Coulter’s War
By • 8/15/07 |
Ann Coulter. |
The last column on the Inverted World argued that liberal opposition to the War on Terror was rooted in the “whites as cancer” myth. Liberals’ inflated, and often groundless, attacks on the military and Bush administration demonstrate that they view America as a country that persecutes minorities, represses freedom of expression, and treats non-whites abroad with the callous cruelty of a master race.
Such a perverse portrait of a country that is, in fact, dangerously and shamefully indulgent towards non-whites has led to a conservative uprising. Conservatives who defend the War on Terror have failed to recognize the racial basis of the liberal attack; rather, they accuse liberals of bias against America or Christianity or capitalism, rather than whites. Nevertheless, mainstream conservative writers have been very effective at criticizing the effects of the “whites as cancer” myth, if they have not yet seen the cause. Their work is a powerful, but incomplete, exposure of the Inverted World.
Perhaps the best example of such a writer is Ann Coulter. While she has never adopted a thorough-going race realist philosophy, she has been devastatingly effective in exposing liberal bias on racial issues among Democratic politicians, journalists, and celebrities, among others. She has taken on racial correctness in the coverage of crime, IQ, and immigration. But it is in her writings on the War on Terror that Coulter has best captured liberals’ obsessive need to cast white racism as the ultimate source of evil in the world. In case after case, she reveals that liberals believe American whites are a greater danger to the world than Muslims, and her scorching prose gives voice to the American public’s indignation at such an outrageous judgment.
In her 2003 book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism and in one of her columns, Coulter trained her sights on Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s campaign against racial profiling after 9/11. It is clear that Mineta viewed racist treatment of Muslims as a graver threat than further terrorist attacks. As Coulter puts it:
On September 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of preflight scrutiny.
When Mineta discovered “to his horror” that airlines “were using logic and deductive reasoning to safeguard their passengers,” Mineta promptly sued them and forced the airlines to pay hefty settlements.
Instead of devoting extra scrutiny to Arabs, airlines were forced to inconvenience everyone. After she notes that Al Gore was subjected to an airport search, Coulter captures the absurdly dogmatic nature of such proceedings:
There’s a lot not to like about Gore, but he’s not a terrorist. Gore said he was glad he was searched. Why? To spare a terrorist the trouble? … Searching Al Gore is a purely religious act. It is a purposeless, fetishistic performance of ritual in accordance with the civic religion of liberalism.1
As Coulter documents, it is the specter of white racism that drives liberals to such irrationality. Mineta justified his campaign against racial profiling by appeal to his own boyhood experience of being carted off to a relocation camp for the Japanese during World War II.2 Unpleasant as this experience must have been for him, there is no comparison between treating Muslim airplane passengers with special caution and relocating whole populations. Senator Dick Durbin, always good for a hysterical outburst, compared supporters of racial profiling to extremists “crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.”3
The same specter distorted liberals’ perspective on the investigations and prosecutions of terror suspects under Attorney General John Ashcroft. Sen. John Kerry said in 2003, “When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights.” Sen. John Edwards chimed in: “We must not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms.”
Coulter reveals how unfounded such rhetoric about a civil rights crisis was.
In the months following the most devastating attack in world history …, John Ashcroft detained 766 non-citizens, many on immigration violations. Eighteen months later, more than 100 of them had been convicted or pled guilty to terrorism-related offenses and another 489 had been deported or left the United States willingly.4
Ashcroft was detaining suspects on perfectly legal grounds, and many of them were genuinely dangerous.
Coulter explores in detail some of the accusations against Ashcroft, including the controversy surrounding the FBI investigation and prosecution of an al-Qaeda cell in Lackawanna, New York in 2002. The suspects, who were of Yemeni descent, traveled to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 to visit al-Qaeda training camps where they encountered Osama bin Laden and received training in explosives and other weapons. Once they returned to Lackwanna, they never wanted for money to buy luxury items, despite the fact that they were unemployed or had menial jobs. The FBI found a cache of weapons in one suspect’s home and an Islamic pamphlet on “martyrdom operations” in another’s. The men were sentenced to prison in 2003.5
However strong the evidence, the media suggested racist bullying was the FBI’s motive. In 2002, the New York Times published an article that highlighted interviews with tearful Yemenis swearing that the men had been cast as criminals solely because of their religion. Along with the story, the paper ran a photo of a six-year-old white boy pointing a gun at a store saying “Arabian Foods.” The Times later admitted the photo had been staged. This photo was, Coulter remarks, “the only provable hate crime [committed] in Lackawanna.” Newsweek magazine suggested absurdly that the men were being prosecuted merely because they had wanted to learn more about Islam.6
As we saw in the case of Eason Jordan in the last column, journalists’ obsession with white racism makes them prone to believe any tale of wrong-doing by the US military, no matter how improbable. Another example is Newsweek’s 2005 report that troops at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran down a toilet in order to humiliate Muslim prisoners. The week after the story appeared, Newsweek was compelled to admit it was unfounded.
