Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

Charles’ post from yesterday bothered me a lot. The evidence he gave was pretty solid concerning associations and considering my own post yesterday on the Paulians and my response to comments it was something that was on my mind last night, I was trying to roll it through my head.

Since I’ve read Atlas I’m convinced her primary goal is to defend the lives of Jews, come what may. Right now in Europe the normal respectable people are not willing to defend Jews in a Europe that is quickly becoming Islamicised. The way to defend the Jews who are in actual physical danger is to have allies, but what do you do if your only allies are unacceptable?

Robert Stacy McCain writes a post that I wish I had answering the question to a pretty solid degree.

Whence these associations? I’ve explained it before, but I’ll explain it again: The mainstream “conservative” parties in Europe have refused to address effectively the issues of immigration and multiculturalism. (In Europe, multiculturalism takes the form of pandering to their massive number of Islamic immigrants.) Because mainstream politicians have forfeited leadership on these legitimate concerns of their citizens, the vacuum has been filled by the likes of Reitz and Worch. Ergo, if there is a conference in Europe addressing the question of whether Islamicization is a threat, it won’t be organized entirely by “respectable” types.

Thus, Johnson’s guilt-by-association attack on Geller highlights the real problem we face in America: If the Republican Party and the mainstream conservative movement don’t recognize and respond to our own citizens’ concerns about immigration and multiculturalism, then those issues will be taken over by similarly disreputable groups.

What should Geller do? Cancel her trip to Germany? I think not. Rather, she use the occasion to alert Germans to the consequences of cowardice by their leaders. Germans, perhaps better than any other people, are aware of the heinous results when democracy fails in a time of crisis.

If honorable people will not take up the cause then it will be left to the dishonorable. A great example of this is South Africa, because of the cold war, stratigic location and key resources the west was much more deferential to Apartheid then they morally should have been. It is true that the soviets were the greater evil and threat but that didn’t change the moral situation. The Soviets and their proxies took advantage of that situation to support the ANC and use the support of a moral case to buttress themselves. Like Prometheus it was the shining fat hiding the bones offered to the Gods.

Pam Gellar links to the other McCain, her response ends with this line:

And just for the record, nazis do not hang out with Jews, even pretty ones. Ever.

This is actually where I have to disagree with both Pam and Robert. I with John agree that these far right parties are filling the moral vacumn that the mainstream is ceeding to them, however I think that doesn’t make them any less what they are. I DO think think that the modern Nazi will hang out with jews, (particularly pretty ones) if it will gain them power and advantage. I think seeing a bigger (and legitimate) threat from Islamists they will defend the Jews in Europe and even in Israel in fact I think particularly in Israel since they wouldn’t mind in the end for the Jews to end up there instead of in Europe.

I think they are playing the Soviet South Africa game. I think they are exactly what Charles says they are, but I also think that if the European Jews want to survive they need allies and there doesn’t seem to be any others willing to stand up over there.

If Pam can persuade mainline Europeans that this is a threat they need to combat then it is worth the trip but I think Charles alarm is not only justified but needs to be shouted very loudly. If Pam thinks this has to be done then it should be done with eyes wide open. I think both Pam and Charles are acting with honor. I won’t make a lot of friends with that statement but that’s what I think.

Don Corleone may have kept the widow from losing her apartment but it didn’t make him any less mafia. He may have avenged the funeral director’s daughter but it didn’t make him unwilling to kill.
Michael Corleone did what he thought he had to do. It didn’t make him less of a murderer. In the three movies he is preferable to the other thugs he faces, but he is still a thug.

This is why we have to be very careful of the Paul people here in America when it comes to the tea parties. In Europe there might not an ethical good choice to make. We aren’t at that point here which is why we have to act with discretion. I think we ignore Charles warning at our peril but I think we fail to act as Pam is at our peril too.

That is why the title of this post is what it it. And I have the same answer as Tevye. “You know you are also right!”