Victor Hanson: Portrait of an American Traitor

Posted by seelow heights on July 30, 2005, 07:21 PM | #

“Oh, like we’re supposed to believe he chose that Malaya example just by chance, huh? It so happens that the Malayan insurgency of the 1950s is the ONLY guerrilla war that was won by the occupying army, in this case the Brits, and that’s why Bush’s spinners like to cite It”
Didn’t the Brits defeat the Mau-Mau as well during the same period? I think the solution involved mass hangings of suspects based on often flimsy evidence. Sort of reminds you of tales of German-occupied Europe doesn’t it? The June issue of The New Criterion reviews two new books on the episode-one PC and one honest.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 30, 2005, 07:33 PM | #

> Hanson

Also, an 8 foot high wall, over 1 foot thick surrounds his home and yard. The area he lives in is infested with illegal alien Mexicans: thieves, robbers, and murderes.

Posted by ben tillman on July 30, 2005, 08:30 PM | #

That’s the best piece I’ve seen from the War Nerd.

Posted by Andrew L on July 30, 2005, 09:40 PM | #

All they need is a firm hand, Just tap Saudi on the sholder, and say BANG,and point on the map, Watch how fast Moslems become democratic then. Islam is a life style culture and a if you are a Male Barbarian, with some slight deviations.
Allah was in fact a moon God before Muhammad, and Ironically enough Nomad Traditions and the word “Allah” is Of Ancient Jewish Linguistics and Tradition. Who would have thought.
Have the Keys and the Launch codes at the ready, civilization depends on it. I bet there is a lot of people who do not know the history of Mecca and Madina, when you do you will be supprised. As the age old leftist attitude keep them dumb keeping on dumb.Unless you can think for your self.

Posted by seelow heights on July 31, 2005, 04:47 AM | #

The War Nerd’s comments on neoconservatism remind me of a Razibism I ran across some time ago.
http://www.dean2004.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_dean2004_archive.html
(...)
Below I mostly elaborated the Neoconservative separation from the rest of the Right. My overall point is that contrary to the perceptions of many insular Leftists/liberals/Democrats, neoconservatives are the moderates in the Republican/Right movement.
(...)
Emphasis in the original.

His earlier post on the same topic makes his priorities clear.
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2005/03/neocon.html
(...)
My personal feelings about the neocons are mixed. I am aghast at their naked Imperial aspirations, though I tend to not be wholly unsympathetic to their realist concerns when it comes to international terror and chaos. I am not totally at peace with their sanguine attitude toward big government, but I am in such a small minority of Americans that I have made my own separate peace with the reality of the Leviathan. But, on making racism unacceptable on the Right I think the neocons have done a lot of good (though that has come at the price of a somewhat excessive use of the anti-Semitic slur against those who disagree with them, but all good things have a price).
(...)

Posted by Phil on July 31, 2005, 10:18 AM | #

Ben,

I wish he were more restrained in his abuse and more incisive in his language while keeping the content of his criticism. This is more like a rant but it does pack a punch.

Seelow,

The Mau Mau failed in the technical sense but we did leave Kenya just a few years after the insurgency ended. So it is arguable whether the Mau Mau lost completely.

Posted by Pericles on July 31, 2005, 10:39 AM | #

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau

The Mau Mau Uprising was an insurgency by Kenyan rebels against the British colonial administration from 1952 to 1960. While the Uprising failed, it created a rift between the white settler community in Kenya and Home Office in London that set the stage for Kenyan independence a dozen years later. It is sometimes referred to as the Mau Mau Rebellion or the Mau Mau Revolt.

Mau Mau is a word of uncertain provenance. There is disagreement among sources as to whether it is an actual word, while some claim that it is the name of a range of hills and others claim that it was created by British settlers to demean the rebels and simplify the complicated organizational structure of the insurgents. Mau Mau may be an acronym of sorts: Mzungu Aende Ulaya — Mwafrika Apate Uhuru. This Swahili phrase translates in English to, “Let the white man go back abroad so the African can get his independence.” Members of the Kikuyu tribe formed the core of the resistance along with smaller numbers of Embu and Meru, but the Kikuyu did not call the rebel movement Mau Mau. It was known to them variously as “Muingi/The Movement”, “Muigwithania/The Unifier”, “Muma wa Uiguano/The Oath of Unity” or simply “The KCA”, after the Kikuyu Central Association that created the impetus for the insurgency.

The official number of rebels killed is 11,503 but estimates of the actual number, which include those that died of their wounds or were killed extralegally by security forces or settlers, go as high as 50,000. 63 British soldiers and police, 3 Asians and 524 loyalist Africans were killed. Despite the predominant image of primitive rebels savaging defenseless white settlers during the Uprising, a total of 32 settlers were killed, less than the number of settlers who died in traffic accidents in Nairobi over the same period.