It is astonishing that Newsweek gave the story any credence whatever given how little evidence there was behind it. The source was an unconfirmed report by an unnamed “senior U. S. government official.” Newsweek’s Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas also gave as a justification that similar stories, based on the tales of released detainees, had run in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera.
False though it was, Muslims took the story in deadly earnest. Anti-American riots broke out throughout the Muslim world, from Malaysia to Egypt. In Afghanistan, 16 died.
Coulter lambasted Newsweek for such irresponsibility in her column.
Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion … How about that for a Newsweek for a cover story, Evan? You’re covered—al Jazeera has already run similar reports!
Coulter was quick to point out the media’s double standards:
Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for “trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs.” But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there’s no time for fact-checking.
The recent Baghdad Diarist scandal has given Coulter occasion for similar reflections.
Coulter blamed liberal bias on hostility towards Christianity in her article on Newsweek, and she has made this the theme of her most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. (This book’s robust endorsement of creationism is naturally dismaying to a Darwinist like myself, but that is a subject for another time.) Sometimes, Coulter suggests the cause of liberal bias is hatred of America or civilization as a whole. She concludes Treason with a statement of this last theory: “liberals always take the side of savages against civilization.”7 However, her examples constantly suggest that the deepest motive of liberals is fear of white racism. Most of the topics where Coulter perceives the strongest liberal bias—the War on Terror, the Central Park wilding, or the IQ debate—concern race.
Coulter does occasionally make cursory references to liberal hostility towards whites. An example is her statement above that the staged photo in the New York Times was a “hate crime.” Elsewhere, she has complained that an anti-racism campaign by an educational group was “calculatedly inciting hatred toward white American boys.” However, she has never devoted any extended discussion to the place of anti-white bias within liberalism.
The strengths and the weakness of Coulter’s work, then, epitomize those of contemporary conservatism: a powerful rage against the effects of the “whites as cancer” myth, combined with an unwillingness to recognize their source. It is only once they realize what lies behind liberal hostility to America, Christianity, capitalism, and so forth that conservatives will find their true cause.
- Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Crown Forum, 2003), pp. 262-63. ↑
- Ibid., p. 264. ↑
- Ibid., p. 261. ↑
- Ibid., p. 270. ↑
- Ibid., pp. 273-75. ↑
- Ibid., p. 275. ↑
- Ibid., p. 285. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
The funny thing is that I once knew a poster who made a similar comment. She said “angry white males” were against Muslims. Of course she was a David Duke style Judeo-Obsessive, and couldn’t see any other reason behind Islamic behavior than Israel’s “crimes.” This same poster claimed to be pro-white. The point is that she was completely oblivious to the point that the angry Caucasoid males are not the Americans, but the middle-easterners. Funny how the neo-Nazis have converged with liberals on the war on terror. They both oppose it. I, for instance, think Iraq was a bad war. But I have never lost site of the fact that there are real dangers in the world, and that Islamic fundamentalism is a major 21st century problem.
Though its interesting, I do think the majority of liberals are thinking in terms of non-racial terms when the attack American foreign policy. They don’t believe there are any real dangers in the world. They believe that all problems are caused by America’s clumsy foreign policy. And at times it is clumsy, but that doesn’t negate the fact that real dangers exist
As for Christianity vs. Islam, the truth is that Islam is right now truly an agent of globalism and intolerant of opposing religious believes, and Christianity is not. There are of course black Christians so I don’t associate the religion with blood.
Liberal bias is something that everyone knows exists. The higher education required to become successful in the media preaches liberal values as part of its culture, and even intelligent people can be influenced by social norms.
