Author: Kevin

More Freakin’ Fascinating Reading from Eric S. Raymond

Eric put up a new essay yesterday, Islamofascism and the Rage of Augustine, inspired by a comment at the Belmont Club. I don’t have sufficient historical or religious study to judge the overall accuracy of Eric’s premise, but it rings true to me from the knowledge I do have. Interesting excerpts:

It was Augustine’s theology of sin and grace that sharpened that tool into a blade. In a nutshell, it reduces to this: (1) We are all sinners, broken and wrong. (2) To escape this condition, we must not only obey authority but internalize it. (3) Even if we succeed at (2), only the whim of divine authority can save us, and that whim is beyond human ken. The tyrant can never be called to account, and to act against him is to be damned.

Worse: in Augustinean theology, the intention to sin is as bad as the act. It is not sufficient to behave as though we believe when we really don’t. It is not even sufficient that we allow authorities to coerce us into believing absurd things or performing atrocities in God’s name. We must conform not only outwardly but inwardly, become our own oppressors, believing because it is absurd. The God-tyrant can never be rejected even in our own minds, or we are damned.



—



The alliance now forming between the Islamo-fascists and the hard left should surprise nobody who understands the deep structure of either belief system. Both are, fundamentally, designed as legitimizing agents for tyranny — memetic machines designed to program you into licking the boot of the commissar or caliph that stomps you. But outside of a tiny minority of the brave (Robert Ingersoll) or the crazy (Nietzsche) Western intellectuals have averted their eyes from this truth, because to recognize it would almost require them to notice that the very same deep structure is wired into the Gnosticized Christianity of “Saint” Augustine — and, in fact, historically derived from it.

Hence the shared Christian/Islamic propensity for putting unbelievers to the sword for merely unbelieving. You will search in vain for such behavior among post-Exilic Jews, or Taoists, or animists, or any other world religion. Only a religion which is totalitarian at its core, fundamentally about thoughtcrime and sin and submission, can even conceive of a need to murder people wholesale for the state of their unbelief. The massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Eve and Stalin’s liquidation of the kulaks were of a piece, both jihads against thoughtcrime.

RTWT. Discussion would be appreciated. I do wonder where Protestantism comes into play here, because with the rise of Luther, as one of Eric’s commenters said,

(T)he Roman Catholic church was basically an institution that had been developed to enforce European feudalism. After Martin Luther it tried for a century to exterminate Protestantism with military force, but failed. Since the mid 17th Century it has not known what to do with its self.(sic)

Protestantism, in my mind, is a much more “live-and-let-live” form of Christianity, though it does have a tendency to fall back on fire-and-brimstone-burn-in-hell-heathens! mode from time to time. Reader Sarah has commented here several times on the cultural benefits of Protestant Christianity in the move towards individual rights and freedom, and I am, in general, in agreement with her.

I wonder, do any of the Islamic sects represent a “protestant” form?

Post-Modernist Youth Rebellion – the ‘Neckie’ Movement

Beverage Warning – don’t drink and read this at the same time.

Via Instapundit, please go read the comic genius of Iowahawk in his post, Blue State Blues as Coastal Parents Battle Invasion of Dollywood Values

Trust me, it’s worth your time.

Oh, and when you’re done with that one? Read Orthodox & Heterodox’s Red state, blue state, me state, you state, too.

How does Glenn find all this stuff?

Movie Recommendation – The Incredibles

Go see it.

Now.

See it twice. The first time for the story. The second time to marvel at the animation.

Oh, and stop celebrating mediocrity, dammit.

Go see the film. You’ll understand.

The Telegraph‘s Latest Advice – Learn to Defend Yourself

Novel, eh wot?

This week’s London Sunday Telegraph has an article on self defense. Here’s some of the highlights:

Imagine the worst. It’s 3am, you’ve been woken by a strange noise in the kitchen. Sleepy-eyed and scared, you go downstairs. Before you can reach for the light switch, you come face-to-face with a burglar. What do you do?

“You have to react quickly,” warns Martin Beale, a self-defence specialist and home security adviser. “The choices are simple: fight or flight.



“You must know this in advance, to prepare yourself as much as you can. Will you run or will you stand your ground? What if the burglar is armed? Condition your mind to say: ‘If this happens, this is what I will do’.

“To disarm an intruder, you need great presence of mind and skill. Even soldiers who are trained to kill cannot always find it within themselves to fire their weapons in anger.

“If you are going to start something, you will have to finish it – you aren’t going to get a second chance.

“If he is determined to beat the daylights out of you and you hurt him but only slightly, he will be a wounded animal and who knows what will happen?

“If you are going to go for it, you have to go for it 110 per cent. If you cannot frighten him off, you have to disarm him and hit him until he cannot move.”

