Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Senator Boxer of California Demonstrates Leftist Racism – THIS is What I Have Been Talking About!

racism-posters

I have talked at length about Leftwing racism, the elitist view that only Westerners are "mature" enough to be criticized; but any Third-World behavior up to an including genocide, with overtones or rape, are condoned by those who don’t know any better, and are to fragile of ego to be chastised into civilized behavior; not even when living in the West.

Here we see another face of it; always forcing minorities to ACT LIKE minorities instead of real folk like them (white)! Then you get the minority culture enforcing THEIR view of what it means to be "one of us"; and it is rare that any will dare to break the mold and just be human first.  From this we get a vicious cycle of whites, Left and Right, treating minorities as aliens, then the minorities enforcing their own stereotypes and cultural requirement’; which the racists (both sides again in their own ways) point to as a sign that "it’s just the way they are."

This video made my day; Barbara Boxer is seem a very arrogant politician, shaming a man with the "honor" of just being invited to genuflect and be used in her political theater; too bad he came to DC to solve problems, Boxer had no idea what he was even talking about until the conversation was already virtually over!

Here comes Nov! Bye Bye Barbara!

Enjoy this, I certainly did!

Here is Alford again on O’Reilly Factor (I ‘Reilly really that clueless or is he just playing to hi guest?)  LOVE IT!  Why can’t this guy run for Mayor of L.A.? PLEASE?

Putting These In The Right Hands Could Save America

It should be a law that all religious leaders, political leaders, pundits and elected officials must possess and regularly view the following four films as a Leader Hubris Prevention Measure.

I Propose an immediate vote on an LHM Amendment to the  US Constitution

holygrail0_ lifeofbrian0_ blazingsaddle_LiarLiar0_

           

Shirley Sherrod Repent! Your Sin Is upon You!

Thank you Andrew Breitbart for this concise and cutting critique of the Mainstream Media and American Politics.

race_card

Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism–2010

by Andrew Breitbart Context is everything.

In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient…

…The media that provided the left a platform to accuse the Tea Party, all the while refusing to air any exculpatory evidence. Again, the mainstream media inserts itself as the number one weapon in the progressive weapons stash. Political correctness, as the Duke Lacrosse case exemplified, trumps all in PC America and her afflicted media.

But the new media will not be silenced. It will not allow for the main stream media to propagate hateful and hurtful lies in order to save the Democratic Party from the toxic choices it has made over the past few years. And by bringing up race, and demanding a zero tolerance of racism, the left, and the NAACP in particular, has opened itself up for scrutiny.

Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

…The NAACP which has transformed from a civil rights group to a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and social-justice politics, supports a new America that relies less on individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit, but instead giddily embraces, the un-American notion of unaccountability and government dependence.

Here is the Video…

Read It All…

To be completely fair I must say that my impression is that Madam Sherrod is recounting “past” racism on her part to try to convince her audience that Back on White racism really is not ok… but that is reading into it a lot and giving her the benefit of the doubt, I want to see the whole speech! Even if my theory is correct she is a little to smug and her audience WAY too approving for this to be innocent even if Breitbart’s analysis is spun too hard to the Right.

What is a racist?


Hear now the words of Kipling as he reminded America that colonialism was more a burden than a benefit to Western Cultures:

(I make one small change, in the common language of Kipling’s time the difference between race and culture was very blurred if seen at all. If you change the words White Man to Westerner I believe you free the full truth of Kipling’s poem without tainting it with racism.)

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the Westerner’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

To the common political “wisdom” these days the words of Kipling seem to be the crowing of a classic arrogant dead white man. But when analyzed they show not a single lie, distortion or untruth. Today the term racism has been co-opted by the other side and is now used mostly BY racists to demonize their opposition and mask their own agenda.

I was fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment that was very colorblind. Not in a hyper-PC “oh, we NEVER talk about the color of Johnny’s skin” way but as in that no one around me ever made any kind of a big deal about it. People were people and that was about that.

