Posted On: Thursday - May 2nd 2024 5:33PM MST
In Topics: Student and other Snowflakes University Liberty/Libertarianism US Feral Government World Political Stupidity
Peak Stupidity has stayed off the topic of this latest installment of the Hamas/Palestinian/Israeli war and the protests that have come along with it. An exception was in this post of 2 weeks back in which we ranted about the main issue that affects US, which is the immigration invasion aspect of this whole thing. We discussed the immigration invasion's cause of formerly foreign wars being brought home, but there's the effect coming, Bai Dien's recent talk about inviting refugees from Gaza - just great!! (We discussed this a few months ago too - Invade the World/Invite the World: Cause & Effect.)
When your enemies - military, but political too - are fighting each other, you let 'em and stay out of it. That's the advice that Steve Sailer had recently for the GOP. In a very short post, he stated What GOP Should Do About College Protests: Defund Anti-White DEI, but more importantly he stated "What the GOP should NOT do.":
What the GOP should not do is give Zionists and Jews special privileges (that don’t apply to white gentiles) to be shielded from criticism, which would of course require expanding the DEI nomenklatura.Well, NOBODY LISTENS! Actually, they might listen, but this simple idea is not part of their agenda.
Per the Gateway Pundit, sure enough House GOP Passes Controversial Bill Labeling Certain Christian Scriptures as ‘Antisemitic,’ Sparking Fears of Criminalizing Religious Beliefs. ... sparking fears of a lot of shit. Jim Hoft, GP proprietor is kind of fixated on the one thing, but The Antisemitism Awareness Act is a more general HATE SPEECH law. Of course, it's not TOO general - it is only about Antisemitism. So you can rant about the White man all you want, no harm, no foul.
Don't get me wrong, readers, I don't want kinder, gentiler, more even-handed hate speech laws either. I wouldn't care if a bill was very specific in my favor, say, prohibiting any and all criticism of bicycle paths and The Rockford Files. All this is anathema to the US Constitution.
The bill defines antisemitism broadly, incorporating definitions provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including traditional antisemitic actions and accusations such as those against the state of Israel. Critically, the bill makes it an offense to “apply double standards” to Israel or to accuse it of genocide, categorizing such actions as hate speech.Exactly WHO can't say these things and what would happen to them is not at all clear to me. Either way, we've seen this stuff in Germany, in the UK, and, well, just rename this freaking place - we're not the country founded in 1789.
Of course, MTG and Matt Gaetz were against this evil, along with 19 other Republicans and 70 Democrats. 320 of the House of Representin' obviously lied under oath within the last year and a quarter.
The Bill had been sponsored by one Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. His 17th District of NY is around the lower Hudson River, part of Westchester and Dutchess Counties and Rockland and Putnam Counties. His district has a significant Jewish population, but Lawler is Catholic.
MTG wrote:
Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.Congressman* Greene is trying to convince those blind Conservatives who don't get the big picture here, but I imagine she does realize the pure unConstitutionality of this Act in general. Matt Gaetz:
“This evening, I will vote AGAINST the ridiculous hate speech bill called the 'Antisemitism Awareness Act.' Antisemitism is wrong, but this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution [FULL STOP]FIFH., common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words,"
When learning of travesties like this, there's always that nagging question in my mind of whether the GOP politicians are stupid or evil. The (last part of the) joke is that bipartisanship means both parties getting together and passing legislation that is both stupid (R) AND evil (D). The other way of looking at it is that they are ALL evil, running the UniParty with only a few holdouts, such as MTG, Matt Gaetz, and yeah, I put Trump in there. (He's not evil. He does help uphold the image of the "stupid party" lots of the time unfortunately ...)
PS: What's up with the of 2023 in the name of HR 6090? Was this bill already in the works, just looking for the opportunity?
* Well, Steve Bannon calls her that, or maybe he's just talking too fast for me to catch "Congresswoman".
Comments:
Moderator
Saturday - May 4th 2024 4:12AM MST
PS: Regarding the separation of powers and Congress's having given much away to the Executive Branch. They former still has some, Messrs. Hail and Kief. That chance to hold up ALL funding as hostage for control of the border and/or cutting off the warmongering money is just one that Mike Johnson completely caved on. (We talked about that here, as you all know, a few posts back.)
