Better defeat than dishonor

Things started off badly this afternoon when the channel on which the Champions League final was on mysteriously went out fifteen minutes before kickoff. Believe me, I was approximately 100x more distraught about that than about the minor Hitlerian hissy fit of the past few days or my recent discovery that WND decided to belatedly edit last Monday’s column.

But I quickly located a bar with the game and settled in just in time to see Lehman commit an egregious foul and get a red card in the 16th minute. It should have been a Barca goal, too, based on the Advantage concept, but the referee cocked it up and only awarded a free kick, which Ronaldinho missed.

By the way, Ronaldinho is breathtakingly good. His through pass to Eto’o on the red card play was phenomenal.

I was sitting near three Sicilian Barca fans, who, upon discovering that I am an Arsenalista, immediately invited me to join them and passed along the first of many glasses of prosecco. Eboue took a dive and drew an undeserved foul, which Henry and Sol Campbell immediately converted into a textbook free kick, header and goal. One nil to the Arsenal! The Sicilians and I conferred and decided that a) the goal was pretty, but undeserved, b) but Barca was up a man and if they couldn’t score in the remaining hour with a man advantage they would deserve to lose, and c) we urgently required more prosecco.

Arsenal went into a defensive shell once going up a goal, but gradually became more confident and actually began seriously attacking between the 60th and 70th minutes. Hleb blew a nice opportunity and Henry could have put the game away on a one-on-one with the Barca keeper but failed to do so, and sadly, the Gunners began to run out of gas. Eto’o scored a lovely goal in the 76th minute thanks to a perfect pass from Henrik Larson – I got very nervous when I saw him come in as a sub, presciently enough – and that wretched Swede created a second Barca goal that was essentially an own goal off Arsenal’s replacement keeper that won the game for the Spaniards in the 81st minute.

So, as injury time wound down, we drank a salute to the victorious Barcelona squad, another to an Arsenal squad that was noble in defeat and a third to whoever busted Moggi and the crooks of Juventus. Suffice it to say that a very good time was had by all.

I can’t wait for the Mondiale.

Relax, folks

The WB emails:

Who edited your column? Are you pissed?

No, not at all. WND regularly edits my column, albeit usually before it appears. I actually turned this one in early, so this was clearly on Mr. Farah’s orders. I happen to know that he really, really, really didn’t like it.

But, to his credit, he didn’t get on my case or even shake his finger at me, he merely exercised his prerogative to edit a piece that appears on his web site. His house, his rules, I have no problem with that. They killed an entire piece of mine two years ago, no one ever knew because I simply wrote another piece on a different topic and that was that.

BW is a bit irritated, however:

WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?! Here we are defending that column, and when I went to refer to it for some quotes to use in rebutting one of Ken Prescott’s fallacies, it was changed. The offending comparison is removed, and, unless I’m mistaken, there are other changes. Can you provide an undedited text?

Of course. This sort of thing is one reason why I provide an alternative column archive that isn’t subject to WND’s concerns. The original piece, as written, is right here.

I disagree with Mr. Farah’s actions, of course, just as I disagreed with his decision to panic and endorse George Bush right before the 2004 election. But you see, I am a genuine libertarian and I don’t expect to control the actions of others. I have no problem with Mr. Farah’s decisions and respect his right to do whatever he likes with his site.

Oso con Queso and Dan, meanwhile, suspect I did it:

Maybe it was Vox who edited the column…. I’m still leaning towards Vox having asked for the edit.

Couldn’t handle the heat?

Right, that’s why I’ve been methodically beating down the illiterates and have an unedited copy on my own site. You two are welcome to stick around, being more rational than most of my critics – you’d be surprised how many regulars started as critics, in fact, not the majority but more than a dozen – but you obviously aren’t very familiar with me.

A reasonable question

I’m prepared to believe that you don’t actually advocate murdering all illegal immigrants, but SURELY you must concede that tossing a reference to Nazi Germany into your column was bound to provoke a frenzy. Why exactly did you go with Nazi Germany, when Slobodan Milosevic’s tactics toward Kosovar Albanians seems more in line with what you’re proposing? No need to conjure up images of the Holocaust, trains, and concentration camps when you’ve got a perfectly good roster of historical examples that seem (as far as I understand you) to correspond much more closely to simple, old-fashioned mass deportation….