As a result I was puzzled on hitting college age when people put such an emphasis on NOT seeing the obvious when it came to cultural differences. What can there possibly be wrong with noting say, that the North Korean culture is seriously inferior to just about all other modern ones? Just who is racist, the one who sees people of all color as good, bad and sometimes indifferent or the one who sees their own RACE, not only culture, as the villain and excuses ALL other races with an argument that amounts to “they don’t know any better so we can’t hold them to our standards.”

Who is racist when every single sign in the Wal-Mart near my house (with many Hispanics in the area) has duplicate Spanish while the Wal-mart in Diamond Bar where there are a great many Asians the signs are only in English? Is it not an insult to put “Cosmeticas” under the word cosmetics? Even tourists are not usually that clueless. To me it smacks of an arrogance that assumes certain races are less able to “cope” with our society than others. ON the other hand if the impetus for these signs comes from the Hispanic community itself it is another form of arrogance. It is then saying “hey, we don’t care HOW close your stupid English is to the Spanish, we do not want to have to even pretend to think we are not in a Hispanic country if we don’t want to.” Just imagine a white American expressing that attitude. The Leftist lynch mob would be after them in a flash. We have a term in America that we apply to, among other things, the kind of American who lives in a foreign land in an American elcleve and ignored the culture and language of their hosts…we call them assholes. Unless they are from a developing land and live that way in the West. Then we call them oppressed. Is it not racism to think that Westerners should completely adapt to cultures wherever they go but non-Westerners are not required to do the same when they travel to the West?

What other than a racist arrogance (on one side or the other, if not both) would make anyone think that ONLY the Spanish speakers need to have a special option on phone lines? And on that note, What about the racism of the Spanish speakers toward all the Portuguese speakers? ALL anyone ever talks about in Ca is Spanish this and Spanish that. Do we not get immigrants from Brazil and the other Portuguese countries? The HiSPANIC issue has been taken over by those who speak Spanish and the entire Portuguese based culture has been suppressed in America. The general public is hardly aware that there are TWO major cultures in South America not just one.

At some point simpleminded Humans became confused between skin color and culture. As an American though I have grown up with the glaring example of a place where about the only thing that really controls how a person lives is the cultural face they show the world.

A Mexican man who dresses and acts like he wants all the world to know he could be type-cast in a modern remake of Zoot Suit will not have the opportunities given to him that a man who is assimilated (into WHATEVER country he lives in) and happens to have been born in Mexico will have. Or one born in China, or one born in America for that matter.

Even keeping to just white Americans, who will deny the profound differences between people who grow up in inner city Brooklyn to those who grew up in suburban Southern California. Which one would you rather hire for a job dealing with customers in Chicago? Culture matters. Culture is values and traditions and ethics. One culture says stealing is not a crime when a person is legitimately desperate, while another says a man raping his wife is no criminal. Both think the other society is wrong. Who wins? In the West the one that provides the most freedom and opportunity to all while oppressing none is the best regardless of the details. In the East it is one that protects the status quo and those who fall between the cracks are just collateral damage in the pursuit of a pure society that will be completely benign once all opposition is removed. Yeah, right, we have heard that one before.

But if you take a person from ANY culture that is willing to adapt and put them in ANY place where they are given the opportunity to do so they will thrive and their children and children’s children will be of the new country and not the old “race”.

