I think that if we had to fight WWII today we would not win

The New Neo Posted on by

I believe that, were we to fight a war like WWII today, we would not be able to win. I don’t say that because we lack the weapons or the skills. I say it because I believe that we would fight with our hands voluntarily tied behind our backs. I base that on a few things.

One is the chart that can be found here. I can’t seem to copy it, so you’ll have to follow the link to see it, but it shows the results of a poll that demonstrates enormous generational differences in the answers to the question of whether Israel’s military response to the Hamas attack is fully justified. It goes from 81% agreement from those 65+ to 27% agreement from those who are 18-34 years old.

And then of course there is the woke agenda of so much of today’s military.

Another reason I doubt we could fight WWII today is that our young people no longer believe in evil – unless it’s the evil of those who would oppose abortion, or misgender someone, or have the gall to be white and not apologize in the required manner for their privilege. That is, they cannot recognize true evil when they see it, because the principles that have been drilled into them are as follows:

(1) Privileged people are guilty and the oppressed – as defined by the left – are always innocent no matter what they do.

(2) One cannot and should not judge a culture – except the culture of the West.

(3) History itself doesn’t need to be learned; just leftist ideas and principles.

(4) Well-meaning elite people can fix anything without bloodshed.

(5) All killing is bad unless it’s done by the underprivileged, in which case it’s a shame but understandable. Or maybe not even a shame.

(6) War never solves anything (see this). They don’t understand that some wars are for survival against an enemy bent on your subjugation or obliteration, and that those wars sometimes are – very very unfortunately – total wars. In total wars innocent people die, but something is indeed solved.

NOTE: Please also see this relevant piece.

Anne Frank: are people good at heart?

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post. I think it’s always timely, and certainly is timely now. I came across a reference to Anne’s famous statement recently in an essay on the Hamas attack of October 7, and once again the person who wrote the essay simplified and misunderstood what I see as Anne’s message.]

I’m currently reading Francine Prose’s Anne Frank: the book, the life, the afterlife. It’s about the process by which Anne Frank wrote and then rewrote her diary, with an eye to its ultimate publication, and how her father edited her two versions into a third, the one the world ended up knowing. Then Broadway and Hollywood got into the act, as well as writers such as Philip Roth, until the diary and its message had morphed quite a bit from the original (or, more properly, originals).

Most of us have read Anne Frank’s diary – or at least parts of it, in some form or other – and even those of us who did not, are probably familiar with at least a few of its quotes, the most famous of which is probably Anne’s observation: “in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.”

It’s instructive to look at the quote once again, embedded in its original context. When we do, we find it to be far more complex and dark than it appears when as a single famous sentence standing alone, just as Anne Frank’s achievements as a writer and thinker are far more complex than the simplifications popular culture have worked on her diary. Remember as you read the following that she was only fifteen years old when she wrote it [emphasis mine]:

Anyone who claims that the older ones have a more difficult time here certainly doesn’t realize to what extent our problems weigh down on us, problems for which we are probably much too young, but which thrust themselves upon us continually, until, after a long time, we think we’ve found a solution, but the solution doesn’t seem able to resist the facts which reduce it to nothing again. That’s the difficulty in these times: ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us, only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered.

It’s really a wonder that I haven’t dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can’t build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death. I see the world gradually turning into a wilderness, I hear the ever-approaching thunder, which will destroy us too. I can feel the sufferings of millions, and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.

Anne Frank seems to take the long view. Hers is a consciously willed optimism that takes into account some of the greatest horrors the world has ever known, and includes her own untimely death, which she correctly foresees. Whether the peace and tranquility she ultimately envisions are temporary or permanent, and whether they are of this earth or beyond it, her message has nothing of the innocence or simplicity of a trusting child, although it has often been portrayed that way.

More on lethal journalism: Palestinian lies and MSM amplification of those lies

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an excellent article about the rot in journalism exposed by the “reporting” on the Gaza hospital [emphasis mine]:

The media’s disastrous failure on the Gaza hospital bombing story is one of the most vivid and instructive examples of the structural and inherent problems plaguing contemporary journalism. It mirrors many other fiascos of the past decade.

That sentence I highlighted is the most important point: this is not a one-off. This is commonplace, and has been not just for the past decade, but for many decades. It’s not just stories about Israel and Palestine, of course; it also happens with any story the left thinks will hurt the right. I could name many, but one that comes to mind and which is emblematic of the genre was Rathergate. Remember the expression “too good to fact-check?”

More:

It is clear at this point that journalism schools are producing closed-minded, credulous ideologues who will believe anything that comports with their worldview. It’s either that, or we have a bunch of closed-minded ideologues who are willing accomplices in spreading propaganda. Functionally speaking, it doesn’t really matter. In either case, their sympathies lie with Hamas.

You will almost certainly recognize the old “fools or knaves?” question. I say: both.

More:

[The NY Times] has spent decades spreading similar disinformation. The paper’s editorial board and its op-ed pages are teeming with Hamas apologists — as are its news pages.

