Category Archives: Christianity

Update II: NCIS Has Always Sucked (Ditto "24")

Christianity, Film, Hollywood, Islam, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda

I’d expect a reader as smart and articulate as Mike Bassett to refrain from watching NCIS. I do. I never watch any program in which the actors become “characters”—phony, “quirky,” empty heads, whose nauseating, smarmy interactions trump any attempt at a tale.

Yes, “Law and Order” in all its permutations sports PC elements, as does “CSI.” But generally, these excellent series offer kick-ass scripts and actors. Give me a good narrative. But I will not tolerate some prancing, decked-up, self-styled Goth twenty-something (allegedly) inserting herself into the story, and selling what goes, in these sorry days, for “originality” and “individuality.”

Other than the ladies who always offer up their cleavages in the interrogation room, and everywhere else (you want respect when you go into a situation boobs first? Not from me, bubbles), “Law & Order,” “CSI,” and “Criminal Minds,” especially,—are all top-notch productions.

Update: The other thing I refuse to abide in entertainment is what I call the “giant wagging, prodding finger.” Activism should not replace acting, and sermons must not supplant stories.” I refuse to be lectured by pea brains. GIVE ME A GOOD STORY! No politics.

Writes Mike Bassett:

NCIS, the nations #1 TV show goes P.C. run amok.

Tuesday night’s “Christmas” episode of NCIS, starring and produced by Mark Harmon, was the most disgusting and P.C. episode I have ever seen on the series.

The episode depicts a returned combat veteran Marine murdered while kneeling next to a tree on a Muslim prayer rug.

The crux of the investigation, conducted with a background of the “Christmas” theme in progress, shows various members of Leroy Jethro Gibbs’s NCIS team preparing for various pre-Christmas events while investigating the murder of this Marine turned Muslim.

The suspects are varied (yet inclusive), including:

(1) The Marine’s father, a retired Marine colonel turned “Christian Pastor”.

(2) A group of Marines in the victims former unit.

(3) The Marine’s widow (a very prim and proper white, blonde Christian chick).

(4) The Marine victim’s younger brother (a dashing white Christian guy attending a military prep school).

Also in attendance in the episode is the victim’s Muslim Navy Chaplin, a dashing black officer, who spends the episode quoting the positives of Islam and the traumas of our fighting men who wish to convert to Islam after their tours of duty in the Middle East.

The episode villainizes every suspect in the show as being outwardly hostile toward our victim’s conversion to Islam with the following results:

His father, the now Christianized, retired Marine colonel pastor, who only wants to be referred to as “Reverend”, is found to have paid off some of the current Marines in the victims old unit, to taunt him into rejecting Islam because it is detrimental to the mission of the unit and disgraces his family members.

The old unit buddies spend their time being paid off by Dad (the “Reverend”), and taunting our victim until he is forced to seek counsel from the Muslim chaplin, who, as I said before, spends the episode depicting the wonderful world of Islam.

The widowed wife is depicted as a surly and uncooperative individual, who refuses to assist in the investigation because she has a funeral to conduct.

The younger brother, Mr. Perfect, student at a prestigious military prep school, is in a quandary over who could have possibly killed his brother, the former perfect Marine, that is, before he shamed his family by becoming a Muslim.

Meanwhile, the dapper Muslim Navy Chaplin becomes threatened when he receives a pasted cutout letter describing him as the next victim.

It all boils down to this: Our victim was murdered by his prep school brother in an “honor killing” because he (the victim) was an embarrassment to this wonderful “Christian” family for accepting Islam, thus casting dishonor on his family.

Merry Christmas from NCIS.

As a Christian, a Vietnam Veteran, a retired law enforcement officer, and an American, I am totally repulsed by this further condemnation of my American way of life.

This episode, aired in the Christmas season, is a slap in the face to every American, Christian, Marine, and military man in this country.

It purposely depicted intolerance by the suspects (all of whom were white Christians or Marines) while propagandizing the wonderful tenets of Islam, which were being usurped by a bunch of disenchanted family members and Marines who were serving with the recently “converted” victim.

Disgraceful is an understatement.

Update II (Dec. 20): Virgil is right about “24,” and its hero, “Jack Bauer: Federal Zombie.” This is from the article so titled:

Certain themes in the cult series never change. One is Bauer’s eternal willingness to be chewed and spat out by the successive governments he serves. As Bauer’s Chinese jailers hand him over to his American handlers, the latter chain him like a dog to a fence. But Bauer is accustomed to being manacled by his owners. The Top Dogs just don’t trust their lapdog, despite his devotion.