So what is the point of all this PC pretense that all cultures are equal and valid and no one’s “cultural experience” should be held as less than any other’s? Good question. I do not see how it can be anything that is meant for the good of all involved. Anyone who travels far enough from their home culture will be seen as “wrong” in their ways. Take two examples: A bunch of random California college students dumped in Saudi Arabia would be seen as tainted and evil and inferior to the locals not for their race (which could be anything, including Arab) as much as for how they acted and their moral and ethic values and what religion they belonged to. And a bunch of the elite of Saudi Arabia let off the leash in America would offend many people in Ca. with THEIR actions and values.
As an example, not too long ago a Saudi Prince was caught beating his servants in Switzerland and he was arrested. The Saudi Government’s response was to put political and economic pressure on the Swiss until THEY apologized. Is this the response of a civilized nation? No, it is the response of a tribal mindset; A mindset that sees “us” as always to be protected right or wrong and “them” as always worth less than any of “us” regardless of actual individual merit.
I for one refuse to apologize for acting with vigor to defend against the destruction and defamation of the cultural paradigm that has brought the world from violence, ignorance and superstition to the point where the only thing keeping most peoples down is their own lack of commitment to those ideals.
This is not to say that the West is perfect. There never has been a perfect society and I do not expect to see one any time soon. I am content with protecting and improving the only one that has actually had results in improving the lot of humanity.
To those who accuse me of only talking about non-Western tribalism I would like to say that I have spent a lot of my time highlighting the aspects of our own culture that retain tribal elements. The deep South in America is one place where Tribalism is still fairly strong for a Western land. The Us and Them factor is ever present there in way a Californian like me finds boggling. Institutional prejudices that I thought only remained in the movies and TV were shoved in my face. I did not respond by assuming the locals knew best and I was just an interfering outsider. I stood up for the values that made the West and America what they are. But even the worst of rural Louisiana culture has risen far above the level of the highest of the non-Western lands. To pursue civilization means to pursue, fair, consistent laws for ALL people instead of privilege for a few and subservience for the rest in pursuit of a FUTURE paradise that will be worth the unfortunate “deviations” of the present.
So do not be ashamed to stand up for the West. Do not be afraid to call non-Westerners to task for their barbaric treatment of minorities and women. Stand for the West and world civilization or you can be sure your apathy will be used by those who promote tribal and totalitarian thought to take your power away and use it ON you instead of for you.
Bottom line, freedom of religion and conscience gives you a right not to be oppressed by others as you pursue your business, it does not give you a right to make others dance to your tune or allow you to break local laws protecting public health and safety because you do not “believe” in doing things that way.
The PC paradigm says we should pretend that the U.S. and Iran are equal in “civilization” and that it is wrong and evil to even try to judge which might be the “better” culture. But that attitude denies the three thousand years of developing human rights in the West. If the values of the West; freedom of speech and religion and conscience are not meaningless mental masturbations by a timid people afraid to “deal with the nitty gritty real world” then the “values” of Iran and North Korea and such places can only been seen as evil and inimical for those who grow up in them or are subject to their power. To get any other answer is to say that all of the West’s evolution toward dealing with other nations and individuals humanely has been a meaningless game that has no moral ramifications at all in the eyes of any hypothetical “objective” observer”.
How did the progress of the West toward equal rights for all get derailed into favoritism to favored minorities, disdain for the un-favored and outright institutional contempt for not only the indigenous races but the entire indigenous cultures of the West? I think Neville Chamberlain could explain the phenomenon if he were here. In every group there are hardliners and compromisers and appeasers. Hardliners will not see the brick wall in front of their face if it means giving up one iota of their agenda but the appeaser willingly sacrifices, one by one, every vital aspect of their psyche and security for the promise of peace in the future and to be seen as the “good guy”. But the compromiser weighs each path in relation to the situation and THEN chooses to compromise or not. As hardliners and appeasers seem to be the dominant breed in politics what we have today is the result of a tug of war between the hardliners and appeasers on both sides of the political spectrum.
In the terror wars the appeasers are concentrated in the West and the hardliners are almost all on the Islamic side. This is how we end up with a “separation of church and state” that allows the government to pay for Muslim footbaths at a state university. This is how we see a couple in England put on trial for criminal racism for merely responding to statements by a Muslim woman about THEIR religion that to them Muhammed was a warlord and Muslim traditional dress is oppressive to women. For stating two truths that any third grader with a copy of the Koran and Hadith could confirm these people may lose their bed & breakfast (yep the woman was a GUEST under their roof when she initiated a conversation about their Christian beliefs) because they “insulted and offended” a member of the only religion that demands that you follow their customs at all times when they might be present or aware of your activities. When was the last time a Jew or Christian or Hindu demanded co-workers refrain from eating in front of them during a fast? Why not? Because they subscribe to the ethics of the West not the East.