The Realist wrote,
“It is only once they realize what lies behind liberal hostility to America, Christianity, capitalism, and so forth that conservatives will find their true cause.”
I can admit that there is a terrible double standard towards whites, and that this must stop, but why does this have to be part and parcel of a general Conservative platform?
You want to identify ridiculous racism towards whites, or the stupidity of forbidding profiling of Arabs on a plane, fine. But what the heck does this have to do with capitalism? I want serious mass transit initiatives and major alternative energy campaigns. I want something approaching universal health care for U.S. citizens. Guess who isn’t covered? Not the lower-income minorities. They’re covered. They’re on Medicaid. Guess who isn’t? The working poor, freelancers, etc.
And all of these things are big government initiatives. Now, you (and perhaps many people here on these boards) may disagree with me on that, but still, why do you demand a general platform of conservative capitalism?
Are you really losing sleep that the subway isn’t privatized?
And you still haven’t answered my earlier complaint that you don’t differentiate between moderate-Left and far-Left, but brush them as uniform. They are not the same.
This is the breakdown on one foot.
Some, like the DLC and the social-democrats, reject minority grievances in their entirely, at least in terms of policies, which is what counts.
Now, there is much larger moderate-Left that does buy into “historical oppression,” BUT restricts their acceptance of “historical oppression” to blacks and Native Americans ONLY. They do not buy into the “diversity trumps all” thing hook line and sinker, because they are not anti-white, and they are not anti-American. They can be reasoned with to some extent, they are certainly nuanced, and they can be courted. The moderate Left is critical in the fight to stop mass immigration from dubious sources. Because when they say “let’s do it,” you win. Game over.
Look, I understand you’re frustrated…I’m frustrated too. But you are underestimating, or rather, nullifying, the divisions between the moderate Left and the far-Left. And the moderate Left were not and are not all weenie liberals or anti-American.
Do you not see important qualitative differences between NYC Mayors Koch and Dinkins? Or between TNR (The New Republic) and the NY Times?
You want to restrict yourself to a new Conservative platform, maybe drop the Darwinianism, and join World Net Daily. You want to win, start influencing TNR.
Even if you succeed in starting a massive new Conservative Movement, you will fail if you don’t have allies—or at least sympathizers—on the moderate Left.
You’re seeing red when sometimes it’s only pink. Sometimes it isn’t even that.
“It is only once they realize what lies behind liberal hostility to America, Christianity, capitalism, and so forth that conservatives will find their true cause.”
I think the vast majority of White (and many non-White) conservatives know fully well that anti-White racism is the driving force behind liberal hostility to America, Christianity, capitalism, etc. But if a prominent person comes right out and publicly proclaims that fact, the entire MSM (and all the other anti-White groups) will mobilize and destroy that person’s reputation and career. Conservatives are coerced by the ‘liberal propaganda machine’ to avoid addressing the anti-White aspect of liberalism.
In a nutshell, we, as Whites, are living under anti-White tyrany. Tyranny engineered and enforced by radical anti-white liberals. I’m surprised Ann Coulter is still allowed to appear on the news shows! The only reason I can think of is she generates large ratings for the networks. Also, she goes right up to the race-realist line, flirts with it, but doesn’t cross it.
The Leftists absolutely hate her; that’s why I love her all the more!
DK,
I’m glad you’re spurring me to clarify this question. The reason I praise conservatives is that I find in them some resistance to the “whites as cancer” myth, not because I support all aspects of the conservative agenda. What really matters to me building white racial consciousness, and conservatism is only of pressing interest to me to the extent that it is compatible with that goal.
As for the distinction between the moderate and extreme Left, it is interesting that you cite the New Republic as your example of the former. It was TNR that published the Baghdad Diarist, who has now admitted that his tales of American soldiers behaving badly were fictions. As I argued in this column and the last, such slanders of the US military are rooted in the “whites as cancer” myth. I’m sure there are differences between the moderate and extreme Left, but they both seem to agree in the issue that concerns me. What do you make of the fact that all of the major Democratic candidates attended the Daily Kos convention?
I’d be happy to hear any evidence to the contrary. Give me an example of any liberal or Leftist who has seriously criticized the Inverted World or whose agenda can plausibly be described as pro-white, even if cryptically so.