Or is Bauer’s a zombie’s obedience? As a reader put it, “Jack Bauer is the unstoppable, undead agent who has actually been killed and brought back to life, in service—and thrall—to the state. Instead of the ‘brains’ that ‘regular’ zombies devour, the Federal Zombie feeds on ‘intelligence.’” Jack’s response to his mistreatment is to mutter about his approaching meaningful end—the prospect of giving his life for the Greater Good. Some individualist.

Other abiding Hollywood themes: In real life, the typical Islamic organization—take the Council on American-Islamic Relations—is staffed by media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam. “24,” however, has created a chimerical CAIR full of American patriots. One of the central heroes—was it Karen Hayes?—even laments that we are alienating the very community upon which we depend to fight terrorism. On the other hand, suburban Americans are depicted as rabid Islamophobes, wont to turn on their Muslim neighbors at the drop of a hat. In one vignette two such mouth breathers break down the front door of a Muslim family’s home and beat the son up. …

Nasty In A Nose Bag

Christianity, Conspiracy, Islam, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Propaganda, Terrorism, The West

A nose-bag clad Islamist crashes a rally in remembrance of Pvt. William Long, the soldier slain in Little Rock, Arkansas, by the Jihadi Carlos Bledsoe AKA Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Don’t you love the wry, under-the-breath comments uttered by peaceful American mourners, in response to the crow’s disrespectful shrieking? (For the sake of accuracy, “Fatima” is wearing an abaya, not a burka, although she should be covered completely like the restless parrot she is.)

Updated: Rude, Rudderless Rabbi

Christianity, Etiquette, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Religion

Religious correctness at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, or Wailing Wall, as it is known to Jews, is policed by Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch. The rabbi “is responsible for religious decorum at the site.” More like religious indecorum.

“Ahead of Pope Benedict XVI’s May visit to Israel, the rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitch, has said that it is not proper to come to the site wearing a cross,” reports the Jerusalem Post.

Naturally, “The pope wears a cross in all public appearances.” The Pontiff “is slated to visit the Western Wall on May 12 after a meeting with Muslim religious leaders …”

I wonder if these Muslims will emulate Jewish rudeness and request that the Pontiff remove his cross on entering the Dome of the Rock. This is the Muslim community’s opportunity to put Jews to shame. (I say this as a Jew who does not wish to see Jews qua Jews put to shame.)

“My position,” the boorish rabbi told The Jerusalem Post, “is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross. I feel the same way about a Jew putting on a tallit and phylacteries and going into a church.”

A boor and a bit of an idiot is Rabbi Rabinovitch, because it is not up to him to feel anything at all about the religious attire in which individuals wrap themselves on entering a church. It’s up to the proprietors of that establishment: Christian worshipers, their ministers, and other religious leaders. I bet they would not think to turn away worshipers or visitors, in tallit or turban, from entering their place of worship.

What a shame Jews must be embarrassed by this chap.

As I said, if Palestinian Muslims have any sense, they will seize on this bit of Jewish misbehavior to show their hospitality to “Benedict the Brave.

Update (March 18): I spoke to my father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, who resides in South Africa. He agreed with my assessment of Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, and went even further. Dad invoked the term Chilul Hashem, a pretty severe tack to take.

The idea is that a Jew’s behavior amounts to desecration of G-d when he brings shame on the community of Jews, and increases the likelihood of retaliation or negative reaction to Jews by his immoral acts. (“King Con” Bernie Madoff is beyond redemption in this sense.)

I Googled the Chilul Hashem concept and found this elegant explanation and argument. My father’s interpretation seems to approximate Rashi’s (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105 C.E.): “Why is it a chilul Hashem if others perceive us as acting immorally? The challenge is not against G-d but against us. Do we profane G-d’s Name because the non-Jew assumes that the Jew is acting pursuant to the Will of Hashem and thus Hashem must support such behaviour?”

Great logic all along. As you can see, one can be a non-believer (me), while being as Jewish as they come in so far as cherishing the wisdom and logic of this tradition.

Update XI: Paleos Must Defend the West, And That Means Israel Too

Christianity, Israel, Judaism & Jews, Old Right, Palestinian Authority, Political Philosophy, South-Africa, The West

The thread in response to my VDARE.com column, Paleos Must Defend the West, And That Means Israel Too,” grew so long, that I am carrying it over in this new blog post.

The original, heated discussion began here. We are now on Update VII (Jan 16):

So did I really say what Richard Spencer of Taki’s Magazine alleges I said? Why, the excerpt Mr. Spencer provides from my VDARE.com to back his contention contradicts it.