Civilized people tend to not like appearing uncivilized even when presented with those who are truly barbaric. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt and bend over backwards to excuse the behavior of non-Westerners (in this I include Japan and South Korea and others like them in “the West”.) no matter how horrific simply because at one time in the past our culture had “taken advantage” of them. That the non-Western countries that were colonized are virtually all dramatically better off (as far as the people in the street are concerned at least) with the influx of Western Law and science and rights is deemed irrelevant. That they treat their own people or foreigners with no power in ways that make the worst of the colonial excesses look tame also means nothing. If you say that the English were preferred employers over local Indian rich folk during The Raj because they treated their servants more humanely and that Islamic attacks over centuries cost the lives of MILLIONS of Indians by DIRECT violence you are called racist or Islamophobic. Yet the fact remains that the English actually freed India from despotism and the Islamics brought eventual barbarism wherever they won. So why are the English demonized as the oppressors of India and the Islamics who conquered with blood half of ancient land seen as “victims”?
Things like this happen because the appeasers are not half as afraid of having their civilization destroyed as they are of being seen as barbarian themselves. They will excuse time and again those from non-Western nations that seek to bring their customs into our lands no matter how many laws are broken or how many people, Western and Non-Western alike have to suffer or even die so they can pretend that “all cultures are equal”.
So, what makes a civilized culture as opposed to a barbarian one? To the ancient Greeks who coined the word barbarian it meant any who were so benighted that they did not speak Greek. To the Shogun Japanese it was anyone who was not Japanese no matter how high their technology or cultural achievements. To me, civilized cultures are those that allow its individual members the stability and safety to build their lives in peace and a constant and humane system of law that applies to all people equally, so that all, rich and poor, know where they stand in regard to acceptable behavior toward each other.
When these criteria are met a society can start building a civilizational “equity” that grows over time. Without them a society will remain stuck in a feudal or tribal mode that has no checks and balances against abuse of personal power. When every functionary, officer and elected official seeks to build their own power base witout duty to the people and individuals are expected to obey without question any who has power over them cooperation drops to a minimum and consistency in law and its application are hard to find.
Let us come right out and say it, today “World Civilization” IS Western Civilization. The most universal aspects of our world today, those of culture and technology and law that are shared and sought by the people of almost every nation are almost exclusively the brainchildren of Western civilization. We can fantasize all we want about how the many things the ancient Chinese invented or the many Greek works the Islamics preserved makes them the equal of the West but it does not change the truth. The Chinese invented things but used knowledge as a means to horde power. The lack of sharing of information between scientists caused many discoveries to either languish unused, like deep ocean navigation, or the secrets were never spread so when the inventers and their people disappeared so did the knowledge.
The printing press was invented in China a thousand years before Gutenberg made his but the Chinese still mainly used the older wood block printing when the Europeans were printing books by the gross. Individual innovation did not take up and improve and spread around the new ideas and inventions. Instead technology was horded like a weapon to be used only for the benefit of the owner. And because of this most of the innovation by individuals in ancient China came to nought over time. But in the West, with a diferent way of looking at power the rate of progress has been unparalled anywhere else in history.
Starting with the traditions of the Greeks and developed by the Romans Western European council based (as opposed to those controlled by kings and priests) tribes adopted many of the new ideas from their Roman conqueror and blended them with their rough and ready form of democracy and individual rights.
Westward rolled the tide of humane civilization. At the high tide of the changes and innovations from the renaissance European thinkers shifted to an even higher civilizational gear and began what came to be called the Enlightenment. No longer would priests and kings be obeyed simply because they were priests or kings. The value of ALL people came into its own and the tide jumped the ocean to America. There all bets were off as the West turned fully away from the old Eastern paradigm of the individual existing only to serve the society.
The most significant difference between the West and the East is this concept. To a Chinese gentleman I once chatted up the nation of China is more important than the individual rights or desires or even the oppression of any of the subject peoples of that nation. This man was not a bad person. In fact he was so nice and reasonable that when he said the above, as though it was completely obvious, it shocked me. But to him, growing up in the East, people only had worth as they contributed to the WHOLE. To him anyone who in any way diminished the whole was simply wrong no matter what the reason. To him if Taiwan or Tibet once were “China” they always should be and individuals who happened to live there needed to act like it. In contrast in the West the WHOLE is seen as sick unless it promotes the well being of the individual as well as the whole! In the East the state may oppress the people to keep order, in the West the people may dispense with the state if it does not serve them. This was the whole premise of the American “revolution” and has spread all over the Western world. It is now “common sense” in the West that a people have the right to create a government that benefits them and that the state has no right to put stability over the law. In the East the only people who have the right to over throw the government are people who belong to the winning faction in that revolution. “Treason doth never prosper, for if it does none dare call it treason”. To take power for “us”, for the “right thinkers”, is seen as a “legal” violation of the principal of putting the state first. But all this does is replace on set of thugs with another, then another, then another.
