”, meaning that more than half of Israeli Jews have a racially legitimate claim on the Land of Israel. But apart from that, as you can see from the previous emphasized phrase, the Khazaria Hypothesis is a racist argument, racist to the core, with no redeeming feature, with no way to excuse it.

I leave the refutation of the Khazaria Hypothesis to others, more competent than me at that field. But I wish to engage in a thought-experiment, assuming that the Khazaria Hypothesis is true. Let us say that the majority of Zionist settlers from 1880 to 1950 were descendants of Khazars. That was 70 years of settling on an almost desolate land and setting up a state against all odds. So many points at which the whole endeavor could have died out: from the catastrophe of malaria in the late 19th and early 20th century, to the attack of five Arab armies in 1948. So many points at which G-d could have pulled the plug on those Khazars’ grandiose project. Yet He did not.

Again assuming the truth of the Khazaria Hypothesis, the meaning of this is that, contrary to those hell-deserving hypocrites who condemn Jewish nationalism (Zionism) as racism, HaShem decided to accept the descendants of the Khazars as an integral part of His Chosen People. This is an anti-racist as you could possibly get! The Khazaria Hypothesis, then, if true, swings back to bite the anti-Zionist racists in their gluteus maximus. As Steven Plaut (HaShem bless him) said: the whole argument falls on the fact that Judaism is not based on race, blood, genetics and any such thing. Contrary, I add, to the paganism that many of those anarcho-primitivists on the Left so idolize.

Now the “Palestinians” have emerged as a nation from scratch, and the fiction has been maintained in order to usurp the Jews’ claim to the Land of Israel, a claim that is not based on the Holocaust, nor on having made the desert bloom, nor even on its being the land of our ancestors (for, as I said, that’s a pagan sort of justification), but on G-d’s decree, in His Torah. The “Palestinians” have no real way to stake that claim, for they lack any essential difference between their brothers in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. If they take the Arab narrative, then they can trace themselves to 638 CE, after which their land was designated as only a part of the Province of Syria. If they try to claim themselves the descendants of pre-Israelite inhabitants, supposedly predating Joshua (that great destroyer of pagan idolatry, the man who wrote the Aleinu sealing every Jewish prayer), then they slide into paganism, with all the racism that it entails.

The “Palestinians”, when marshaling their claims to a secular (read: Western Leftist) audience, cite ancestral continuity as the linchpin of their claim to the land. They wind that time machine in ever-growing circles: the idea that each “Palestinian” child is a living embodiment of his grandfather expelled from the land 60 years ago, such that this is the only case in the world of the status of “refugee” transmitted across generations, is just the appetizer. The list of ancestral “Palestinian” grievances has only widened, diving deeper into history: they are the Arabs wronged by Western colonialism from Napoleon’s time; they are the common folk of Roman and Byzantine times demanding national recognition after all these years (how convenient for them to have remembered it just when the Jews had arrived); and finally, they are the Canaanites and other people of the seven “First Nations” that Joshua drove away more than 3,000 years ago. What a feat of historical revisionism and ancestral grievance-mongering we have here!

And for that purpose, everything is kosher. Their embrace of the Khazaria Hypothesis is one of the blatant examples, but their narrative that “Zionism is a European, White Settler Colonialist enterprise” is the overarching one. Comparisons to Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa naturally follow, but they all stem from that racist root, however much that root may masquerade as “anti-racism”: the idea that Whitey has no right to live in either the Orient or the New World. The mirror image of Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden”. Racism cannot be anything other than white, they hold, and colonialism cannot be call such when perpetrated by Muslims in Europe or Mexican illegals on the US border. It could be called “reverse racism”, but that would be part of the problem, because it assumes white anti-black (or anti-brown) racism is the norm; no, it’s racism, just racism, even if it’s the brown or black anti-white kind.

The United Nations has spared no efforts in declaring the rights of indigenous peoples, their rights to both material resources and spiritual ones (language, culture, religion). This is not necessarily a bad thing per se, but this is now, more often than not, used as a club by the “reverse”-racist grievance-mongers. Indigenism may at this stage be nothing but an excuse for “reparations” from the “rich white states”, but it has the potential to be the platform for a vengeful return of the dark world of blood-based preferences, all couched in the Orwellian language of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”, of course.