@The Realist,
I’m not going to criticize you this time around. Rather, I have a productive suggestion that may help your inquiry into the “whites as cancer” myth. I would argue that it is the counterpart to Rousseau’s myth of the “noble savage” and is rooted ultimately in the Romantic movement of the nineteenth century. The vector of transmission into the American cultural mainstream was the New Left and Black Panthers of the 1960s who were influenced by the Martinique negro Frantz Fanon’s incendiary book, The Wretched of the Earth.
An excerpt from a recent discussion elsewhere:
“Nowhere else in the entire Occident has nihilistic self-hatred, or the romanticizing of the “Other,” been taken to the extreme that it has in Germany. What was Germany like in the old days? Let’s see.
Fear of the decline of the natural world and anti-civilization phobias came together in so-called “Indian literature,” which was avidly read in Europe and above all in Germany. Native American Indians, “who lived rugged, trusting, and unspoiled lives according to the ways of their tribes, yet fought a losing battle against the colonists and technicians, were not only the stuff of fables and idyll for the writers, but the vision of an ideal life as well.” The original American embodied nature, and Europe invading America was unnatural. The Native American was the unspoiled, naturally noble and courageous individual “in contrast to the false and greedy white man.” Such an attitude is not partcularly surprising, as those showing sympathies for the “noble savage” actually identified with him. For the public, it rarely had anything to do with real Native Americans, who served popular imaginations first and foremost as an identifying countermetaphor to ruthlessly advancing modernity. Enthusiasm for the epic wa of life of native North Americans did not really take off until the first third of the nineteenth century through the workds of James Fenimore Cooper, which were devoured by readers. They were gripped by the heroic tragedy of Cooper’s characters, who tried in vain to escape the merciless assault of a materialistic civilization. This identification with Native American culture articulated the readers’ own fears of surging modernity. The “good white man,” characterized by the aging Leatherstocking, leaves the colony of his countrypeople to go westward in search of the lost way of life. He cannot tolerate the devastated forests, the starving animals, and the unjust treatment of Native Americans by the civilized New England residents. Dan Diner, America in the Eyes of the Germans: An Essay on Anti-Americanism(Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996), 44-45
Already in the nineteenth century, we can see in Germany and elsewhere in Europe what would later become known as third worldism. The third world was invaded - nay, corrupted - by the white man and his polluting civilization. The Indian is a heroic resistance fighter. European civilization = bad. Indigenous cultures = good. This sort of thinking has its origins in the Romantic tradition and the “Back to Nature” idea.
Later, it would be applied to Castro, Mao, Che, Lumumba, Mandela, Ho and the like.”
A search of your website for “Frantz Fanon” turns up no hits. I find that rather amazing given your focus. Fanon is the central architect of the “whites as cancer” myth; your intellectual arsonist. See also John Paul Sartre, a booster of Fanon and mid-twentieth century French intellectual rock star. See also Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa which famously cast third world primitives in the most glowing terms and free of the neuroses of the “materialistic” West.
Shinzon,
Thank you for your illuminating comment. An article from you about either the Noble Savage in the 19th century or Fanon, Sartre & Co. would be welcome. See
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/site/writeforus/
Let us not forget that the reason Japanese and Japanese-Americans were moved to camps was the nature of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Perhaps Roosevelt knew more but it was supposedly a surprise attack. Italian-Americans and German-Americans were also looked at with suspicion. In times of war, you can’t take chances. And, if there’s a wolf in the hen house, you don’t look for a dog.
You put a guy like Mineta in charge and wonder why minorities are given free passes? Whites put minorities in high places within government and Corporate America and it is used against us.
Next time, vote for Uncle Tom. Uncle Sam is not your friend.
The Realist, you wrote,
“It was TNR that published the Baghdad Diarist, who has now admitted that his tales of American soldiers behaving badly were fictions. As I argued in this column and the last, such slanders of the US military are rooted in the “whites as cancer” myth.”
I did not see the racial overtones in the discussions about those forged article, nor do I think that TNR believed them to be forgeries. What specifically are you referring to? It struck me more as a “war is hell” series.
“Give me an example of any liberal or Leftist who has seriously criticized the Inverted World or whose agenda can plausibly be described as pro-white, even if cryptically so.”
I didn’t claim they were “pro-white,” I am arguing that there are moderates leftists who hold or approach holding a race neutral position, and are not anti-white.
