UPDATE II: Priority Mail International To South Africa (5 Weeks & Counting)

Affirmative Action, Africa, Government, Human Accomplishment, South-Africa, Technology, The West

Will I ever learn? I’ve written a book about the New South Africa, yet I still attempt to get a priority envelope to my father (at a cost of $53.50), who lives in that country. Accepted in the US on Feb. 6, with a promise of a 5 to 7 day delivery, the item is currently STILL in transit to the destination. It is being stalled in South Africa.

Although the USPS has more or less completed its part of the deal, the onus is on the USPS stateside not to offer a “Priority Mail International Parcels” service to South Africa. I use the Mail-Clinic interface, which although more pleasant than the toxic USPS, is, nevertheless, still beholden to it.

Here is the USPS tracking data, beginning from the bottom:

7. PROCESSED THROUGH SORT FACILITY ON FEBRUARY 14, 2012, 3:51 PM, SOUTH AFRICA: THE ITEM IS CURRENTLY STILL IN TRANSIT TO THE DESTINATION.

6. Processed Through Sort Facility February 10, 2012, 12:58 pm, ISC LOS ANGELES CA (USPS)

5. Arrived at Sort Facility, February 10, 2012, 12:58 pm, ISC LOS ANGELES CA (USPS)

4. Electronic Shipping Info Received, February 07, 2012

3. Processed through USPS Sort Facility, February 06, 2012, 8:20 pm, WA

2. Dispatched to Sort Facility

1. Acceptance, February 06, 2012, 6:42 pm

[SNIP]

I’ve been through this many times. As a Pope once said, hope springs eternal in the human breast.

UPDATE: Mail and parcel theft is rampant in SA. It’s not so much political, as criminal. These are the things one takes for granted in the West. However horrid and monopolistic is the USPS, it does get a thing from A to B, generally “honoring” the contract with the American forced to purchase the service.

UPDATE II (March 15): JP, I thought the ANC was too much of a disorganized criminal syndicate to compile a list of subversives and chase the listed down. Do you honestly believe they have one such list and are capable of flagging “suspect” material?

Dagan Dishes On Iran

Intelligence, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Military

Meir Dagan is the “former chief of the Mossad, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA.” Other than the regime-change conceit he shared with 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl, the man is brilliant. (He can take his regime change nonsense and go jump in the lake, as far as I’m concerned, or send his own Shin-Bet boys to do the job.)

Below, courtesy of CBS News, are a few choice passages from the interview. Note how the man lacks America’s cultural insularity; he understands the region and its logic. What Dagan doesn’t get is that Israelis who use their influence on America’s treacherous leaders so as to send us into war are not our friends! More below.

“For nearly a decade buying more time was his job,” reports Lesley Stahl. “The Iranians say Dagan dispatched assassins, faulty equipment and computer viruses to sabotage their nuclear program. All the while, he was poring over the most secret dossiers about the Iranian regime, gaining insights and a surprising appreciation.”

It’s ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan’s expertise was, quote, “separating an Arab from his head.”

Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.

[Funny line: Dagan: What do they want? That I really would take seriously what the chief of police of Dubai is saying?]

Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you’ve ever heard. That’s a direct quote.

Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.

Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.

Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?

Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.

Stahl: Do you think they’re rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?

Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.

Stahl: Other people think they’re not going to really stop until they have this capability.

Dagan: They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it. And I think the Iranians, in this point in time, are going very careful in the project. They are not running in it.

…

Dagan: I heard very carefully what President Obama said. And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.

Stahl: So let me try to sum up what I think you’re now saying. And you’re saying, “Why should we do it? If we wait and they get the bomb, the Americans will do it.”

Dagan: The issue of Iran armed with a nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem; it’s an international problem.

Stahl: So wait and let us do it.

Dagan: If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it.

[SNIP]

Dagan is a patriot; an Israeli patriot. Like the Iranians, he acts in the interests of his country. But America’s ruling elites are different: they are traitors to their own people. Our leadership is always ready to shed the blood of our brave men.

I blame American leaders first and foremost for forsaking their people for another.

For that, the Israelis cannot be blamed. They are, however, to blame for taking for granted that the American people are up for another war.

Long-time readers know me as a staunch supporter of Israel. However, if Israel is expecting the tired titan that is the US to do their battle for them—they will have lost this scribe’s support, for what it’s worth. It’ll be a sad day. I have been a friend to Israel because I believed in the country’s cause and dignity.

“The titan is tired. We Americans have our own tyrants to tackle. We no longer want to defend to the death borders not our own—be they in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, wherever. And we don’t need our friends looking to us to do so.” [From “The Titan Is Tired”]

UPDATED: The Media-Military-Industrial-Complex & The Afghan Massacre

Media, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, War

The military is a “menacing and hyper-masculine,” “feral fighting force,” and so it should remain. “Mold the military into a friendly purveyor of soft power that fits with a political, social-engineering agenda—nation building—and you are guaranteed that cynical, unethical master manipulators will continue to use and abuse it” (“Grunts, Get In Touch With Your Inner-Muslim”). Those power-hungry members of the media-military-industrial-complex were out in full force today justifying the continued deployment of American men in Afghanistan, even though these men are losing their minds.

Ryan Crocker, America’s ambassador to Afghanistan, appeared on the Voice of the Empire (FoxNews) to make the rickety case—you’ve heard these simplistic, deeply stupid arguments many times before—that the intentional, methodical massacre of at least 16 civilians, 9 of them children, by a United States Army sergeant, should in no way alter the magic mission underway in that region.