Why DID you use that particular example? I’m obviously not implying that you’re a neo-fascist or a racial purist. Just wondering why you didn’t instead recommend the Ottoman Empire, Milosevic, and the US vis a vis the Indians as examples, since all of them seem much closer to what you propose.

There were certainly a number of historical examples I could have used, but the one from National Socialist Germany seemed the most apt to me for three reasons. First, the number 12 million has been bandied about lately with regards to illegal aliens and I was reading Robert Wisnich’s book not so long ago, so when I read about Bush declaring how it wouldn’t work to deport so terribly many, the first thing that sprang to mind was something on the order of “for Pete’s sake, the Endlosung took less than four years and that’s half 12 million right there.”

Second, most people are woefully ignorant of history. You’d be amazed at how many people emailed to inform me that the National Socialists KILLED 6 million Jews. No, really, Mr. History PhD? Given that perhaps one in five readers could identify Milosevic or the Ottoman Empire, much less the Polish postwar expulsion and murder of one million ethnic Germans, it made sense to go with something readers would at least have heard of.

Third, I believe that the Third Way politics practiced by the Bush-Clintons and the Blair-Camerons are a modified version of the original Third Way, more infamously known as fascism. I’ve been reading a history entitled FASCISTI by Giordano Bruno Guerri in the last week and the similarities between the development of the historical cult of the nation and the modern cult of multiculturalism are striking.

Harold finally comes out to play

But it’s a poor effort indeed:

t seems Vox Populi, the blog Vox Day has, is taking me up on the offer. He has already misread my contempt and refusal to tolerate defense of his indefensible column as me being a “Chickenboy”. To do so… well, that says more about you than me, Mr. Day. My anger and disgust with your column comes due to the fact that I think the first principles that this country was founded on mean something. Particularly, when we laid out the reasons for breaking away from England:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let the irrelevant preening begin!

Now, let’s lay some cards down on the table. If we, as Americans, are to believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote, then the following statement in the President’s speech is non-controversial:

We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

Then how are we to react when someone writes the following statement?

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work.”

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.

You don’t have to bring Thomas Jefferson into it in order to read the following and very simple argument.

George Bush said X. George Bush lied. Here’s an example of proof to the contrary only 65 years old. The correct way to react is to examine the proof and decide if it is sufficient to determine whether George Bush lied or not. As it happens, he did. I find it interesting that to a man, the conservatives “outraged” by my comments are all Bush supporters; none of them have admitted that my bust of Bush’s lie is spot-on.

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson is not Holy Writ and while Harold may be informed by the man’s words every time you place fingertips on keyboard, I am not. And finally, deporting an illegal alien does not detract from his basic human worth any more than arresting him for shoplifting does.

Let’s be honest about the Nazis. They felt that there was a super-race – they called it Aryans. Other races were to be subjected – to be slaves, or second-class citizens. They targeted Jews, gypsies, and others for extermination, also known as the Holocaust. And you, Mr. Day, were at the very least, using it as a way to rebut the President of the United States. You might call yourself a libertarian, but your column came across as something far different from that, and extremely odious. It’s not quite the worst that I have seen.

My column came across as nothing of the sort to anyone not looking to preen for the masses and pretend outrage. I neither endorsed mass deportation nor supported a border fence, in fact, I came out explicitly against the latter in case you missed the title and the vast majority of the column. German history is real and provides those who study history with many examples, some evil, some good and some neutral. The mere mention of National Socialist Germany is not synonymous with sympathy for its policies, and unlike you, I actually know what they were.

Since I don’t merely call myself a libertarian but actually happen to be one, I also support far fewer of them than you do, Harold.

That’s what this comes down to. You are either with Thomas Jefferson and President Bush, or you are with the perpetrators of one of the most evil acts in recorded history. I do not think that any sort of middle ground is possible in this – nor can such a blanket endorsement be explained away as merely “drawing upon the lessons of history”. Because if it can be done to 12 million illegals, who else can it be done to?

That’s the most feeble false dichotomy I’ve seen in several years of this blog. You’re a laughable joke, Harold. Mass slaughter has been with mankind for all of recorded history and only by preventing a power imbalance on the side of central government can it be avoided. Thomas Jefferson and George Bush are on different sides of that debate, you sad cretin.

Slopes can get very slippery, as we have seen on other issues. We’ve gone from debates over whether or not a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy or whether someone has the right to have a living will to seeing a Western European country practice out-and-out euthanasia, and debate over whether it should be legalized here.