“What do you make of the fact that all of the major Democratic candidates attended the Daily Kos convention?”
At this point in the campaign, I would call that a smart campaign decision, even if they personally and politically can’t stand Daily Kos. This is not policy.
DK,
Of course, Newsweek didn’t know American soldiers weren’t flushing Korans down the toilet either, but they were irresponsibly credulous towards those who claimed they did. The point is that liberals desperately want to believe that American soldiers are behaving in barbarous ways because it confirms their preconception that whites are the ultimate source of evil in the world. The Baghdad Diarist’s lies fit into the standard liberal view of America’s involvements abroad, which is a product of the “whites as cancer” myth. See the article on John Kerry:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/whythewhitesascancer_myth/
I’m not sure whether any of the Democratic leadership is capable of being converted to racial sanity. However, your point about not alienating people who vote Democrat is well taken. There is no reason why race realism necessarily entails all of the conservative agenda or excludes all of the liberal agenda.
The Realist,
While I think your essay “Why the ‘Whites as Cancer’ Myth?” is an important one, and has a lot of merit, I feel you are applying it quickly and broadly. If this is the case, this means you may be essentially calling people racist towards whites who are not. This is a terrible thing to do. Charging someone, or a periodical, hateful of whites who is not is shouldn’t be done unless there is good reason to do so. It is the same problem, in my book, as calling someone “anti-Semitic,” who simply disagrees on policy. Such terms should be less eagerly hurled by everyone. They shut down discussion, and merely seek to personally discredit.
Now, in the case of TNR, we are talking about a periodical that supported a war, and decided they had been wrong to do so. They publicly repented, and reverse their position.
It seems to me their mistake came not at all from their belief that “whites are a cancer,” as we are talking about a periodical that waged war against affirmative action consistently and for a long time.
Doesn’t it make more sense, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, that their mistake in believing the Baghdad Diarist, came from an overly eager anti-war position, not an anti-white position?
Doy you agree that these two positions are not always one and the same, even if sometimes they overlap?
DK,
I certainly never have stated that all criticism of the Iraq War stems from the “whites as cancer” myth. That would indeed be absurd.
However, my question is why do the media keep making the same mistake of believing false stories of shameful behavior by American military. I’ve already mentioned the Koran-flushing story and Eason Jordan’s statement that the military was deliberately targeting journalists. Newspapers also published the now debunked tales of Jimmy Massey, who claimed that the military was ordering troops to slaughter innocent Iraqis. See
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/11/06/an-anti-war-smear-artist-exposed/
Now the Baghdad Diarist recants his macabre stories of the behavior of US troops. See his article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307
And this report of his recantation:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp
God knows how many such bogus stories you could find if you really looked. All this points to the media’s eagerness to believe that American soldiers regularly commit atrocities.
You admit I have a point when I say John Kerry’s lies about the behavior of troops in Vietnam were rooted in the “whites as cancer” myth. Well, I think the same is true of lies about the behavior of troops in Iraq.
“You admit I have a point when I say John Kerry’s lies about the behavior of troops in Vietnam were rooted in the “whites as cancer” myth. Well, I think the same is true of lies about the behavior of troops in Iraq.”
Wait. Let’s go back a minute. The more popular understanding of most Americans is not that our troops behaved badly in Vietnam because they were white, but that when they behaved badly, they did so because they were demoralized. I think this is a more common concern with Iraq as well.
DK,
Generally speaking, the troops aren’t demoralized. They take pride in what they’re doing and are furious with publications like TNR for slandering them.
I’m not saying that people think conciously, “Soldiers behave like brutes because they’re white Americans.” Rather, they’ve seen so many movies and TV programs portraying white Americans, and particularly white American soldiers, as brutes that they accept claims of brutish behavior without sufficient examination. A deep-rooted prejudice that operates mostly unconsciously explains why the media make the same mistake over and over again.
“Conservatives who defend the War on Terror have failed to recognize the racial basis of the liberal attack; rather, they accuse liberals of bias against America or Christianity or capitalism, rather than whites.”
Everyone knows it’s against whites, but we just can’t admit it in public or else we’ll lose our jobs and our government licenses. The Politically Correct Gestapo won’t let us open our mouths.
