The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Pro-Hamas ‘Liberals’ and Other Thoughts on the Binary Nature of Choices

Posted on | November 17, 2023 | Comments Off on Pro-Hamas ‘Liberals’ and Other Thoughts on the Binary Nature of Choices

Antifa thug punches Richard Spencer, Jan. 20, 2017

“I remember,” says Professor Glenn Reynolds, “when all the best people told us it was okay to punch Nazis.” Some of the same people were chagrined this week when a pro-Hamas mob attempted to storm the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Excuse me, but if you lie down with dogs, you can’t complain about waking up with fleas, and when Democrats — in a mood of derangement and despair after Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 — decided to embrace the violent Antifa mob, they made a choice that had consequences.

It turns out the vicious anarchists have ideas about foreign policy that most Democrats consider to be (pardon the phrase) not kosher.

For several weeks — months, perhaps — I’ve been turning over in my mind some ideas about the nature of choices. Many people seem not to understand the binary nature of the choices they make in life. Their way of thinking has become vague, clouded by prejudices, preferences and sentiments that they’ve never bothered to analyze in any kind of critical or objective way. Those of us trained in a more categorical way of thinking are at a loss to comprehend the foolish and often self-destructive choices made by people who seem to believe they can do whatever they please, as it suits their fickle moods, without having to deal with consequences that any prudent person would consider predictable.

Someone once referred to this as the “Nerf life,” where there are no sharp edges and everything is padded with foam. Academic standards are lowered, to prevent stupid or lazy students from encountering bad grades that might damage their fragile self-esteem, and we can’t lock up criminals because “social justice” or whatever, and such projects aimed at protecting people from the consequences of their choices are everywhere advocated by “all the best people,” as Professor Reynolds might say.

It is this tendency toward “Nerf life,” I would argue, that has caused many people (particularly the young) to avoid the kind of categorical thinking wherein we distinguish between A and not A, between truth and error, between wisdom and folly, between right and wrong, good and evil.

Perhaps you and I have different moral belief systems. Perhaps we have different ideas of what is beautiful, what is good, what is just. But so long as we are each free to act upon our beliefs — to put our values in action in our daily lives — then others may observe and judge our values based upon the outcomes we produce. If one of us ends up in a situation of misery and squalor, while the other finds happiness and success, there can be no doubt in the mind of an objective observer which of us has the superior value system. Whose behavior should we emulate? Whose example should we study? Whose advice should we seek? This is why consequences matter, and why trying to protect people from consequences is a bad idea. Why should anyone take care to avoid errors, if they experience no harm from their incorrect choices? And how morally confused must people become, if they’re constantly told that people who make bad choices are victims of unjust “oppression”?

Do I need to explain how this applies to Gaza? Hamas made a choice in their October 7 mass, and the people now demanding a ceasefire are trying to protect Hamas from the consequences of that choice. And they’ll say, “Oh, but what about the innocent civilians?” Well, the people of Gaza elected Hamas, a choice which anyone might have predicted would have bad consequences, the same way the German people had to deal with the consequences of electing Hitler as chancellor in 1933.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings could not be reached for comment.

This evening I watched a YouTube video of a police chase in Savannah, Georgia. Cop pulled over a guy because his tag was expired. Ran the guy’s name through the computer, found out there was a warrant for his arrest on charges of domestic violence and aggravated stalking. The cop asks the guy to step out of the vehicle, instead the guy takes off at high speed, and the cops give chase. A Georgia State Patrol trooper hears the radio call and joins the pursuit. Folks, if you’re ever in Georgia, do not try to outrun the state patrol. This is a choice so bad, you may not live to regret it, because under certain circumstances, state troopers are authorized to conduct PIT maneuvers at any speed. And thus did VanQuan Jaquel Scott join the choir invisible: “He that fucketh around shall findeth out.”

Is the analogy clear enough? Like the people of Gaza, who made a choice in electing Hamas, VanQuan Scott made a choice to run from cops, rather than to submit to arrest and have his day in court. This is how dangerous the world can be, without Nerf foam covering up all the sharp corners: Make the wrong choice, and death is the consequence.

What about the mob that tried to storm the DNC headquarters?


See, this is the kind of categorical thinking that is discouraged nowadays. We aren’t supposed to distinguish between “good people” and “bad people.” We aren’t supposed to make judgments like that, according to liberals. The armed carjacker isn’t really a bad person; no, the liberals insist, he’s a misunderstood juvenile who is disadvantaged, suffering from low-esteem, a victim of “systemic racism,” blahblahblah.

You might notice, however, that liberals have no trouble deciding that you are a bad person, if you disagree with them. The liberal has no trouble making categorical distinctions when it comes to politics — people who vote for Democrats are good, and people who vote for Republicans are bad. The confusion comes, however, when the liberal encounters opposition from radical scumbags like that pro-Hamas mob, who are obviously not Republican voters. This was the kind of conflict that tore the Democratic Party apart in 1968 and, indeed, didn’t discontent among the left-wing “Bernie Bros” have something to do with how Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016?

Let the hitherto loyal Democrat ponder the consequences of his choice of allies. Was it really a good idea to cheer Antifa as your chosen bully boys, acting out your post-election rage after Hillary lost? Was it a good idea to applaud the arson and vandalism and looting in the summer of 2020?

You’ve made your choices, see, and if you don’t like the consequences, who’s going to bail you out? Y’all kept telling us Trump was a wannabe Hitler, but which party is now embracing a mob of Jew-hating thugs?

“SQUIRREL!” screams the liberal, pointing to something Elon Musk said on The Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter.

Yes, of course, the really dangerous Jew-hater must be someone else, some “right-wing” billionaire you can demonize easily, and thereby distract the public from your own Jew-hating allies. You think nobody will spot this for the cheap tactic it is, and perhaps most people will overlook it, but not all of us are blind or stupid.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

It’s all about choices. Be careful what you choose.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Further thoughts on the theme of choices and consequences: “Real Wrath of God Type Stuff.”



Comments are closed.