Contra Mr. Spencer, a philosophical defense of Israel can include a support for Israel’s incursion into Gaza, but, it doesn’t have to.

Richard Spencer’s colleague, Razib Khan (why can’t Americans spell “ILANA”?), objects to the term “The Judeo-Christian West.” I’ve heard this objection before from paleos put in far more sinister terms, the aim being to disinherit Judaism. Or deny the continuity between it and Christianity. An absurdity, of course.

So polite disagreement is a nice change.

Once again, Mr. Khan’s claim that between 500 and 1800 Jews were not major players in Western Civilization is not nearly enough to render hollow the term Judeo-Christian. Ditto the fact that most Israelis are descended from the Sephardi Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497. (From their exile in the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East, they fled to Israel as refugees after 1948.)

Consider: Under the Afrikaner National Party, South Africa’s institutions were eminently western, although Europeans formed a minority in that country. Should any paleo visit Israel, rather than just theorize platonically about the place, he will see the relevance of the SA example.

I am no theologian, nor am I remotely religious. I am, however, as Jewish as … Jesus was.

Yeah, it’s almost as though some Christians forget Jesus was as Jewish as they come.

While he was a radical, Jesus was not an alien from Deep Space, but was steeped in the Hebrew (“Old”) Testament’s ethics. Knowledge and wisdom don’t arise in a vacuum; like so many greats, Jesus stood on the shoulders of giants, and was very much in the mold of the classical prophets, some of whom had to sleep out in the fields to escape the people’s wrath.

Deuteronomy, an early book—the fifth of 39—showcases an advanced concept of Jewish social justice, and is replete with instructions to protect the poor, the weak, the defenseless, the widows, the orphans, the aliens, etc.

This ethical monotheism, developed centuries before classical Greek philosophy, is echoed throughout the Hebrew Bible (Exodus), and expounded upon by the classical prophets, who railed against power and cultural corruption so magnificently:

“There is blood on you hands; wash yourself and be clean. Put away the evil of your deeds, away out of my sight. Cease to do evil and learn to do right, pursue justice and champion the oppressed; give the orphan his rights, plead the widow’s cause.”—Isaiah 1:11-17

The claim, made by the dazzling Catholic controversialist Clare Boothe Luce, that “New Testament universalism superseded Old Testament particularism” can be dispatched with a reminder that the Ten Commandments preceded the Epistle of St. John.

My knowledge of Judaism, and its influence on Christianity, is superficial at best (my father is the scholar of Judaism), but even more superficial is it to deny the philosophical continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

Update VII (Jan 16): AN ASIDE. Apropos my comment above with resepct to Sephardi Jews, who “fled to Israel as refugees after 1948.” Note to paleos: these Jews are NOT in refugee camps.

The approximately 1.5 million Jewish refugees from Arab lands could have become a considerable obstacle to the Palestinian propaganda machine had Israel been as conniving as her enemies. Imagine the kind of trump card Israel might have wielded had she, like her uncivilized neighbors, kept these legitimate Jewish refugees in camps, refused to settle them, fomented hate among them for the Arab, and turned the fugitives into political pawns—as Arab nations have so masterfully done to their so-called refugees.

Update VIII: PAUL GOTTFRIED. Paul is the complete intellectual package, packing both scholarship and analytical prowess into his response to my “spirited polemic.”

Paul, Larry Auster, and Serge Trifkovic are, however, the only heavy-weight traditionalists I can think of right now, who’re both vocal about Israel and have not embraced the Palestinian cause.

THE ALL-ROUND REPULSIVENESS OF THE CRYPTO-LEFTIST NEOCONSERVATIVES: I don’t buy this excuse for the venom directed at Israel from the paleoconservative and libertarian factions. If I accept this lame excuse, I must also accept that paleos are incapable of intellectual honesty and consistency.

Have the big, bad, neocons damaged the brave Buchanan so that he must betray the truth? I respect Buchanan too much to whittle down his position on Israel in this manner.

I do understand sympathy for the self-inflicted plight of the Palestinians. Good men have a heart. Sympathy is no flaw. But puckering up in prayer for a One-State Solution, or the Right of Return; those are major flaws, when adopted by paleos who oppose the universal right of return (free-for-all immigration) to the United States, and who know only too well what will become of Israel once Muslims gain a majority there. C’mon.

Must I also accept that a gifted gentleman like Jo Sobran dabbles in Holocaust denial because of displaced anger at the neocons? This is too frivolous and insulting for words–to Mr. Sobran.