All good advice. But here’s more of that oddly British mindset:

Mr Beale, 45, who is the managing director of Praetorian Associates, a team of former military personnel who provide security services to prominent individuals around the world, and equip international police forces and special forces with body armour, says that there are many ordinary household objects that can serve as defensive weapons.

As opposed to offensive weapons? They’re just weapons. How they’re used defines the intent.

Perhaps it’s just me, but that oddity of defining anything that can be used as a weapon as either “offensive” or “defensive” just weirds me out.

Here’s the kicker of the piece, though:

While Mr Beale stressed that knowing how and when to fight back against intruders was important, there was no shame in choosing flight. Fighting back contradicts police advice, which is for householders to escape to a locked room and dial 999. Also, under the current law, which, according to an ICM poll in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, 70 per cent of the population view as inadequate, householders who resort to self-defence could find themselves charged with assault and even sued for compensation by their burglars.

To some extent this is true even here, but not carried to the point it has been in British courts. And not in states like Texas where “excessive use of force” against a burglar gets you a pat on the back.

Anyway, go read it. It’s pretty good advice no matter where you live.

As to progress on laws making force against home invaders less legally risky? Well Telegraph writer Peter Pindar penned a poem on the upcoming election (ah, alliteration) and here are the pertinent stanzas:

We need more policemen on the beat,

Said Dee, to cut down crime.

Said Dum: We’ll put police on the street,

So vote for us next time.

Ask Dum or Dee for laws to boost

Householders’ self-defence;

See how they settle down to roost

Securely on the fence.

Yup. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, as one letter to the editor explained:

Do not be fooled into accepting David Blunkett’s support for your campaign (Opinion, Nov 7). He is a master of the comforting word and a complete lack of action. When interviewed, he always sympathises and tut-tuts about how bad things are – remember that he was going to “nail” the hooligans who had been freed by a Portuguese court – and nothing ever happens.



Remember that he has been Home Secretary for more than three years therefore he has all the power to make or change the law. The fact is that this Government has condoned if not supported greater rights for the criminal.



I suggest that you ignore him until he proposes what he will do and when. Everything else is hot air. – Michael Ollerenshaw, Bowdon, Cheshire

Another writer had a rather snappish comment about the Chief Constable of Lancashire:

I would like to congratulate Paul Stephenson, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, on probably the most crass remark to emanate from a senior police officer so far this century when he said of your ICM opinion poll: “We will consider the survey to establish how its findings can help us to understand people’s fear of crime.”



Perhaps someone could point out to him that it is not his job to understand the fear of the victims but to catch the criminals. Better he should spend his time (generously paid for by us) considering how to achieve this end.



Even more disturbing is the fact that he is a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Does that mean he is typical of that august body? Are they all sitting around considering the fear of victims rather than catching criminals? No wonder people are afraid. – John Dawson, Taunton, Somerset

You tell him, John!

That seems to be it on the self-defense front from the Telegraph this week. Ah, well.

The Modern Puritans

“The thought occurs to me that politically, the Left is the modern Puritans – they want to live life their own way and make sure everyone else does, too.” – Donald Sensing

I have been struck by the reaction of the Left after the election in blaming their loss on rampant homophobia and right-wing religious zealotry. They are, in large measure, accusing the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy of wanting to create a Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy, and I was reminded, ironically enough, of the Reverend Donald Sensing’s comment quoted above.

I was reminded of it because the Left seems to me to be exhibiting its repeated tendency towards psychological projection, defined as:

A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.

The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.

And the closeted Puritan is convinced that the world wants to impose an alien theocracy upon him.

Just a Reminder,

Don’t forget to purchase at least 100 rounds the week of the 19th.

And wish Kim a happy birthday while you’re at it.

Carnival!

This week’s Carnival of the Vanities (#112!) is up over at Let’s Try Freedom! And yes, I have an entry this week. But there’s much more, so why don’t you go give it a read?

Rant and Quote of the Day



From Acidman:

You’d have to scour Jesusland far and wide to find a fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist preacher more sanctimonious and intolerant than a northeastern liberal.

Read the whole thing. I wouldn’t change a word.

Talk About “Keeping Up the Pressure!”

I said below that London’s Telegraph newspaper needs to keep the pressure up on the government if they want to get legislation passed “to grant home owners an unqualified legal right to fight back against burglars who invade their property”. Specifically I said “In any kind of representative government, the only thing that gets their attention is the blinding spotlight of public scrutiny.”

I’d say they understand that tactic implicitly.

Go look at their latest salvo. Pictures are worth thousands and thousands of words, in this case.

Hat tip, TFS Magnum – and go read her blog, too.

The Telegraph Keeps Up the Pressure

Today’s op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph keeps the pressure on Parliament to “to grant home owners an unqualified legal right to fight back against burglars who invade their property”. Check it out:

The people have spoken

(Filed: 07/11/2004)

Our campaign to grant home owners an unqualified legal right to fight back against burglars who invade their property has struck a chord with politicians. The Home Secretary has accepted the need for a “rebalancing of the law” in favour of home owners, as has the leader of the Opposition.