So now let us compete abandon any pretence of PCism and declare that it is ONLY the very values of the West that keeps non-Western nations from barbarism and political instability. Even China and India, the most advanced non-western cultures, routinely sacrifice the rights of the person to pursue the prosperity of the whole. India does it much less than China due to their orientation toward the West and as a result is a “freer” place to live for its citizens.(At least in comparison with non-Western countries.) As a result the people in these lands do not know where they stand from year to year and it is hard to impossible to build stable institutions. India especially has been a textbook of the evolution from a tribal society to a Western one based on law. Compare its evolution to that of Pakistan which retains its attachment to the tribal past. When there is no underlying structure to the law, when each new ruler acts by whim and not in accord with agreed rules the citizen is left adrift in a sea of uncertainty and corruption. Making nice with evil men is seen as simply the price a person must pay to be allowed any life at all. Success comes not from values but from a willingness to compromise all values on the altar of the local boss’s power and his ability to pull strings of influence.
In the West we know from experience that a few humane rules that apply to everyone produces more prosperity and stability and opportunity for all than all the strong arm rulers in history ever managed to give their people. Those in the East know this too. But in their paradigm power is not to be shared lest someone else take it all and leave you nothing. Do unto others before they do unto you is the rule in lands that do not accept Western ethics. Their leaders are willing to see their people live forever in fear and oppression as long as they can feel secure in their power as leader. But they fail in the very task of a leader, to protect and provide security for their people. To promote Western values is to undermine everything that made them powerful in the first place. In these lands each time the people can stand no more and rebel the only point on the agenda for the new regime is to consolidate power in the same way that those who oppressed them consolidated it: By force and without mercy for dissent.
By contrast the more a nation has embraced Western Values the more stable and prosperous that nation becomes. Nowhere is this more blatantly obvious than in Israel and the Arab states surrounding it.
How can a tiny, oppressed, besieged people be the world’s most innovative and inventive nation? How can this tiny land produce so much good for all humanity in medicine and agriculture and science while surrounded by lands where civilization is something to be had only by those who can afford to import it from the West? How can Israel give full citizenship to Arabs and retain its integrity and yet Saudi Arabia will not even accept as citizens fellow Arab Muslims from neighboring Arab nations lest they lose some sort of Holy “Saudiness”?
Power and how it is used and protected is what it all boils down to. In the West governing power is seen as naturally belonging to all of us and is to be used for the benefit of everyone. In the East this power belongs to the collective group, be it nation or tribe, and is to be used to further the nation or tribes wellbeing. However, the individuals of the East are seen as replaceable parts in a machine they serve rather than being served by. In the West it is the rulers who are seen as replaceable. Judging each paradigm by its fruits it is clear which one is better at delivering its promise of a stable, prosperous culture.
So why do so many in the West trip over themselves to allow Non-Westerners to practice any and all of their tribal “values” in our lands even when those practices are illegal and universally condemned for Westerners? How can a civilized Westerner ever allow things like forced marriage and genital mutilation and honor killings to resurface in the West. Did all those who fought and died to make these horrors go away in the West act in vain? Is it our duty as “civilized” folk to allow “underdeveloped” people to re-establish in our own lands every horror we ourselves have outgrown?
About the only even partially reasonable answer I can come up with as to why this happens is that people are so scared of being seen themselves as uncivilized that they will not make ANY judgment on another person’s culture lest they somehow be tarred with the same brush as real oppressors from the past. In embarrassment at the excesses of Western civilization (which are not “excessive” compared to social policy outside the West.) they will not only excuse but PROMOTE worse excesses in their own lands by those less civilized. It is somehow culturally insensitive for a Westerner to tell an immigrant they can’t keep their women ignorant and enslaved. But it is not insensitive for that same immigrant to demand that the Western women in their own land conform to his notion of proper dress in order not to provoke rape. (yes, that came from an actual Australian Imam who said that Western woman should veil in order to get along better with the Muslim immigrants who were treating Western Women with violence and contempt. )
We in the West need to get over our over-developed sense of guilt and start acting with more responsibility to our hard won values. We need to stop applying double standards to the values of Dead White Men (and women, Queen Elizabeth I and others made huge contributions. Q.E.I pioneered the concept of consolidating ruling power by serving the interests of the people instead of the nobility.) and stop protecting those who want to strip away 500 years of advancement in favor of a return to tribalism with them at the top of the pecking order.