In the same vein, we also see that from those who wish to practice gun control. It starts with just a few things – bans on guns that have “no legitimate sporting purposes”, as the gun-control advocates claim. But then they demand more and more. Soon, they want to tell you how many you will be allowed to have in a month. Then they want to make you demonstrate to someone else that you need a given gun.


The reason I’m calling you a Nazi, Mr. Day, is because your column seems to have a lot more in common with them than it did with what this country is founded on. So you don’t like Michelle Malkin. Big deal.

Yes, clearly the National Socialists were opposed to strong central government, as I explicitly opposed in my column. Furthermore, I have nothing personal against Michelle Malkin, I opposed her fraudulent defense of internment because it was a) historically inaccurate and b) an advocation of increasing central state power. That is absolutely relevant to the matter under discussion and also eliminates your ridiculous case.

When it comes to the principles espoused by Jefferson vs. the actions of Hitler, there is no middle ground, Mr. Day. You’re with one or the other, as is the case in the war on terror. I’m going to follow the President’s lead and err on the side of Thomas Jefferson’s principles. You are free to say or do otherwise, but complaining when you get called out on it looks bad. A pitcher who complains about a batter charging the mound after getting plunked by a pitch looks better.

False dichotomy, again. I’m not complaining at all, I’m openly mocking quasi-illiterate morons like you, Michael Medved and others who leaped before they looked.

You sent some of your fans to come on over and talk trash. But I see that none of them even tried to defend what you wrote. If you can reconcile citing what Nazi Germany did to Jews with the notion that even illegal immigrants – as human beings – have dignity and value, then do so. If you find that it is impossible, then have the courage – and honesty – to come out and say so. If you lack the ability to do either, then say so. Are you too chicken to do so?

And now Young Harold is reduced to lying. I didn’t send anyone over to his web site, nor, as you can see for yourself, did anyone talk trash. Furthermore, several people openly defended what I wrote, which, if you look at the time stamps of Harold’s second post compared to that of the comments, proves that he is blatantly lying.

There is nothing inherently contradictory in citing something bad that one group of people did to another group of people and asserting that human beings have dignity and value. Harold has a strangely limited little mind that sees nonexistent dichotomies everywhere even as he misses rather obvious ones, like Jefferson v. Bush and National Socialism v. libertarianism.

In summary, a truly pathetic attempt, Harold. False dichotomies, demonstrations of both ideological ignorance and reading comprehension problems, and finally, a resort to two outright lies. You would have been better off running home to Mommy.

But on an amusing final note, Harold also posted this:

In the two days since Vox Day’s column, Michelle has to have known that there was a controversy. She has not found the time to say a single word about Mr. Day’s odious column, but did find time to write an insulting column filled with hyperbole, to complain about 22 Senators who didn’t vote the way she would have had them vote, and to live-blog a speech she’d made her mind up on before even listening to.

Yeah, you’ll likely be waiting a long, long time before Michelle Malkin has anything to say about me, Harold. And you can be absolutely sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with her secretly agreeing with me or harboring a hidden passion for my smoldering sexuality.

Crack is whack

Jonah Goldberg gets confused playing Animal, Vegetable, Mineral:

So this seems like a propitious time to ask: What if illegal immigrants were crack?

But for me the most interesting similarity is the issue of futility and will. Drug-war doves claim that you can’t win the drug war because you can’t defeat the laws of supply and demand. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will be a supply, and no acceptable amount of militarization of the drug war will change that. This argument gets flipped on its head when it comes to immigration. Suddenly, militarization is essential to the top priority of cutting off supply.

But the fact is, in all likelihood your average illegal immigrant, desperate to start a new life for himself and provide for his family, will be no less determined to sell his labor than a drug dealer would be to sell his goods.

Some drug legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is—and should be—an outrageous crime to hire an illegal immigrant. Well, conservative economic dogma considers the right to form contracts with whomever you wish to be sacrosanct. It is “the socialist society” according to the philosopher Robert Nozick, “which would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.”

Four obvious problems with Mr. Goldberg’s whacky argument.

1. People are significantly harder to hide than crack. The obvious size differences aside, one gets smoked and is gone. The other has numerous and routine interactions with various local, state and federal employees.

2. Corporations aren’t individuals. The sacrosanct right of the individual to form a contract should not be confused with the right of a government formed, licensed and regulated creation to do so, historic legal fictions notwithstanding.

