pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism


As a respected citizen of the Leftosphere, the Nature Conservancy supports the rights of indigenous peoples. Their website proclaims:

Empowering Indigenous peoples throughout the world.

The natural world is central to the human rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as their economic, spiritual, physical and cultural well- being. Complex challenges including the development of natural resources and climate change are threatening the environments on which their livelihoods and cultures depend.

The Nature Conservancy recognizes the significant contributions of Indigenous peoples to conservation and collaborates with them to foster our shared commitment to environmental stewardship. Our human rights-based approach to conservation incorporates traditional knowledge and cultural values and results in tangible benefits. We work as a partner, making sure that community needs and local priorities are identified and addressed.

Our programs target urgent threats, secure land tenure and access, support Indigenous rights and improved governance, and strengthen livelihoods. Our initiatives support the rights of Indigenous peoples to participate more fully in making the decisions that will shape their futures.

Indeed. We would expect such an organization to show respect toward the indigenous peoples of the past, and we would not expect to see it glorifying those who perpetrated genocide upon them.

How, then, would we reconcile the above statement with the following one?

Buffalo Soldiers in the U.S. Army were some of the first defenders of our national parks, serving as rangers in Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon. They were instrumental in fighting fires, cracking down on poachers and clearing roads. One of the most notable Buffalo Soldiers was Capt. Charles Young, the third African American to graduate from West Point and the first African-American superintendent of a national park. The legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers lives on through Yosemite ranger Shelton Johnson, who created a website to tell their story.

These Buffalo soldiers took part in the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of North America. The fact that they later received government jobs as caretakers at national parks does not negate this fact. While the conflict between settlers and Native Americans was an exceedingly complex one, with atrocities committed on all sides, the Leftosphere invariably sympathizes with the Native Americans. Apparently, an exception is made when the settlers are “people of color” themselves. While one might argue that the Nature Conservancy is only trying to give credit where credit is due, without negating any lurid past these soldiers might have had, I find such hair-splitting to be disingenuous. The South African government did many positive things during the years of apartheid, yet we never find the Leftosphere giving them credit.

Others have pointed out this hypocrisy. For example, a neo-Confederate group made the point back in 2005:

   On January 17th, Carrollton Georgia put on it’s Annual King Day parade. I attended this one with a special guest, as it took on a special meaning by some of the participants invited. I had read where a local amateur historian named Don North and his 6 member “Grierson’s Buffalo Soldiers Cavalry Association of Georgia” was invited to join, most likely at the behest of Carrollton’s only black councilman Gerald Byrd. Mr. Byrd had allowed Mr. North to speak to his youth class at Carrollton Middle School – and I read an article in the Carrollton paper about it…

  Well I am not the most educated person, but I do know that that whole Custer/Cavalry/Western time period meant lots of innocent Indians were being slaughtered, and the Buffalo Soldiers happily did their share of butchery. I sent out a call for help to stand against this kind of glorification, and got probably the most qualified spokesman to accomplish the task. My special guest was none other than that Native American activist, Gary Spottedwolf… who is a Lakota Sioux (I love his “Custer Got Siouxed” poster) and whose ancestors were targets of the Buffalo Soldiers ‘Ethnic Cleansing’…

  He wore his warrior outfit with US Cavalry jacket and 4 scalp swatches. He is one tough dude, as those outfits aren’t very warm, and it was about 30 with a strong wind. He also brought a picture that blew me away, but sent one of North’s boys into denial. It was a picture of a deep trench filled with dead Sioux, and a Buffalo Soldier standing next to them. When the young misled soldier wannabe was shown the picture, he said “naw, that ain’t no Buffalo Soldier”.   North stayed in the distance playing with his historically inaccurate 10th Cavalry flag that didn’t include crossed sabers…

  Initially some were heard to exclaim “he’s coming to be with us!”, but Spottedwolf cut that BS short. Another of the young actors walked up behind Gary and had the nerve to say “That sure is a nice jacket” and without missing a beat he retorted “It should be – I got it off a dead Buffalo Soldier. Spottedwolf then commenced to giving the group, approx 15 mounted riders that included North and 3 other actors (the others represented ???) a lecture about the real Buffalo Soldiers and their campaign of terrorism and genocide. Then a white woman started crying this was a day for unity, which came the reply that there can be no unity as long as his people were on reservations.  I told Unity lady that the Confederate Govt. was the only ‘White man’s Govt. that accepted the Indians. She looked bewildered…