Of particular note is the number of executions authorized by the courts. In the first eight months of the Emergency only 35 rebels were hanged, but by November 1954 756 had been hanged, 508 for offenses less than murder. By the end of 1954 over 900 rebels and rebel sympathizers had been hanged, and by the end of the Emergency the total was over 1,000. In comparison, during the Zionist rebellion in Palestine the British had hanged a total of eight guerrillas.

Pericles

Posted by Stuka on July 31, 2005, 03:10 PM | #

Just a few remarks…

1) It so happens that the Malayan insurgency of the 1950s is the ONLY guerrilla war that was won by the occupying army...

Really? The only one? When talking about counter-insurgency, you need to define the meaning of victory. You could point to plenty of modern counter-insurgencies, such as Portuguese Africa (Angola, Mocambique, Guinea-Bissau), Rhodesia, and SWA [Southern African conflicts being my area of interest], that were won militarily, but lost politically.

2) Hanson is a registered Democrat.

3) For a good account of the Mau Mau Emergency, check out the book Mau Mau Manhunt by William Baldwin, about an American mercenary from Illinois who joined the Kenya Police Reserve to kill terrorists. Pretty brutal stuff (very non-PC!), but fascinating reading nonetheless.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 31, 2005, 03:14 PM | #

> 2) Hanson is a registered Democrat.

The only why to change registration in this country to be an Independent. Republicans and Democrats are one organ.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2005, 04:21 PM | #

“But, on making racism unacceptable on the Right I think the neocons have done a lot of good” (—Razib, as quoted by Seelow)

Racism, i.e., injustice or meanness toward individuals solely because of the race they belong to, the color of their skin, and so on, is abhorrent to everyone including all bloggers and reader-commenters at MR.com.  No one here supports that.  There’s no one here who wouldn’t feel outrage at witnessing that—at witnessing injustice or meanness toward a Negro, a Chinaman, a Hindu or Pakistani, a Moroccan, a Mexican—whoever—because of his race or his skin color. 

What animates MR.com and kindred sites in regard to the race issue is not racism but another spirit entirely:  as I see it, it’s a spirit of respect for the simple right of races, ethnic groups, peoples, communities, nations, ethnocultures, and so forth, to not have replacement of their traditional race forced on them against their will by élites who are arrogant, interested, self-regarding, or even frankly hostile (as is the case with certain Jewish élites such as the ADL who advocate open borders because they are frankly hostile to white Christianity and want it weakened through high-volume incompatible immigration—as well as through other means which they also advocate). 

This spirit motivating us clearly isn’t “racist” in the sense in which that word is understood by the left—meanness or injustice toward individuals solely because of their race—and if any doubt remains on that score one has only to reflect that a principle which applies equally to all races, which this one does, can’t be what the left means by the term “racist.”

We friends of MR.com without exception wish other races well, and ask only that our own traditional race not be effaced through excessive incompatible immigration, effacement any four-year-old can plainly see is bound to happen if the current policies continue.  We feel that those policies must end.  That’s all, and there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that. 

We want China to still be Chinese a hundred years from now, a thousand, ten thousand years from now, and we want Pakistan to still be Pakistani, and Mexico to still be Mexican, and Nigeria to still be Negro, and Burma to still be Burmese, and Gujarat to still be Gujarati.  There’s another thing we feel we are entitled to want, despite the reigning attitude nowdays that says we’re not allowed to want it:  that white countries still be white.

Razib knows all this, knows the legitimacy, fundamental reasonableness and fairness, and harmlessness-to-other-races of the white anti-race-replacement position, so it’s not clear why he pretended not to, in that quote.  The neocons he refers to also know it but refuse to be deflected from their insistence on race-replacement of white Christians, so pretend not to know it.  To the extent the neocons are largely Jewish and heavily Jewish-influenced, and to the extent Jews in general, almost across the board both “liberal” and “conservative,” favor immigration of such incompatibility and of such volume as will transform white Christian people into racial minorities in all countries and nations in which they’ve traditionally been majorities, we can view Razib’s statement that the neocons “have done a lot of good” as being questionable:  a lot of good for whom?  “Good for the Jews,” is doubtless how the race-replacing Jewish neocons see it.  Good for white Christians?  Gee ... dunno about that:  will have to give it some more thought, Razib ...

Some people hold principle in high regard.  Others don’t at all (like this exceedingly slimy “Fareed Zakaria” individual whose name we keep seeing all over the place lately) but behave and speak according to who seems to be winning and losing at the moment, and whom they’re more afraid of right now and whom less.  I don’t view Razib like that and I hope I don’t have to begin to.