Residents of three villages in the Panjwai district of Kandahar Province described a terrifying string of attacks in which the soldier, who had walked more than a mile from his base, tried door after door, eventually breaking in to kill within three separate houses. The man gathered 11 bodies, including those of 4 girls younger than 6, and set fire to them, villagers said. [New York Times]

Yes, this solider is individually responsible for his horrific acts. Above all, however, blame lies with the people who keep him and his fellow combatants locked in that country—these poor sods cannot desert this immoral occupation (or refuse to carry out nightly raids on private homes) for fear of being court-martialed, now can they?

Blame the King’s comitatus as well for penning these men like animals in that blighted and benighted country—blame “the sprawling apparatus … that encompasses not only the emperor’s household and its personnel … but also the ministries of government, the lawyers, the diplomats, the adjutants, the messengers, the interpreters, the intellectuals” (“Our Overlords Who Art in D.C.”).

And don’t forget “America’s neoconservative pundettes. Never underestimate the contribution neoconservative women in the scribbling and broadcasting professions have made to sexing up war. When babes with bursting décolletages quake and quiver for action, their fans do more than just look, they listen” (“To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question”).

UPDATE: An RT commentator (who else?) pointed out that a war such as the one waged in Afghanistan gives rise to atrocities. This is because soldiers have no clear enemy or mission. The enemy is everywhere. The enemy is the Afghan people who’ve fought against invaders forever; who are waging a war of resistance against an occupier. This enemy strikes at our men and melts back into the landscape. Men lose their brothers, and they lose it. Since the enemy is ephemeral, soldiers, some of whom are on their fourth or fifth tour, lash out indiscriminately.

An impressive man, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen—he commands Western troops in Afghanistan—took the liberty of speaking on behalf of the Afghan people today, on Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room. The mission is not in peril, promised a resolute Allen. The 90,000 or so US troops currently in Afghanistan are going nowhere (I’m sure they’ll be overjoyed to hear this).

Allen also assured his listeners that the massacre over the week-end was the act of a lone wolf. I’m sure that the scores of victims and their families are comforted by such statistical assurances.

This is the second time I’ve heard Allen refer to the Afghans as “The noble Afghan people.” What’s up with that? Is he trying to sound like “Lawrence of Arabia”?

The Incredible Dr. Kerwick, The Cannibal & ‘Intellectual Conservative’

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, Intelligence, Law, Political Philosophy, Race, Reason, South-Africa

After a while, when interviewers and reviewers would request an interview or ask me about “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America,” I’d reply with little enthusiasm:

“What in particular about The Cannibal would you like to cover?”

The replies would invariably be these: “Oh, how relevant it is to the US.” “Diversity, multiculturalism, affirmative action, immigration, quality of life before and after “freedom”; this or the other population index.”

“Since you must have read my book,” I’d retort—initially, in hope—“how about discussing the often frayed thread of natural vs. political rights that runs throughout? Let’s look at the origins of Apartheid? Did you know these were firmly rooted in existential, largely non-racial, considerations? I really like the section about the ‘Colonialism Canard’ in the context of Chapter 5, the ‘Root-Causes Racket.’ Also a favorite of mine is the examination of case studies in current South African jurisprudence as an example of the “indigenization” of what was once a Western system of law. Oh, and my absolute best: the moral questions floated in the sections, “Intra-Racial Reparation” and “Recompense or Reconquista.”

Needless to say, the focus of the reviewer or interviewer was always so foreign to how I understood my book—that I lost interest in speaking about it, or concluded that my points had not been picked up due in some measure to my failures.

Enter Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. (Who never even requested a review copy of The Cannibal.) The fact that Kerwick levitates in level of abstraction and understanding above most might not be a good thing for his career as a popular writer, but I’m enjoying it.

Dr. Kerwick’s “Reflections on Ilana Mercer’s ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa'” appeared in Intellectual Conservative. Once again, Kerwick exposes the tortured tension vis-a-vis natural rights that I experienced and, apparently, Burke did too. As does he commend the absence of biological reductionism, a textual strength that drew derision from racialist quarters (I reject reductionism, in most spheres.)

The neglect with which this book has been treated is as sore as it is tragic. Cannibal is a woefully underappreciated book. A not inconsiderable number of otherwise astute reviewers seemed to have missed its main significance. This work is not primarily about “diversity,” “democracy,” “egalitarianism,” or “collectivism.” And it is certainly not about any conflicts within the Jewish community (Mercer is herself a Jew who remarks upon the role that South African Jews, including her father, played as critics of apartheid, as well as the role that Israel assumed as a stalwart ally of the Old South Africa). Cannibal isn’t even a book about inter-racial conflict.

….Neither, however, does Mercer countenance any reductionist biological accounts of black-white differences … Such an approach is problematic for more than one reason, but especially because it would, ultimately, amount to but one more “root-cause.” …

…Mercer’s thought is distended between universal natural rights and particular cultural traditions, it is true. Yet as is the case with so many works of genius, this tension is as much one of Cannibal’s strengths as it is a weakness, for from it there springs an energy that is notable for its sense of urgency.

… Like Burke before her, Mercer, it is clear, is on a mission. Burke was consumed with the conflagration of the French Revolution that he believed threatened to tear European civilization asunder. Far from obscuring his ethical vision, I believe that much of the passion that informed it stemmed from a conflict in Burke’s consciousness between a recognition of both the universal demands of morality and the partiality that we owe to “the little platoons”—our local attachments—from which we derive our individual identities. This, though, is precisely the same war that rages within Mercer, and as it aided Burke in his contest with the evil of the French radicals, so too does it aid Mercer in her contest with the wickedness of the African National Congress and its supporters.

The complete review, “Reflections on Ilana Mercer’s ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,'” is on Rachel Alexander’s Intellectual Conservative.