It’s the same as affirmative action. We can argue that it hurts the Asians, but NOT that it hurts Whites.
Ann has been geeting very close to the truth lately. I think this fact indicates that the overall opinion in this country is shifting away from leftist inanity, or else she would not be “allowed” even the remotest of public forums.
Ann Coulter on CNBC Show: Jews Need ‘Perfecting’
By E&P Staff
Published: October 11, 2007 12:15 AM ET updated 1:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Appearing on Donny Deutsch’s CNBC show, “The Big Idea,” on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren’t any Jewish people and that they needed to “perfect” themselves into — Christians.
It led Deutsch to suggest that surely she couldn’t mean that, and when she insisted she did, he said this sounded “anti-Semitic.”
Asked by Deutsch whether she wanted to be like “the head of Iran” and “wipe Israel off the Earth,” Coulter stated: “No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. … That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament.”
Deutsch told E&P’s sibling magazine, Adweek, today, “I was offended. And then, and this was interesting, she started to back off and seemed a little upset.”
Asked to gauge her reaction, Deutsch said, “I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions. I mean, did it show ignorance? Anti-Semitism? It wasn’t just one of those silly things.”
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articledisplay.jsp?vnucontent_id=1003657196
Ashkenaz,
I first heard about this incident on the Michael Savage show. Michael Savage completely took what she said out of context and started accusing her of being a nazi. He also called her other vile names that no man should ever call a woman. I heard the actual interview and she said nothing that comes close to implying that she wants the Jews out of America. She was just simply stating what every Christian is taught to believe. How can anyone be a true believer of their religion if they don’t believe that everyone else is believing something false?
This is a topic that he just won’t let up on (Savage). He is trying to instill a fear in his listeners about an upcoming nazi movement forming just because of this. The first night I was hearing him talk about this, most of his listeners were calling in telling him that he was being completely irrational. He just called them all nazis without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves and then he cut them off of his show.
America is in dire circumstances NOT because any nazi movement is forming on the part of white Christians. America is in dire circumstances because it is white Christians who are under the greatest threat right now. We are under threats of all kinds from this third world invasion. I thought Michael Savage would be smart enough to figure this out, but it seems that even he is capable of letting his “victim status” as a Jew in evil America dirty and misconstrue his perception on things. I won’t be listening to him anymore if this is all he has to talk about. I for the most part really like him, so this is very hard for me.
And just in case anyone gets the wrong impression, I am most certainly NOT anti-semitic in any way shape or form.
The people that are out to smear/destroy Ann Coulter will use anything—including misrepresentations and fabrications—to do so. While I can understand why many Jews would initially react to her comments with shock and horror … they should give her the benefit of doubt and analyze what she acually said. Soon they’ll realize there wasn’t any real malicious anti-Semitic intent. Dennis Prager firmly believes Coulter’s comments were made with GOOD intent. After all, most Christians want everybody to convert to Christianity. Not because they are anti-Semitic per se, but because they believe the only path to salvation is through the belief in Jesus-the Christ. If one checks Coulters’ overall record, they’ll come to realize she is more philoSemitic than not.
And speaking of fascist pigs with great makeup - we have Ann Coulter. WOW with some wings I’ll bet that pig could fly.
Ann Coulter is the radical troll within the Conservative field. I don’t always agree with her viewpoints, but her columns are always a blow of fresh wind in the political climate.
Coulter blamed liberal bias on hostility towards Christianity in her article on Newsweek, and she has made this the theme of her most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. (This book’s robust endorsement of creationism is naturally dismaying to a Darwinist like myself, but that is a subject for another time.
Perhaps now is the time to plow into this subject, after all, her rejection of modern evolutionary synthesis in favor of “intelligent design” tosses her in with the rest of the conspiracy theory nuts. Ian Jobling maintains that David Duke is “insane” because of his writings with regards to Israel’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Jobling maintains that in order to rationally challenge conventional wisdom, three conditions must be taken into consideration.
There is a respected school in the community of experts that thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong.
The community of experts has a powerful motive for not recognizing the truth.