The Buffalo soldiers were not only guilty of slaughtering Native Americans, according to some, they also took part in the senseless slaughter of the buffalo. According to Roy Cook:

The Kiowa have no love for the historic ‘Buffalo Soldiers’. They have not forgotten that because in those ‘Indian War’ times there was war between the Kiowa people and their main source of commissary the buffalo and the white men. The white men built forts in the Kiowa country, and the Negro soldiers (the Tenth Cavalry, made up of Negro troops) shot the buffalo as fast as they could, but the buffalo still kept coming on, coming on, even into the post cemetery at Fort Sill. Soldiers were not enough to hold them back.

If those who massacred innocent people, and mowed down countless buffalo, can be considered “conservation heroes” by taking government jobs at national parks, then the term has very little meaning. I would urge the Nature Conservancy to be more selective in who they consider “heroes.”

 

It’s always refreshing when I can point to a fellow Jew and feel pride that he’s doing God’s work. Chipping away at the Cathedral is God’s work, even if you don’t believe in God. In a way, it almost makes me happy that there is a Cathedral. I’ll be blunt. Having such an enemy helps give meaning to my life, just as the existence of “racists” gives meaning to the lives of those within the Cathedral. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Each side helps define the identity of the other. In the case of pro-whites, such as myself, we also provide livelihoods for the other side. Just ask the SPLC. They make millions off of us. As for me, I demand my cut of the proceeds. I want a commission!

Jerry Seinfeld was recently asked why his show features only white males. His response? “Who cares?” Watch it here. Many bloggers, such as myself, spend our days chipping away at the Cathedral. It’s a civic duty, it’s fun and it makes us feel good. But we’re like microbes eating away at its facade at a glacial pace. When a celebrity, such as Seinfeld, says “who cares?” it’s more like an earthquake, which shakes its very foundations.

As icing on the cake, take a look at the comments. They’re practically 100% in favor of Seinfeld. I’d say that’s quite encouraging.

A while back, while innocently strolling through downtown Portland, I encountered a used book store that featured a nice selection of books for 35¢ each. I picked up a copy of “The United States in 1800” by Henry Adams. This has always been a period of American history that’s fascinated me.

Adams goes to great lengths to emphasizes how isolated each region was from the other. Travel was slow, dangerous and unreliable. He writes (pp. 6-8):

The union of New England with New York and Pennsylvania was not an easy task even as a problem of geography, and with an ocean highway; but the union of New England with the Carolinas, and of the seacoast with the interior, promised to be a hopeless undertaking. Physical contact alone could make one country of these isolated empires, but to the patriotic American of 1800… the idea of ever bringing the Mississippi River, either by land or water, into close contact with New England, must have seemed wild. By water, an Erie Canal was already foreseen; by land, centuries of labor could alone conquer those obstacles which Nature permitted to be overcome.

In the minds of practical men, the experience of Europe left few doubts on this point. After two thousand years of public labor and private savings, even despotic monarchs, who employed the resources of their subjects as they pleased, could in 1800 pass from one part of their European dominions to another little more quickly than they might have done in the age of Antonines. A few short canals had been made, a few bridges had been built, and excellent post-road extended from Madrid to St. Petersburg; but the heavy diligence that rumbled from Calais to Paris required three days for its journey of one hundred and fifty miles, and if travellers ventured on  a trip to Marseilles they met with rough roads and hardships like those of the Middle Ages. Italy was in 1800 almost as remote from the north of Europe as when carriage-roads were first built. Neither in time nor in thought was Florence or Rome much nearer to London in Wordsworth’s youth than in the youth of Milton or Gray…

While Europe had thus consumed centuries in improving paths of trade… America was required to construct, without delay, at least three great roads and canals, each several hundred miles long, across m0untain ranges, through a country not yet inhabited, to points where no great markets existed…

Even the lightly equipped traveller found a short journey no slight effort. Between Boston and New York was a tolerable highway, along which, thrice a week, light stage-coaches carried passengers and the mail, in three days. From New York a stage-coach started every week-day for Philadelphia, consuming the greater part of two days in the journey; and the road between Paulus Hook, the modern Jersey City, and Hackensack, was declared… to be as bad as any other part of the route between Maine and Georgia. South of Philadelphia the road was tolerable as far as Baltimore, but between Baltimore and the new city of Washington it meandered through forests; the driver chose the track which seemed least dangerous, and rejoiced if in wet seasons he reached Washington without miring or upsetting his wagon.