GOP reps could say "yeah, but the media will show 'OMG, the National Parks are closed!' and all that if the government is "shut down". (Really, shut down? Yeah, we wish.) They have a point, which comes down to that the Lyin' Press is another branch of the Feral Gov't. It may have just as much power as the legislative, when it comes down to it.
OTOH, the American people have not helped much at all on this score of the Executive Branch being seen as having absolute power, other than occasionally some input from 9 black-robed people. Americans DO act like the President is King. Not to repeat the mantra of an American Theocracy of Trumpian Totalitarianism... or something... taking over, but Trump was unfortunately of the mindset that the President is King. Perhaps he was pushed into that as he was blocked in his policies by judges all over, but he never had any strategy to work with the Legislative Branch.
I know, Paul Ryan. That's when you get with the good guys and work out a strategy.
Instead, Trump did many, many good things about immigration under the radar - I'll point out that post later - and that VDare castle speech by Scott Greer was all old news to me. The problem is that Trump was NOT King (and were his heir to be Javanka, well, oh boy!), so all these non-legislative moves were reversed in a very short time by Dark Brandon.
GOP reps could say "yeah, but the media will show 'OMG, the National Parks are closed!' and all that if the government is "shut down". (Really, shut down? Yeah, we wish.) They have a point, which comes down to that the Lyin' Press is another branch of the Feral Gov't. It may have just as much power as the legislative, when it comes down to it.
OTOH, the American people have not helped much at all on this score of the Executive Branch being seen as having absolute power, other than occasionally some input from 9 black-robed people. Americans DO act like the President is King. Not to repeat the mantra of an American Theocracy of Trumpian Totalitarianism... or something... taking over, but Trump was unfortunately of the mindset that the President is King. Perhaps he was pushed into that as he was blocked in his policies by judges all over, but he never had any strategy to work with the Legislative Branch.
I know, Paul Ryan. That's when you get with the good guys and work out a strategy.
Instead, Trump did many, many good things about immigration under the radar - I'll point out that post later - and that VDare castle speech by Scott Greer was all old news to me. The problem is that Trump was NOT King (and were his heir to be Javanka, well, oh boy!), so all these non-legislative moves were reversed in a very short time by Dark Brandon.
Moderator
Friday - May 3rd 2024 6:44AM MST
PS: "What are the chances of an "Act Promoting Awareness of the Scourge of Anti-Christian Bigotry" that gets passed in Israel?"
Ha! Not a chance in hell, Mr. Hail. I agree with this comment in its entirety. I'll write back later on about the Constitution/separation-of-powers discussion between you and Mr. Kief.
Ha! Not a chance in hell, Mr. Hail. I agree with this comment in its entirety. I'll write back later on about the Constitution/separation-of-powers discussion between you and Mr. Kief.
Moderator
Friday - May 3rd 2024 6:30AM MST
PS: "I don't "buy" that it's because Christianity allegedly preaches an ethnic-superiority doctrine for that group. Although some deviant movements within Christianity might, that is not traditional Christianity." No, that may not be traditional, but 2 things:
1) The modern non-denominational Evangelical Churches most assuredly push the idea that Israel must be fully supported or (the way I think they see it), the End Times will come real quick, and well, we're really not ready for that, what with the kids and all... They are an active part of the modern Conservative movement. Yeah, I get this latest MTG point that the death of Jesus by Jews must be able to be told.
However, they support the existence of Israel and the use of their and other Americans' money for this. On the latter, they may be changing their minds lately - I think the Ukraine thing, with Middle East funding tied in, may have woken some people up. I.e., I think the Religious Right may have finally stopped going along with the NeoCons.
2) What traditional churches? There are a few, but as you know, the big denominations are usually Woke now. There's no tradition there. Maybe that's not who you mean.
I do agree that there's a political aspect too. I think this started during the Cold War. To have a reasonably sane country over there in the Mediterranean for the American military to work with was seen as a help in containing Communism. The fact the Egypt was flipped at one point (1970s) is an interesting aspect of this. Nobody seems to have cared a whit about the Egyptians, but then this was later in the Cold War.
People keep ideas in their head from long ago, like those afraid of mid-2020's Russian taking over the World! Right, sure. Israel is seen by many as a staunch ally of the US, which is not necessarily the case.* Only for the NeoCons it is, but that's all one-sided, benefiting Israel, not us.
* Interestingly, Israel was one of S. Africa's BFFs during he successful attempt to ruin the latter.