Voices from the Middle:Intelligence is Not an Affirmative Action Program


By: Barry Loberfeld

Earlier this year when Long Island’s Newsday printed on its cover the names and headshots of the 59 of the national Intel science contest’s 300 semifinalists who come from the region, it put journalism before politics by not concealing what would be a major problem for certain elements of the Left and Right: The contingent didn’t “look like” America — at least as some conceive it.

Feminists, for example, will be hard pressed to explain how 25 of the 59 could be young women. After all, isn’t there hindering discrimination against females everywhere in our society — especially in the science classroom? How was the number of 25 achieved with only student achievement and no affirmative action? What can feminists denounce — that a full one-half of those featured, 29½ people, weren’t female?

Worse, how will the whites-control-everything crowd explain the most glaring feature of the cover: The majority of the students are not European Christians. On the contrary, Jews, Orientals (“Asians”), and people from the Indian subcontinent (“South Asians”) form the greater part of the group. We find in one row: Feinberg, Fichtelberg, Gittin, Goldaper, and Gurevich. So, where is the “domination” by America’s dominant demographic?

Of course, nativists also can’t be too happy about the line-up. They won’t find a Smith or a Jones or a Johnson, to say nothing of an Alden or a Bradford or a Standish. Indeed, two young men who look as if they actually could have a Pilgrim forebear also have the names “Aleksandr Sinelnikov” and “Yevgeniy Yesilevskiy.” And Buchananite conservatives, for whom “America” is its true-blue-collar Catholics, would no doubt be calling for more than just immigration quotas if they were to learn that there was only one unequivocally Irish name (with one or two possibly Irish ones), as well as only one Italian name. Forget America — this group doesn’t even “look like” Long Island. Alas, young Miss Scavelli is not the only lone member of an “underrepresented” segment of our society: There is only one black student. And while the term “Hispanic” is fairly encompassing, it doesn’t encompass any of the semifinalists (as far as I can tell).

Finally, there is the matter of the number 59 itself, out of 300. Does Long Island have 19.6 percent of the population? As the article observes, that number is “more than double that produced by New York City’s high schools, and also more than double that for the entire state of California.” (In 2002, the number was 88.)

Well, what are we to make of it all? That the “women’s movement” was largely successful — for certain minority groups? Or that gender is irrelevant compared to ethnicity/race? That the judging panel, sponsor Intel Corp., and even the science itself are all biased against Hibernians and Sicilians but in favor of Ashkenazim and Chinese? Can there be “institutional discrimination” against minority and majority groups? If so, who’s instituting that discrimination — a privileged minority group? And why would Santa Clara-based Intel be disproportionately generous to Long Islanders? Taken all together, what we must have here are some very discriminating bigots, indeed.

Clearly, there’s only one real question: What would the contemporary promoters of “equality” consider a just and “natural” outcome, evincive of a total absence of any form of bias?