This is why, until fairly recently, each rural region and valley had its own accent. Given enough time, American would have produced hundreds of separate dialects and languages.

But people didn’t want isolation; they wanted progress, commerce, access to the outside world, opportunities and exotic products to grace their homes and their bodies. Isolation is a hardship, much like dieting or frugality. People don’t enjoy dieting or frugality – but they do enjoy the long-term results. Just as a person rejoices in his svelte physique, which he acquired through sacrifice, so too might a community rejoice in its distinctiveness, which it acquired through the sacrifice of isolation.

These days, people are encouraged to relinquish their differences. Cross-ethnic coupling is touted as a positive development. Neighborhoods, schools and workplaces are required by law to mix. Ironically, people who object to the destruction of their distinctiveness are accused of opposing “diversity.”

But when it comes to the animal kingdom, the powers that be are less ambiguous. With animals, true diversity is the law. Even a population of rats, about which there is some disagreement over whether it constitutes its own subspecies or not, can stand in the way of development and cost millions of dollars. We read, in a 2007 Fox news story:

A new study reinforces a tiny rodent’s reputation as the mouse that roared, and that could block millions of dollars in development in Wyoming and Colorado if it hangs on to its endangered status.

For the second time, a study has found the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is distinct from other types of mice and deserves federal protection…

Eighteen months ago the Interior Department announced it was withdrawing the Preble’s endangered status based on a study that concluded it was actually a more common subspecies of jumping mouse.

Developers cheered the decision, but after a chorus of complaints by other scientists and environmental groups, the decision was delayed and a new study was ordered.

Should human populations be treated the same as animal subspecies? One of the differences between animals and humans is that the former lack free choice – but when the government steps in and denies us our freedom of choice, by forcefully integrating us, by imposing its own favored cultural mores and dialect (through the corporate-owned media, with which it is symbiotic) and by importing hordes of foreigners, then we too lack free choice.

It might be argued that human diversity (biological and cultural) should be valued more than animal diversity. Human societies endured generations of deprivation as the price for their diversity. When humans suffer for something, the product of that suffering is given a higher premium. The fact that many soldiers died for our country is furnished as a reason to be more patriotic. The suffering of Jesus, and Christian martyrs, is used to instill piety among modern Christians. Jews recall the ultimate sacrifice of the ten martyrs twice a year in order to bolster our own commitment.

But this concept is not applicable to animals. We may value a thoroughbred, but not due to the suffering of its ancestors. There were no martyrs among the ancestors of the modern Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

Feel free to read my earlier post, “Of ducks and men“, for more on this.

I picked up a copy of “Oregon Jewish Life” magazine yesterday. It’s a free publication and it seems to be geared more toward Reform Jews. Naturally, it has a liberal bent. A recurring theme seems to be that traditional Judaism has always touted some of the values that today’s liberals support. For example, there’s an article about interfaith outreach to Muslims, a blurb about an “MLK Shabbat,” where “Beth Israel has collaborated with local African American communities… honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” and even a piece touting the virtues of “marriage freedom.” In this latter piece, a Portland teen (Duncan McAlpine Sennet) actually made the argument (in a “Torah” discourse no less) that since opponents of gay marriage cite the biblical definition of marriage “as the union between one man and one woman,” and yet we find Jacob marrying two women, therefore everybody should be able to marry whomsoever they love. Sennet was encouraged to share his flawed logic with the world and his video went viral.

It’s hard to decide whether to laugh or to cry. But two articles, in particular, caught my attention. One is titled “Should vegan be the new kosher?” In this column, Joseph Lieberman claims that:

A vegan lifestyle isn’t just a healthy choice for our bodies, it’s also an ethical choice that embodies the Jewish ideal of compassionately “healing the world” – tikkun olam.

For the record, “tikkun olam” does not mean “healing the world.” It means “fixing the world,” and refers to a totally different (kabbalistic) concept.