Incidentally, I happen to like many things about many of the highly-religious Moslems, one of which is the way they hold principle in high regard.

Posted by Phil on July 31, 2005, 05:17 PM | #

Stuka,

Yes that was a sweeping comment by the Nerd. But, of the examples you gave, the only ones in which non-Africans were running the insurgency were Malaysia and South Africa (Boers).

So I suppose the comment I would make is that you can defeat an insurgency if its largely run by African blacks!

But then, given the feminine methods the US military is currently using in Iraq, even an insurgency run by Africans would probably succeed.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 31, 2005, 08:00 PM | #

Fred: Racism, i.e., injustice or meanness toward individuals solely because of the race they belong to, the color of their skin, and so on, is abhorrent to everyone including all bloggers and reader-commenters at MR.com.

Why, Fred?  Why is racism abhorrent?  I know it is, of course.  Because I am told it all the time by people who have the brass neck to set themselves over me as moral authorities.

But who are they, these moral superiors of mine?  Only people whose political or genetic advantage is served by this specially abhorrent sin of racism.

Well, I must discount them since they are “interested” parties.  They are not impartial.  Which might be why I, for example, would be arrested in double-quick time if in some small way I transgress their new laws, whilst they can transgress my people’s known will with perfect impunity.

No, there is altogether too much kowtowing to pretend moral superiority, too little examination of what it really means.

Why is racism wrong?  What, in this context, does “justice” mean?  Equality?  There is no racial equality.  Races exist and are different.  Races discriminate against each other by Nature.

Pretend equality, then.  That’s what we have here.  A pretend equality under a pretend moral imperative, stiffenned by all too real - and patently obviously unjust - legal sanctions.

As I am no egalitarian, so I am no racist.  As I am discriminatory by Nature, so I am a racist.  Thus I eschew the law of the liberal-left and obey the Law of Nature ... and beg to differ - a rarity - with your words, Fred.

Posted by seelow heights on July 31, 2005, 08:42 PM | #

Fred,
In quoting those examples of the wisdom of Razib I was pointing out that the unsavory nature of the very immoderate war-lust of the neocons was,for him, a minor consideration compared to their service in suppressing any sense of EGI among Euro-Americans. The “racism” that he is referring to is the new definition that states that whites merely asserting their right to exist as a people is a form of racism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2005, 08:54 PM | #

GW I’m convinced you and I agree one-hundred percent.  I can’t tell where the snag is that makes you think we might not.  Maybe you and I have different opinions of the meaning of the word “racism” as it is used by the left, by the Jewish neocons and, increasingly, by the CCRs (Country Club Republicans).  For me, a racist is someone who treats other races unjustly and meanly just because they’re other races.  Since defending your own race from extinction through, for example, reasonable immigration policies, the dismantling of affirmative-action policies, the rescinding of poverty programs that do no good but just recycle tax revenues from whites to other whites isn’t being mean or unjust toward other races, it’s not racism as that term is used and understood by the left.  Were German Jews who protested the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi Party in the 1930s racist for so doing?  Of course not.  There’s nothing racist in not wanting to be harmed and exterminated.  Well, whites who only want not to be harmed or exterminated aren’t racist either.  But no anti-race-replacement white person approves of, say, being mean to an individual Pakistani, Chinaman, Mexican, or anyone else just because of his race.  Am I missing something?  “Discriminating” against excessive numbers of racial incompatibles in immigration policy isn’t being mean or unjust toward anyone:  it’s preserving your country.  Under normal circumstances all races and countries can do it, should do it, do do it, and find it normal.  Doing away with affirmative action policies isn’t being mean or unjust toward anyone.  Rejecting multiculturalism as a government policy isn’t being mean or unjust toward anyone—the door swings both ways, as the saying goes, and if anyone doesn’t like living where multiculti is no longer the official policy, they can leave by the same door they entered by.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2005, 08:57 PM | #

“The ‘racism’ that he is referring to is the new definition that states that whites merely asserting their right to exist as a people is a form of racism.” (—Seelow)

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If whites can’t, no one can, including browns, Jews, yellows, blacks, or anyone else.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 31, 2005, 09:35 PM | #

Fred,

I do think you are wrong about “being mean”.  Being kind or even neutral is anti-protective.  I’ll give it further thought and might post on it in a few days.

Posted by Kubilai on July 31, 2005, 11:11 PM | #

In my opinion, I think Fred is using the ammunition the left has used against us, against THEM and quite effectively.  I think GW is simply trying to push the envelope and take us to the next level, that being, no need to box ourselves in with the rules the left has set up because human nature does not live by those rules, neither do other races, and neither should we.  We can use the jargon, though not start believing the hype.

Sorry to barge in and correct me if I am wrong, GW.