Err, no. I imagine they’ve both made noises to that effect, but neither has introduced any legislation to accomplish it. I’m sure “more study is needed” or “such legislation is under consideration.”

Both, however, have equivocated on whether a wholly fresh law is needed. Yet the response of the public has been markedly less ambivalent than that of the politicians. When tackling an intruder under the existing law, an individual, if he wants to escape prosecution or a civil suit from the burglar, can only use what the police and the Crown Prosecution Service deem to be “reasonable force”. The people of Britain do not want a “rebalancing” of that law. As our poll today shows, an overwhelming majority of people believe that the current law is completely inadequate. They believe that householders should have the unqualified right to use force against an intruder in their homes.

This is not a party political issue, or one that appeals only to so-called “Right-wingers”. Support for a change in favour of home owners cuts across the political spectrum. People between 18 and 24 years old are as enthusiastic about restoring rights to home owners as are people aged over 65. Poorer citizens show as much, if not more, commitment to the right to fight back than their richer neighbours.

Yet the politicians, normally so sensitive to issues with great popular support, seem curiously reluctant to do anything about this one. The promises of reports and of commissions of inquiry are a familiar indication of a determination to talk endlessly about the matter while doing absolutely nothing. Although that pattern has become only too familiar from Labour on law and order issues, it would be worrying if the Conservatives adopted the same approach.

Color me surprised. (Not.) As I said, the State has taken control of the legitimate use of force, and it’s not going to give that power up willingly.

It is also not easy to understand the reasons for the reluctance to change the law. In defence of the status quo, it is claimed that it is the job of the police, not the individual citizen, to maintain public order. That would be fine as a justification if there were any evidence that the police could actually perform that role – but of course, they cannot do so, and they never have been able to. It is not just that their response times are often pitifully slow, or that they are frequently so concerned about ensuring that they protect their own officers that they fail to intervene even when they arrive at the scene of a violent crime; it is also that it is impossible for any police force, even one in a police state, to control the lives of the citizens sufficiently to prevent the commission of all violent crimes.

As I pointed out in Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? quite a while back. But it seems to have taken quite a while for the Brits to fully grasp this fact. Not surprisingly, though, because a lot of Americans don’t get it either.

And the State likes it that way.

As long as individuals are left with any degree of freedom at all, some will choose to commit burglary and other violent crimes. It is the politics of fantasy to suppose that it is possible for the police to prevent that from happening – but it is the politics of folly to base the criminal law on that fantastic supposition.

Which pretty much describes British criminal law legislation since, oh, about 1950.

The police jealously guard what they conceive to be their monopoly of the legitimate use of force. It produces the absurd situation we saw last week, when officers entitled to carry guns in London handed in their weapons because two of their number were suspended for shooting dead an unarmed man going about his lawful business. If an ordinary citizen did such a thing, the police would be the first to insist that he should be tried for murder. We do not suggest the two police officers should be prosecuted: we only call for parity between the police and the people. If the police are entitled, when they believe their lives are threatened, to take lethally offensive action, then so should home owners.

Halleluja! They’re even using the words I’ve been using for the last ten freaking years!

Politicians and lawyers also say that any change to the law that explicitly entitles home owners to tackle intruders will lead to more innocent people being accidentally killed or hurt. That is a genuine risk. But that risk has to be weighed against the certainty that there will be fewer burglaries if burglars know that home owners are free to take action against them.

YES! And they will be shocked, shocked to learn that “more innocent people” won’t be accidentally killed or hurt, just as concealed-carry opponents are shocked to find out that “wild-West shootouts” don’t occur and blood doesn’t “run in the streets” after shall-issue CCW passes. But crime goes down.

As we reported last week, when the American state of Oklahoma introduced a law permitting home-owners to take whatever action they believed to be necessary to defend themselves against intruders, the number of burglaries fell by almost half. That fall meant that many thousands of people were not intimidated, terrified and hurt by intruders. It also meant that many escaped being seriously injured or even killed by them. If the protection of innocent life is the central issue – as we believe it is – then a change in the law to allow home-owners to tackle burglars is the most effective, reasonable step to take.

YES, YES, YES!

The people of Britain wish to live in a less violent society, and one in which the weak have some protection against the violence of the strong. Changing the law on self-defence is an essential step in producing that result. It is a matter of urgency: the present lack of clarity in the notion of “reasonable force” leads not only to unjust prosecutions, but to more people being victims of violent crime. That is why we advocate changing the law. We hope our elected leaders will have the courage to implement a change that is both morally and politically necessary.

Keep hammering at them. In any kind of representative government, the only thing that gets their attention is the blinding spotlight of public scrutiny.

Hell might just be getting a touch cooler.