1) The modern non-denominational Evangelical Churches most assuredly push the idea that Israel must be fully supported or (the way I think they see it), the End Times will come real quick, and well, we're really not ready for that, what with the kids and all... They are an active part of the modern Conservative movement. Yeah, I get this latest MTG point that the death of Jesus by Jews must be able to be told.
However, they support the existence of Israel and the use of their and other Americans' money for this. On the latter, they may be changing their minds lately - I think the Ukraine thing, with Middle East funding tied in, may have woken some people up. I.e., I think the Religious Right may have finally stopped going along with the NeoCons.
2) What traditional churches? There are a few, but as you know, the big denominations are usually Woke now. There's no tradition there. Maybe that's not who you mean.
I do agree that there's a political aspect too. I think this started during the Cold War. To have a reasonably sane country over there in the Mediterranean for the American military to work with was seen as a help in containing Communism. The fact the Egypt was flipped at one point (1970s) is an interesting aspect of this. Nobody seems to have cared a whit about the Egyptians, but then this was later in the Cold War.
People keep ideas in their head from long ago, like those afraid of mid-2020's Russian taking over the World! Right, sure. Israel is seen by many as a staunch ally of the US, which is not necessarily the case.* Only for the NeoCons it is, but that's all one-sided, benefiting Israel, not us.
* Interestingly, Israel was one of S. Africa's BFFs during he successful attempt to ruin the latter.
E. H. Hail
Thursday - May 2nd 2024 11:24PM MST
PS
Re: Separation of powers, from Mr. Kief's comments
What people say about the decline in the power of the U.S. Congress in our time is true.
The children's-school-lesson version of U.S. government is that three branches have sort-of equal or balancing powers: (1.) "Executive branch" (president and his appointees); (2.) "Legislative branch," meaning the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and (3.) "Judicial branch," including the unusually strong power of the U.S. Supreme Court.
These three "branches" are in effect, or in theory, further balances by the same system being replicated in each state government and the states themselves having considerable right.
There could be no German "De Santis" during the Panic of 2020, I think; if any had tried, the German "federal" state could have more-easily crushed him; all Bidenand Fauci could do to DeSantis in 2021 was make weak threats that De Santis felt strong enough to respond to with forceful insults over the phone, according to the story so beloved around the halls of Peak Stupidity.
The usual criticism is that the "Legislative branch" has given up some of its powers and defers to the "Executive branch." I don't think this is true. I think the better model is that none of these institutions are, anymore, of the men who occupy the slots in them. They are all subjects to what we now call The Regime, a form of power that exists above these 18th- and 19th-century-derived institutions, the ones every school-child happily memorizes and can recite little facts about.
Is it the case that American thinkers, alive today or recently, do not pay enough attention to the doctrine of "separation of powers," compared to our kindred-cousins of the Western tradition in Europe?
It may be so, but the reasons could be that Americans feel no need to argue the point, taking it for granted (see, again, the children's-school-lesson version of U.S. government), which has held, at least by appearances, since the 1790s. The second reason is the emergence of a para-"separation of powers" controlling force ("the Regime").
Re: Separation of powers, from Mr. Kief's comments
What people say about the decline in the power of the U.S. Congress in our time is true.
The children's-school-lesson version of U.S. government is that three branches have sort-of equal or balancing powers: (1.) "Executive branch" (president and his appointees); (2.) "Legislative branch," meaning the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and (3.) "Judicial branch," including the unusually strong power of the U.S. Supreme Court.
These three "branches" are in effect, or in theory, further balances by the same system being replicated in each state government and the states themselves having considerable right.
There could be no German "De Santis" during the Panic of 2020, I think; if any had tried, the German "federal" state could have more-easily crushed him; all Bidenand Fauci could do to DeSantis in 2021 was make weak threats that De Santis felt strong enough to respond to with forceful insults over the phone, according to the story so beloved around the halls of Peak Stupidity.
The usual criticism is that the "Legislative branch" has given up some of its powers and defers to the "Executive branch." I don't think this is true. I think the better model is that none of these institutions are, anymore, of the men who occupy the slots in them. They are all subjects to what we now call The Regime, a form of power that exists above these 18th- and 19th-century-derived institutions, the ones every school-child happily memorizes and can recite little facts about.