For that to be true, the 59 must reflect perfectly the ethnic breakdown of the United States — or at least Long Island — or better yet, for the full 300 to be a microcosm of the country. How would that be possible? What are they insisting upon — that the random differences from one individual to the next in ability, ambition, and values all add up to the same proportion of low/medium/high achievers for each demographic group…and that this in turn somehow translate into a “representation” of all groups relative to each one’s percentage of the population? One word: astronomical.

… Hear the words of one of the foremost exponents of faux egalitarianism:

[T]he shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

Leon Trotsky wrote this in his book Literature and Revolution.

Are today’s socialists any less absurd? Only slightly so. Barbara Ehrenreich, a socialist feminist considered by some to be reasonable, was called upon to explain why “fewer men are going to college,” despite the alleged persistence of male privilege. She insisted, “they suspect that they can make a living just as well without a college education; in other words they still have such an advantage over women in the non-professional workforce that they don’t require an education.” Would she assert that “fewer blacks are going to college” because “they suspect that they can make a living just as well without a college education; in other words they still have such an advantage over whites in the non-professional workforce that they don’t require an education”? When fewer women were going to college, was it because “they still had such an advantage over men in the non-professional workforce that they didn’t require an education”? Why would the Learned Elders of Patriarchy maintain male privilege in the non-professional workforce? Except for sports prodigies, who does better — or even “just as well” — without a college degree?

More and more, “discrimination” explains less and less. And yet the “progressive” disintelligentsia demands it be enshrined as the only explanation for any demographic “discrepancy” between any groups — i.e., as America’s defining reality. Hence Ehrenreich: Unable to find men’s “advantage over women” in the world of higher education, the author of Nickel and Dimed projects it onto the world of burger-flipping. Accordingly, the Left has convinced itself that those who contest this diagnosis — and its concomitant cures — do so only because they want to propagate the disease of “inequality.” Dissent from this Ivory Tower dogmatism is maligned as gutter bigotry.

One of the most stark examples — a rebuke to those who pronounce “political correctness” dead or mythological — is the recent blitzkrieg of slander waged against economist Walter Block. The particulars are simple: After giving a speech at Loyola College of Maryland, Block was vilified as a racist and sexist by sundry university and outside entities (call them the “Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force”) for not explaining the white-black and male-female wage gaps solely in terms of the mandatory societal-bias model. A solid scholar, he beat back these ad hominem attacks. But it is a telling indictment of that model that it can be sustained only with the imposition of an ideological litmus test — and in opposition to any intellectual standards.

It is not merely a dogmatic model, but one applied incoherently, i.e., hypocritically. Ehrenreich’s unwillingness to hypothesize women’s advantage over men in academia is one example. Another: If blacks are disproportionately “represented” in the penal system, that in itself “demonstrates” that there must be bias against them and in favor of whites. But if males are disproportionately incarcerated, no one — least of all feminists — argues for the culpability of a systemic bias against men and in favor of women. What kind of egalitarianism can’t maintain “equality” even in its own postulates and yet presumes to do so for the entirety of society?

How long will leftists insist that there must be something wrong if every field of endeavor doesn’t mirror America’s ethnic composition? How long will feminists insist upon their “minority” status even when women outnumber men in positive, successful areas?

And the “cultural conservatives,” who seem concerned less for Western civilization than for Country-and-Western civilization? By every indication they would delightedly set sail a ship of multiracial scientists in exchange for a dinghy of Scots-Irish creationists. What would America be without any non-Christians and non-whites? Evidently a whole lot dumber. And if Mr. Buchanan’s own children are not among any contest winners, he has no one to blame but himself.

In all areas, achievement is an individual responsibility.

Read it all!!!

Labour Party candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected despire district being “safe”

(HH here: for those of you who do not know what a “safe district” is let me explain. Due to demographics a safe district is one that is dominated by voters that support one party almost to the exclusion of any opposition. After runoffs internal to the party the final candidate is utterly assured election no matter who they face in the final vote. Because of this the “palatiblity” of the candidate due to racial considerations is moot. If she had made it to the final election it would have been proof that she DID have local support and in that final election she would win even if a large number of voters abstained. Why exclude her? Sheer racism and anti-semeticism!)