The future of mankind is in G-d’s Law, His Word that will go forth from Zion—from Jerusalem. The alternative, that of human-authored revenge for past genetic wrongs, cried out from the human-built structures in both New York (the UN building) and Mecca (the Kaaba), can spell nothing but a bloodbath that will make the last Volk War (a.k.a. World War II) look like a prick of the pin in comparison.

“And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed”, said G-d to Abraham (Genesis 12:3): neither a One World melting-pot, nor a ranking of the nations of the world into higher classes and lower classes. Written inheritance, the one and only antidote to racism.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Ana HaShem Hoshi’ah Na

It is the year 500 CE. Uther Pendragon is not long in the grave, and the state of Celtic Britain could not be worse: under attack from the outside, with no leader worthy of the name in the inside. Uther’s knights are squabbling among themselves, struggling for pieces of the pie.

Barak Braces for Ayalon-Peretz Onslaught

by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Outgoing Labor Chairman Peretz is set to join forces with Ami Ayalon when the latter faces off against Ehud Barak in the party’s primaries next week.

Britain is reaping the fruit of Vortigern’s misguided plan, of inviting Anglo-Saxons as mercenaries serving him; his was short-term thinking, not considering the possibility that the latter might use it as an opportunity to stay. Now the Anglo-Saxons are claiming the land as their own, aided by knights as venal as was Vortigern.

As of Saturday night, Ayalon stands to be bolstered by the support of third-place finisher and incumbent party leader Amir Peretz. Peretz is scheduled to make a speech calling on his supporters to vote for Ayalon.

Merlin looks at those selfish knights, sighing, thinking: they would sell their own mothers to the Saxons if it meant great wealth to them. The daily incursions of the Saxons upon British towns mean nothing to them as long as they are safely tucked in their castles.

Peretz, who has announced that he will step down from the job of Defense Minister, met with Ayalon on Saturday night to discuss the details of their agreement. In return for his support, Peretz will receive this series of demands: He will receive an economic ministerial post to be carved out for him in future coalition negotiations with Kadima; his ministerial allies—Yuli Tamir and Raleb Mejadle—will remain in their positions; and the party’s Central Committee will decide in the near future if and when to quit the Olmert government.

“He who pulls the sword out of this stone is the true-born King of Britain”, says the inscription. All the knights set out to the task, craving the throne with their greedy hearts. “Surely I am fit for this role, am I not?”, each thinks. Surely a knight like myself, and not any other, let alone a commoner, and far be it an illegitimate child.

What is taken generously is given back generously: Arthurian Legend took from the Biblical history and prophecy of King David, and now it has given back by being a reflecting mirror of the current situation in the land of source.

In a world of clueless, self-interested, naïve, dhimmi “leaders”, fervently awaited is the unlikely person who will lift the sword from the stone. Come, Mashiach Ben David, and lead us to victory against the past foolishly invited, now brazenly attacking, invader! Speedily in our days, amen!

Labels: ,

Friday, June 01, 2007

Beyond Chutzpah

While kids in Sderot have to run down to shelters and study in fortified rooms (“Ah, but those are primitive weapons compared to the Zionist Military Machine that’s doing a genocide on the Palestinians! And it’s the least you deserve for 60 years of stealing their land!” /moonbat), the University and College Union of Britain has decided to support the “Palestinian” struggle for their against the independence of the Jewish State by calling for a boycott of Israeli academics (thank you, Ilan Kapo).

This is just another of the many “I Just Wanna Break Something” moments I’ve had lately. But I don’t break anything in reality (that’s something I leave to the Muslims and their moonbat allies); a few minutes at the punching bag, and then a little of doing something useful. Here’s something useful:

Entitled, “Beyond Chutzpah”, with no apologies at all to Einsatzgruppenoberkommandant Norman Finkelstein. Click image to view full size.

Psalms 2 and 83 are the best for those moments. Read ’em, pray ’em (the Psalms) and G-d will smite ’em (our enemies), amen ken yehi ratzon!

Labels: , ,