In my own professional life, such as it is, I have been far less blessed than most big-name paleos I know (even those who’ve been hard done-by). For most of my life I was tucked away in the Third World. Although I’m infinitely glad to be in the US now, the First World has not been terribly kind to me either. I remain the embodiment of an outsider–an untouchable to the Treason-type, libertarians lite, not exactly accepted (read: published) by paleolibertarians; once courted by some influential neocons, they ceased to call on me, starting with this editorial in September of 2002. (I imagine that likening Bush’s grin to that of a patient with end-stage syphilis did not enhance my popularity with the establishment.)

Other than that class act Peter Brimelow (and Paul and Tom DiLorenzo, naturally), unique in his intellectual courage and honesty, who’s helped my career among paleoconservatives?

My publishing woes for the book Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post Apartheid South Africa can’t be exaggerated. My column is forever in Jeopardy.

Have my positions waxed and waned to reflect my deep disappointments and disillusionment with America in the Age of the Idiot? Or with the intellectual honestly and tribalism of my fellow traditionalists? (Like “intellectuals” of the mainstream, so too do libertarians and paleos huddle in atrophying intellectual attics, making sure dissenters are kept away.)

Not on your life.

Similarly, Pat Buchanan has had, and is having, a good run. I could not be happier; I’m a fan. Most other paleo talent did okay until the dawn of the neoconservatives and the tyranny of political correctness.

There are no personal excuses for the paleos’ curiously inconsistent positions on Israel (or for Joe Sobran’s Holocaust skepticism, given the historical evidence. Did the big, bad, neocons drive Sobran to abandon history and embrace pseudo-history?).

Suck it up! (We all should.)

Paul writes self-deprecatingly:

“The question is whether I would reason this way about Israel absent certain factors: for example, if I had no Jewish blood, if members of my family had not fled Hitler and gone to Israel, and if my son-in-law were not an Israeli military officer. The answer is probably not.”

Once again, I don’t buy this, especially given that the most vehement critics of Israel and Jews are … Jews. Always have been, always will be. I quote my father here: “If we know anything from Jewish history it is that the very root of our tragedy is our own self-destruction.” Israel against Judea; the two tribes against the ten tribes; in the second temple there was terrible internecine conflict, even with the Romans at the gates. In the Middle Ages rabbis excommunicated each other… Ben Gurion handed over Irgun people to the British.

On and on.

The story of Jew not lifting up a hand to Jew is a fallacy, an American superficiality,” now parroted by paleos, and “developed” in Kevin MacDonald’s Fee Fi Fo Fum “science” of Jews.

My “tribe” has no bearing on the positions I take, have taken, and will continue to take; justice does; my core beliefs do. Paul does himself and his scrupulous record a disservice to suggest otherwise.

(Update IX): “Ilana, Israel, and I.” (Richard, my writing “Robert” was a typo. But the coupling of Robert and Spencer is intuitive to those who follow Robert as well as Richard.)

Update X (Jan 17): Sigh. In response to the please-allow-me-to-remain-neutral-about-Jihad plea: In the previous thread we rehashed the issue of foreign aid, which I’ve resolutely opposed, always. This is old hat. WE ALL OPPOSE AID TO ALL SIDES. Get off this self-righteous hobby horse.

By now it is abundantly clear what I mean by philosophical affinity. Sadly, many paleos like to play at moral equivalence. They’re afflicted with a leftist malady. With all the lofty pontificating about it being impossible to adjudicate “old conflicts in the Middle East,” etc., ask yourself this: If the Israelis stopped all forms of aggression today, forthwith, would you trust the Palestinians to follow suit?
Yeah, I thought so. So much for the cycle of violence.

The Hutus (generally uglier and inclined to envy) of Rwanda slaughtered near a million Tutsis (tall and better looking). I condemn the former. I do not draw moral equivalence between the criminals and their victims. Yet one paleo dilettante declared that to him the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is but “Hutus and Tutsis.” He is unable to philosophically distinguish innocent from guilty in the latter case, and clearly is not much better when it comes to the former.

Update X (Jan 18): There, I’ve said it: Afrikaners make the most spectacular paleos. “The modern Boer,” wrote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the popular British writer of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, is “the most formidable antagonist who ever crossed the path of Imperial Britain.”

And the modern paleo Boer is Dan Roodt. Roodt recently paid tribute to his Afrikaner ancestors’ “miraculous victory over the Zulu forces of Dingane during the Battle of Blood River on 16 December 1838,” when “450 Afrikaners defeated an army of at least 13,000 Zulus without any losses in their ranks.” Roodt’s coda:

“The Day of the Covenant should be internationally celebrated among all those who believe that our Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian civilisation is still worth fighting for.”

No (unmanly) weirdness there.