The conventional wisdom contradicts facts of which we can be absolutely certain.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Articles/Articles/theinsanityofdavidduke/
The basics of modern evolutionary synthesis requires some elaboration because of the distortions and misinformation that is rampant among creationist. For example, there is a widespread assumption that evolutionary biologist must integrate abiogenesis with modern evolutionary theory, without the former, the latter doesn’t make any sense. But the former hypothesis is concerned with the origin of life, the latter is concerned with genetic origins of living organisms, but not necessarily the origin of life. Universal common descent, broached by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species, is now accepted by biologist. Again, common descent is concerned with the genealogical relationships of life that descended from the last the last universal ancestor, not abiogenesis.
So the question is, does any of Ann Coulters ramblings against evolutionary theory meet the criteria above? Of course not! Now remember Jobling, Coulter must acquaint her readers with overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom in biology is wrong. She must also demonstrate how the scientific method is skewed, or she insane, (after all, she is challenging centuries of Western science, any sane person wouldn’t rely on a handful if ID proponents to fulfill this endeavor.) So lets start with the first criterion, is there a respected community of experts that asserts that evolutionary theory is wrong? Most certainly not, on the contrary, evolution is considered a fact by the scientific community. In the US for example, professional biologist and geologist together consider modern evolutionary synthesis as a fact that explains a variety of physical phenomena. See The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences for more information.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
How about the second criterion? Does the scientific community have a motive to deny the existence of an intelligence to explain their observations? No they don’t, this claim is perhaps the mother of all conspiracy theories, that somehow the scientific community collaborates in a massive liberal conspiracy to expunge god from public life. This is a load of nonsense, what about Ken Miller? He is a Roman Catholic with absolutely no motive to deny the existence of God, whether in public or private life. The scientific community relies on tangible evidence that they can observe, so of course they want to detach religion - or any other supernatural explanation - from science. Whatever the case, God has been detached from Western science for centuries, some of the greatest minds in European history made this fact possible — Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton — to name but a few.
Finally, does Ann Coulter provide overwhelming evidence that suggest modern evolutionary synthesis doesn’t explain biological phenomena? This answer is an unequivocal no, in fact, she repeats arguments that even creationist themselves have abandoned such as evolution is a tautology. This ignorance is reinforced by bizarre and untrue statements with regards to speciation and transitional fossils. For example, in “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” she maintains that….
Liberals’ creation myth is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It’s a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record—and that’s after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn’t still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.
It’s worth reemphasizing that the scientific community considers evolutionary theory as a fact. But this isn’t going to convince her or the ID camp, so the now the onus of empirical observations and success — that confirms ID predictions — rest on their shoulders. The ID camp, unlike Coulter, have made some progress in their line of reasoning by rejecting that “evolution is a tautology”, but of course Coulter still adheres to this perspective.
Furthermore, she says that there is “no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record”, this is blatantly untrue, what does she think about the The Lederberg Experiment? What about bacterial and retroviral resistance? Are bacterial genomes not evolving? I suppose HIV mutations don’t confer resistance to drugs after all.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/resantimicrobial.html
http://hivdb.stanford.edu/
But wait, this isn’t speciation though, this is just microevolution, or change below the species level, there are no transitional fossils, right? Wrong! This is where evolutionary theory is a MUST to not only explain what is observed in the fossil record, but also what organisms are likely and unlikely to be observed ..if our understanding of evolutionary theory is correct. For example, if fish ventured from the ocean and colonized the land, then we expect to observe fossil remains that display fish-like features combined with legs (tetrapods). Unsurprisingly, Tiktaalik roseae was discovered by by Neil Shubin and others, a finding that would be unlikely if evolutionary theory was “baseless”, leading Jennifer A. Clack to say “this is one of those things you can point to and say, I told you this would exist and there it is<i></i>”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/…t-crawled.html
In conclusion then, Ann Coulter is fundamentally insane, if we go by your criteria that you apply to argue for Duke’s insanity. What are we to do with the mentally insane? Well, you say that “Once someone has espoused and vigorously defended a conspiracy theory like this, it discredits all of his work. No one is obligated to take seriously what he says about anything ever again. He can only hope to regain the trust of reasonable people by publicly admitting and apologizing for his insanity.” So this begs the question, WHY on earth do you quote from Ann Coulter when she is an insane conspiracy theorist?
I’m glad she’s been defying the Republican politicos with logically consistent and truly conservative positions on immigration and race relations. While I believe Creationism and religion in general to be delusional, they’re nowhere near as delusional or dangerous as the dogma of the Church of Liberalism.