3. The demand for cheap labor is significantly lower than the demand for crack. One seldom sees CEOs of Fortune 500 companies cruising around bad neighborhoods at night, desperately searching for Mexicans to clean the toilets, after all.

4. The profit incentive is much lower. A cheap illegal Mexican costs one-third to one-half that of a legal American. The profit on crack is considerably more than a mere 100 to 200 percent.

His suggestion was momentarily interesting but after five seconds thought, color me underwhelmed.

Forza Arsenal

I’m not going to be live blogging the Champion’s League final this afternoon because my internet connection is in a different room than the satellite, but I will be keeping a diary for posting after the game for interested Arsenalistas. I hope to post it quite soon after Arsenal defeats Barcelona for some shiny European silverware.

But win or lose, it promises to be a great game tonight between two teams that aren’t afraid to attack and play with a bit of flair.

Prediction: Gunners 2, Barca 1.

The shame, the ignominy

Andrew Sullivan gives the Malkin Award to Vox Day.

I can’t imagine he has any idea how massively ironic that is. That is truly funny.

And since a few of the more ostentatious moral preeners have deigned to grace us with their presence, it would seem churlish to ignore Do Not Cross This Line’s saintly statement in political correctness:

Vox’s article is a feeble attempt at the ratchet effect. I’m here to ensure for my part that it fails. To explain: the ratchet effect works to make previously radical ideas acceptable and finally mainstream. The first thing you have to do is find a pivot point. Thus, Vox compares “getting rid” of 12 million people to the efficiency of Nazi extermination camps. He carefully detours around the part where the Nazis murdered people in order to establish his safe rebuttal: “I never advocated killing people. You liberals are just silly and hysterical. Godwin. You lose. Etcetera.”

Yes, because getting rid of six million people is a logistical task rather similar to getting rid of 12 million people. Whether you kill them at the end or buy them all haciendas complete with margarita bars, the task is largely the same. DNCTL is correct to mention that I did not advocate killing anyone, he disingenuously neglects to mention that I didn’t even advocate a massive deportation program. Since I was specific with my recommendations in the article, it’s quite clear that DNCTL, like many other Medvedian morons, is more interested in throwing a hissy fit than responding to the column.

Now, the dialogue has skipped to the right, the fascist right, I might add, in a way that is acceptable. If people pick on Vox’s ridiculous statements, he can always point to the donut hole he left in the middle of them where the real extreme ideas he clearly holds have been carefully elided. And people who are morally revolted by his casual comparison to Nazis can be shamed into admitting they supposedly made a knee-jerk comparison.

They should be ashamed, considering that they revealed themselves to be barely literate morons incapable of reading a 750-word column in its entirety. Given that I’m against the border fence supported by a great many Americans due to my distrust of strong central government, how does it make any sense to invent a nonexistent implication that I favor either mass slaughter or mass deportations. Especially considering that I was the foremost critic of Michelle Malkin’s defense of internments past and future.

I guess there’s a reason you think you’re so smart, Mr. Mensa Vox, but trust me I’m not fooled. What you now intend to do along with a few hundred other bloviating fascists is establish the new ratchet point as perfectly reasonable and gradually reintroduce your hidden premises. You’ve already made great strides toward dehumanizing the vermin, and distracting the gabbling mass of your followers from the real crisis of leadership facing this nation. Now you can crank that ratchet a little more to the right. Un-people are just cattle, after all. We can pack them in boxcars, and if a few of them starve to death on a forced march, well they’re HERE ILLEGALLY so why does it matter?

The only person fooling DNCTL is himself. He invents positions I do not hold, insists he is capable of reading my mind and indulges himself by loudly decrying a mythical beast. The fact that even my usual bete noirs knew better than to jump in with criticism should suffice to demonstrate to even the most skeptical mind that these moral preeners are simply embarrassing themselves with their farcical hysterics.

There are people who will not tolerate the crossing of this line. I’ve read enough history and seen enough racism in person that I have no desire to live in that world. Trust me, I’m pulling off your fucking ratchet right now and breaking it over my knee.

Well, you just put on your “racism sucks” t-shirt and feel good about yourself as the world continues to orbit the sun in complete indifference. I’m sure Mommy will pat you on the head for being such a brave little multicultural soldier. Now go and play with your toys, the adults are talking.