Is it the case that American thinkers, alive today or recently, do not pay enough attention to the doctrine of "separation of powers," compared to our kindred-cousins of the Western tradition in Europe?
It may be so, but the reasons could be that Americans feel no need to argue the point, taking it for granted (see, again, the children's-school-lesson version of U.S. government), which has held, at least by appearances, since the 1790s. The second reason is the emergence of a para-"separation of powers" controlling force ("the Regime").
Dieter Kief
Thursday - May 2nd 2024 11:03PM MST
PS
PS
A) Oh - common ground - the constitution. The separation of powers. Free speech. - In the words of one of the most influential men in recent German history:Joachim Fest: The - rather abstract, sigh -idea of the separation of powers is the functionally most important good in liberal democracies.Fest wrote one of the first huge Hitler biographies - and had two sons (he died a few years ago) - one being a AfDpolitician, who just happened to loose it there for idiosyncrasies, unfortunately (no strategist, unable to act cool - by and large, therefor getting no basis in the party and losing his support over fights over unimportant/ un-impenetrable subjects) the other a well known writer.The separation of powers is weaker in the US I have the impression, because politics is (still) more of a raw fight in the uS than in Europe - and less principled. - That is also true for the intellectuals in the US, who tend not to go too deep in the direction of abstract principles. This is also true for Jordan B. Peterson , Daniel Dennett, H. L. Mencken, Harold Bloom et. al. - - - from the top of my head I find not a single one who bound his fate so to speak to the principle of the separation of powers. They must be there - but who are they, actually? - Maybe all of those, who fight US-exceptionalism and therefore also fought unilateralism - so: Jeffrey Sachs; George F. Kennan, Judge Napolitano; - - - - Robert Barnes (?); John F. Kennedy; Robert F. Kennedy; John Mearsheimer - I should read what he says in The Israel Lobby? Unfortunately neither Ron Unz nor John Derbyshire or Steve Sailer are much into judicial/abtract ideas. If I see this right, not one Unz writer is, btw.
B) Since religion in general is vanishing, Christian principles are vanishing. One of the most distinct: Forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you are stuck with a binary (=in itself restricted, less capable) model of the world. This too is a regressive phenomenon and - read Ron Unz, it goes along well with Judaism (the strongly conservative version of it - the one maybe most influential now) - and in the last decades more and more also with the christian thinkers and intellectuals. Societies need forgiveness - on the other hand forgiveness is what weakens tribalism, because it undermine the US -THEM split.B) Also creates a dominance in the spiritual realm: The dominance of the grieving classes (including then Jews and Christians).Forgiveness and the Calvinist/Lutheran idea that we don't/ can't understand God's will are the two ideas that are the modern version of the Christian faith. So both matter most.Jews - I'm not talking morally here - cultivated a form of tribalism and somehow lack these insights or don't see them as being as strong as others - or as clear as others. I stop here - unfinished, but guess you got the idea already.
PS
A) Oh - common ground - the constitution. The separation of powers. Free speech. - In the words of one of the most influential men in recent German history:Joachim Fest: The - rather abstract, sigh -idea of the separation of powers is the functionally most important good in liberal democracies.Fest wrote one of the first huge Hitler biographies - and had two sons (he died a few years ago) - one being a AfDpolitician, who just happened to loose it there for idiosyncrasies, unfortunately (no strategist, unable to act cool - by and large, therefor getting no basis in the party and losing his support over fights over unimportant/ un-impenetrable subjects) the other a well known writer.The separation of powers is weaker in the US I have the impression, because politics is (still) more of a raw fight in the uS than in Europe - and less principled. - That is also true for the intellectuals in the US, who tend not to go too deep in the direction of abstract principles. This is also true for Jordan B. Peterson , Daniel Dennett, H. L. Mencken, Harold Bloom et. al. - - - from the top of my head I find not a single one who bound his fate so to speak to the principle of the separation of powers. They must be there - but who are they, actually? - Maybe all of those, who fight US-exceptionalism and therefore also fought unilateralism - so: Jeffrey Sachs; George F. Kennan, Judge Napolitano; - - - - Robert Barnes (?); John F. Kennedy; Robert F. Kennedy; John Mearsheimer - I should read what he says in The Israel Lobby? Unfortunately neither Ron Unz nor John Derbyshire or Steve Sailer are much into judicial/abtract ideas. If I see this right, not one Unz writer is, btw.