Labour Party embroiled in race row after candidate told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected
By Emily Andrews
Elaina Cohen, …, claims she was told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected as a Labour candidate in Birmingham
The Labour Party has become embroiled in a race row after a prospective female councillor was allegedly told she was ‘too white and Jewish’ to be selected.

Elaina Cohen claims that Labour councillor Mahmood Hussain said he would not support her application for an inner-city ward because ‘my Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish’.

Mrs Cohen, 50, has made an official complaint about the alleged remarks made by Mr Hussain, a Muslim and former lord mayor of Birmingham.

She said: ‘I am shocked and upset that a member of the Labour Party in this day and age could even think something like that, let alone say it.

‘People should not be allowed to make racist comments like that. If someone in the party feels I cannot represent them because of my colour or religion, that’s ridiculous.

‘I felt particularly aggrieved because I have worked across all sections of the community, particularly with the Muslim section, and have been on official visits to Pakistan.’

Mrs Cohen had applied to stand as a Labour councillor for the Birmingham ward of East Handsworth and Lozells, which has a high Asian and Afro-Caribbean population.

As one of Labour’s safest seats on Tory-led Birmingham city council, the final candidate would be almost certain of victory at the June 4 by-election.

But when Mrs Cohen telephoned 57-year-old Mr Hussain for his support, she was astonished to be told that she was too ‘white and Jewish’ to be considered.

Lorraine Briscoe, who runs a local community association, was sitting next to Mrs Cohen when the conversation took place on speakerphone last Tuesday.

‘I was disgusted that a councillor could make comments like that in 2009,’ she said.

‘He told her, “They will not vote for someone who is white and Jewish. My Muslim members don’t want you because you are Jewish”.

‘Elaina then asked him if he had talked to his Muslim members about it and he said, “I don’t want to talk about it with you” and hung up.

‘Elaina does a lot of good work in this community and she does not see race or religion, she just sees people.’

Two days after the alleged conversation, Mrs Cohen and another candidate were rejected by a pre-selection panel after failing to gain the support of the local party.

Instead, members were presented with one candidate, black South African Hendrina Quinnen, who was selected by an almost unanimous vote.
Mrs Cohen has now sent an official complaint to Labour Party general secretary Ray Collins and Birmingham city council accusing Mr Hussain of improper conduct.
Mr Hussain said yesterday: ‘I would not make those sort of comments. The allegations are not true.’

From the “It is a step in the right direction” file: Draft for racism meeting drops Israel criticism

By FRANK JORDANS – 6 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — Muslim-backed references to Israel and the “defamation of religion” have been dropped from a draft declaration being prepared for next month’s world racism meeting, United Nations officials said Tuesday.

The United States and the 27-nation European Union have threatened to boycott the April 20-25 meeting in Geneva unless Muslim countries back down from demands to limit free speech that criticizes Islam or other faiths. They also objected to passages that singled out Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

The draft declaration now speaks only of concern about the “negative stereotyping of religions” while omitting direct references to Israel.

“We believe this shortened text represents a solid and meaningful basis for negotiations by member states toward a positive outcome for the conference,” said Doune Porter, a spokeswoman for the U.N. human rights office in Geneva.

Western diplomats declined to comment immediately on the new draft, except to indicate that it appeared to go in the right direction.

The meeting is designed to review progress in fighting racism since the global body’s first such conference eight years ago in Durban, South Africa. The 2001 event was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery, and U.N. officials have expressed alarm that the follow-up conference could collapse over the same issues.

Israel and Canada had already said they would boycott the meeting.

U.N. Watch, a lobby group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, said the changes were welcome, but cautioned that some of the language in the draft was still problematic.

“Numerous red lines are breached,” said the group’s executive director Hillel Neuer, noting that a Dutch demand for references to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation had been removed.

The draft also promotes the idea that religions themselves — not just their believers — deserve to be protected under human rights law, he said.