Even as Hamas’s propaganda was being exposed, the Times moved forward with the story without any genuine substantiation. Since the newspaper had done absolutely no work in verifying these serious claims, it was left without facts or art. So editors simply put a picture of a bombed-out building (not the hospital) on its front page, strongly insinuating that Israel was responsible for the tragedy (that wasn’t.)

How can that be seen as anything but malicious?

I think “malicious” is too mild a word for it.

More:

Of course, any person who’s spent more than ten minutes on the Israeli-Palestinian situation — to say nothing of those who are paid to cover the conflict — knows full well that both Hamas and the PLO are constantly lying about alleged Israeli atrocities and casualties.

That’s where I beg to differ. I think a great many people who have spent at least 15 minutes on the topic – sometimes more – do not know or will not admit that to themselves because they feel such an admission would be racist. Forget that “Palestinians” are not a race. Forget that if people habitually lie it is not bigoted to state that fact.

The Palestinians and the MSM know that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on. That’s why lies are so valuable for their cause. The MSM could stop making things worse, but chooses not to do so.

Open thread 10/19/23

The New Neo Posted on by

I went for a leaf-peeping drive yesterday with out-of-towners. It was cloudy, and a lot of the leaves had prematurely dropped because of too much rain. So I didn’t take a single photo. But here’s an old one, not of New England but of a trip to the Hudson River Highlands:

The consciousness of infants

The New Neo Posted on by

Of interest:

There is evidence that some form of conscious experience is present by birth, and perhaps even in late pregnancy, an international team of researchers from Trinity College Dublin and colleagues in Australia, Germany and the USA has found. …

To provide a new perspective on when consciousness first emerges, the team built upon recent advances in consciousness science. In adults, some markers from brain imaging have been found to reliably differentiate consciousness from its absence, and are increasingly applied in science and medicine. This is the first time that a review of these markers in infants has been used to assess their consciousness.

Co-author of the study, Lorina Naci, Associate Professor in the School of Psychology, who leads Trinity’s ‘Consciousness and Cognition Group, explained: “Our findings suggest that newborns can integrate sensory and developing cognitive responses into coherent conscious experiences to understand the actions of others and plan their own responses.”

I’m not the least surprised. My son was born at around 5:30 in the morning. That afternoon, he was awake and swaddled and I was holding him in my arms. I’d had very little experience taking care of babies prior to that. He looked me right in the eye and I was stunned at the awareness I perceived there. It was really an encounter with a person, a fairly strong-willed one who seemed to be saying, “I expect you to do right by me.”

Lethal journalism: the Gaza hospital strike by Israel that wasn’t

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I just published a post on Richard Landes’ work on the lies of Palestinian propaganda and how they are propagated by the Western press. One of the phrases he uses – and one I believe he coined – is “lethal journalism.” And in the following story we have a good example of that.]

First we heard – from our own MSM – that the Israelis had blown up a Gaza hospital and 500 people were dead. It was such tempting news – it so perfectly fit the “Israel bad” narrative – that much of our renowned and illustrious MSM ran with it, with a little caveat “Palestinians claim.” And this, even though they are well aware of the history of blatant lies disseminated by Palestinians about that sort of thing. It’s been going on as long as the conflict has gone on. So there’s no excuse for our media except wishful thinking. They’d love to balance the score after the obviously horrific Palestinian terror attack on October 7th.

Next we learn it was probably a rocket fired by the Palestinians. That’s what the evidence shows. Then it was “maybe not 500 killed.”

And now we learn there is some evidence it didn’t even hit the hospital – just the parking lot and some cars. I haven’t had a chance to fully check that out, and I don’t see many outlets reporting it, but it may indeed be the case that there are few casualties.

Nevertheless, the incident as originally reported will be believed by the Arab world as well as all the Jew-hating leftists in the US. There have already been riots, and the American embassy in Lebanon has been swarmed and a fire set by the rioters.

Nice going, lethal journalists. You must be so proud.

See this as well as this for the story.

What is the Biden administration’s plan for Israel?

The New Neo Posted on by

I sincerely hope Glick is wrong, because this is absolutely horrifying and enraging:

Ever since Obama became president his Iran policy has seemed vile and destructive to America, Israel, and the entire Middle East. Then when Biden took office, he almost immediately reversed as much of Trump’s protective policies as he could and followed in Obama’s footsteps. He gave money to terrorists and terrorist supporters, and enabled Iran. Now, if Glick is correct, he is trying to destroy Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Richard Landes on the propaganda war waged by the Palestinians

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written many times about Richard Landes. He is a friend I met through blogging, but he also happens to be one of the greatest experts – perhaps the greatest expert – on the long history of successful Palestinian propaganda and Big Lies. He coined the phrase “Pallywood” and was responsible for the initial exposé of the duplicity of the al Durah video hyped by France 2 and the entire Arab world, used to garner support for the bloody Second Intifada. Landes has written a recent book on the subject of Palestinian propaganda that I have been planning to review, and although I haven’t finished it yet I’ll link it here: Can the Whole World Be Wrong?