B) Since religion in general is vanishing, Christian principles are vanishing. One of the most distinct: Forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you are stuck with a binary (=in itself restricted, less capable) model of the world. This too is a regressive phenomenon and - read Ron Unz, it goes along well with Judaism (the strongly conservative version of it - the one maybe most influential now) - and in the last decades more and more also with the christian thinkers and intellectuals. Societies need forgiveness - on the other hand forgiveness is what weakens tribalism, because it undermine the US -THEM split.B) Also creates a dominance in the spiritual realm: The dominance of the grieving classes (including then Jews and Christians).Forgiveness and the Calvinist/Lutheran idea that we don't/ can't understand God's will are the two ideas that are the modern version of the Christian faith. So both matter most.Jews - I'm not talking morally here - cultivated a form of tribalism and somehow lack these insights or don't see them as being as strong as others - or as clear as others. I stop here - unfinished, but guess you got the idea already.
E. H. Hail
Thursday - May 2nd 2024 8:26PM MST
PS
What are the chances of an "Act Promoting Awareness of the Scourge of Anti-Christian Bigotry" that gets passed in Israel?
(Or in the West? And to say nothing of an "Anti-White Awareness Act"! Certainly the Kushners-and-conmen cohort that will, presumably, run Trump White House 2.0, will never ever do such a thing, at least not in a serious way.)
Note that for Israel the very opposite, a degree of anti-Christian discrimination, is the law. Christian proselytization of Jews there is punishable by jail-time. Serious restrictions on churches exist.
One of the most "anti-Semitic" people I'd ever met was a White man, probably basically a center-leftist by default, but who was profoundly anti-Israel after long ties to some historic churches there. He basically painted Israel as a thuggish Pharisee state that oppressed everyone that it could, including bullying little churches/ And then, by this man's account, tough-guy Israel would prance around bragging about Jewish Supremacy, laughing at the pitiful marginal existence of churches under its domains (including the perpetually-occupies "territories").
What are the chances of an "Act Promoting Awareness of the Scourge of Anti-Christian Bigotry" that gets passed in Israel?
(Or in the West? And to say nothing of an "Anti-White Awareness Act"! Certainly the Kushners-and-conmen cohort that will, presumably, run Trump White House 2.0, will never ever do such a thing, at least not in a serious way.)
Note that for Israel the very opposite, a degree of anti-Christian discrimination, is the law. Christian proselytization of Jews there is punishable by jail-time. Serious restrictions on churches exist.
One of the most "anti-Semitic" people I'd ever met was a White man, probably basically a center-leftist by default, but who was profoundly anti-Israel after long ties to some historic churches there. He basically painted Israel as a thuggish Pharisee state that oppressed everyone that it could, including bullying little churches/ And then, by this man's account, tough-guy Israel would prance around bragging about Jewish Supremacy, laughing at the pitiful marginal existence of churches under its domains (including the perpetually-occupies "territories").
E. H. Hail
Thursday - May 2nd 2024 8:19PM MST
PS
Why does the White-Western-Christian "Right," in our time, so often seem to put the interests of a non-European, belligerent, dual-citizen, Semitic ethnic-group above its own interests?
Putting ourselves in the shoes of some 5000 AD archaeologists trying to figure out what happened to Western Civilization, it just makes no sense.
I don't "buy" that it's because Christianity allegedly preaches an ethnic-superiority doctrine for that group. Although some deviant movements within Christianity might, that is not traditional Christianity. The answer is more political, a story of the late-19th and 20th centuries, which we're still stuck with.
Why does the White-Western-Christian "Right," in our time, so often seem to put the interests of a non-European, belligerent, dual-citizen, Semitic ethnic-group above its own interests?
Putting ourselves in the shoes of some 5000 AD archaeologists trying to figure out what happened to Western Civilization, it just makes no sense.
I don't "buy" that it's because Christianity allegedly preaches an ethnic-superiority doctrine for that group. Although some deviant movements within Christianity might, that is not traditional Christianity. The answer is more political, a story of the late-19th and 20th centuries, which we're still stuck with.
Let me point out, Mr. Hail, that I got that post about Ron DeSantis having told Bai Dien to "go fuck yourself" off of your site originally. We both checked it out to some degree.
I guess we'll never know unless one of us gets to talk to the good Governor of Florida in person and in private some time. (I was under the impression that you live... well, somewhere in that direction.)