Richard Landes lives in Israel now, and ever since the Hamas attack he’s been very active on Twitter (X). I suggest you click on that link and take a look at what he’s been writing. Here’s a sample (the first is in reference to the Gazans’ attempts to blame the hospital attack on Israel):

Much more can be found on Landes’ Twitter page. You can also read plenty on his blog.

NOTE: This is a good piece in Commentary about the hospital bombing and the abominable MSM press coverage of it, entitled: “How the NYT—and Others—Do Hamas’s Dirty Work.”

Voting for Speaker

The New Neo Posted on by

Jordan has failed to get a majority in the first round of voting, although he reached 200. He needs 217.

I assume there’s a lot negotiating going on.

McCarthy was elected after 15 rounds of voting. I really really really hope this deal is closed much sooner than that. A lot of the holdouts seem to be posturing: six voted for McCarthy, a few others for Scalise, and one for Lee Zeldin. None of those three people are even running.

Israel’s policy of prisoners for hostages

The New Neo Posted on by

One of Israel’s great strengths is how much it values human life. But it leads to one of its great weaknesses, at least in the tactical sense: hostage/prisoner exchanges. It’s not the only method Israel has used to bring hostages home, but it’s a major one:

In the past, Israel’s response to Hamas hostage-taking incidents has included negotiations, military operations, blockades, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and militants, and even larger-scale military campaigns, depending on the specific circumstances and severity of the situation. Negotiations have been used to secure the release of hostages, often involving prisoner exchanges, while military operations have been employed for rescue missions, sometimes resulting in casualties. The most notable case was of Gilad Shalit in 2011, who was released in exchange for over 1000 Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

The Shalit exchange is not the only one involving lopsided numbers, but it’s probably the most well known. In addition, some of the Palestinians released in that exchange are known to have killed more Israelis in subsequent attacks; that link mentioned six Israelis killed, and it was written in 2015, only four years after the exchange. No doubt there have been many more victims since then at the hands of the released terrorists, probably including victims of the October 7 attack.

Previous Israeli hostage situations have involved small numbers of Israelis. The present one is different; it features at least 200 hostages, according to current report. One of the hostages has been made the subject of a video in which a 21-year-old Israeli/French citizen says all is well, and that her injured arm has been medically treated but that she wants to go home:

The mother of Mia Schem, a 21-year-old French-Israeli woman being held by Hamas, appealed for her release on Tuesday, calling her detention and that of an estimated 200 hostages “a crime against humanity”.

Keren Schem told journalists in Jerusalem: “I didn’t know if she’s dead or alive until yesterday. All I knew is that she might be kidnapped. I’m begging the world to bring my baby back home. She only went to a party, to a festival party to have some fun. Now she’s in Gaza.”

Hamas had released a video of Schem, who wastaken hostage during the devastating attack on Israel. In the footage, Schem, whose injured arm is shown being treated by an unidentified medical worker, asks to be returned to her family as quickly as possible.

On Tuesday, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, described the video as “an odious act”. The Elysée said Macron, who is on an official visit to Albania, demanded her unconditional release.

“It is an ignominy to take innocent people hostage and put them on show in this odious way,” the presidential palace quoted Macron as saying.

He can “demand” all he wants, but she and the others are valuable commodities to the Gazan terrorists (as well as victims who make them feel powerful):

A top Hamas leader said on Monday the group “has what it needs” to free all Palestinians in Israel’s jails, indicating the militant group may try to use the Israelis it kidnapped as bargaining chips to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Soon after Hamas official Khaled Meshaal made the remarks on the captives, who include Israelis and non-Israelis kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, the group’s armed wing separately said the non-Israelis were “guests” who would be released “when circumstances allow”.

Schem is a sort of twofer, as are quite a few of the hostages: both an Israeli and a foreign national. She is being trotted out as a showpiece to demonstrate the great magnanimity and humanity of her captors. And probably some morally compromised people will buy it.

The larger message is that one of the main goals of Hamas in its October 7 action was not only to kill and torture, but to gain the release of the six thousand terrorists Israel has struggled so long to track down, try, and hold in its prisons. I have no idea what the Israelis will do, but what they have done in the past has – very unfortunately – encouraged the taking of more hostages.

The Hamas terrorist attack and gun control

The New Neo Posted on by

Whenever there’s a mass shooting in the US, the gun control advocates spring into action and ask for more and stricter gun control. It’s never been clear to me why anyone would buy their arguments, because murderous psychopaths rarely – almost certainly never – are deterred by such laws. It seems to me that strict gun control creates target opportunities for murderous psychopaths. It’s very hard to escape that logic, although people continue to try.

So I will take a moment to point out the obvious, which is that Israel’s strict gun control laws did nothing to deter the murderous psychopaths who came into Israel from Gaza bent on killing, raping, mutilating, torturing, and kidnapping Israeli civilians and anyone else who happened to be in their path. Those Israelis who had access to firearms were more likely to repel the killers, and in the wake of the attack the government has relaxed its laws and allowed more of its citizens access to self-defense.

There’s a lesson there. I wonder if any strict gun control advocates in this country are noticing it.