Lieberman goes on to claim that “eating vegan is like a mitzvah,” and he quotes the book “Judaism and Vegetarianism” by Richard Schwartz:

I think that eating meat or fish is a denial of all ideals, even of all religions. … How can we speak of right and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its blood? Every kind of killing seems to me savage and I find no justification for it.

In all fairness, Lieberman does point out that traditional Judaism requires the use of certain animal products, that “blood sacrifices were a major part of the Temple rituals.” But he goes on to imply that, in light of current mistreatment of livestock, even livestock destined for kosher slaughter, it no longer makes sense to eat meat.

The second article is called “Tu B’Shevat: New Year of the Trees.” Here we find Rich Geller implying that the Jewish new year for trees, which goes back to the times of the Mishnah, is intricately connected to environmentalism. He writes:

Tu B’Shevat is also an opportunity to teach kids to reduce, reuse and recycle. Go green and start composting if you don’t already.

There’s nothing unusual, or objectionable, about tying in traditional Jewish concepts with contemporary issues; this is a long-standing tradition. But when a pattern emerges where all these issues are liberal pet causes, it gives the impression that the starting point is Liberalism, not Judaism.

Reading this magazine reminds me of an article about the pope, written by my friend at diversity chronicle. That article reported that the pope had declared “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them.” But that article was satire. Unfortunately, this magazine is not.

I’d like to ask the editors of the Oregon Jewish Life magazine if there is any belief or practice at all, in traditional Judaism, that modern Liberalism would not agree with. Can they find even a single value, embraced by liberals today, that Judaism would frown upon? I think the answer would be “no.” In their minds, the Torah is but a tool for the advancement of whatever the liberal establishment deems worthy. For them, Judaism has been reduced to an “Amen machine.”

For what it’s worth, I agree with Duncan Sennet that gays should be allowed to pair off as they please, without interference from government. I agree with Joseph Lieberman that a vegan/vegetarian diet is a worthy goal (or at least that its adherents’ intentions are often noble), and that animals should not be made to needlessly suffer. I agree, overall, with the environmental goals of Rich Geller. What bothers me is how they slavishly follow every liberal cause, as if were the word of God – and how they try to force our ancestors to follow along as well. They rather remind me of the old Mormon practice of posthumous conversions.

It’s true that modern Liberalism was largely founded by Jews. It’s even possible that some of Liberalism’s tenets were based upon traditional Jewish ideas. But Liberalism soon took on a life of its own and became master – while Judaism became subordinate. If left-leaning organized Jewry has disdain for whites, it’s not due to any statement in the Talmud, rather it’s due to its slavish adherence to Liberalism (which preaches tolerance toward individual whites, but vile hatred toward whites as a group). Secular, and non-Orthodox observant Jews, give very little credence to Talmudic texts – unless they happen to agree with the Liberal narrative.

When a nation tries to embody everything that is good, then it ceases to be a nation. We don’t try to cook Italian cuisine so that it includes the flavors of Thai food, Japanese food and Polish food. We don’t try to encompass the qualities of rock, blues and country into our opera. We don’t attempt to incorporate the fashions of Shogun Japan, Renaissance Italy and late Czarist Russia into our tuxedos. So too should we not strive to claim that every contemporary popular idea is actually a part of Judaism.

The same is true of America. Politicians speak of “American values” – but I have yet to hear that term defined. I have not yet seen anybody give an example of an “American value” that is not also considered a universal one. For all these lofty words, shallowness and stupidity lay underneath.

For the first time in history, and likely the last, the first day of Hannukah falls on Thanksgiving. According to Livescience:

By Tia Ghose, Staff Writer

It’s a once in more than 70,000-year event: The first day of Hanukkah this year coincides with Thanksgiving.

As a result, Jews everywhere are gearing up for “Thanksgivukkah,” a mashup of Thanksgiving and the Jewish festival of lights. This lineup of the first day of Hanukkah with Thanksgiving is incredibly rare.

“That’s not going to happen again for thousands and thousands of years. No one knows exactly how long, because the calendars aren’t going up that high,” said Jason Miller, a rabbi in Michigan who blogs at rabbijason.com. “It’s something like 70,000 years,” assuming of course that America, the Jews and the human race are still around at that time.

If memory serves me right, the last time this happened, turkeys were still dinosaurs. Fire hadn’t even been discovered yet, so they couldn’t be cooked anyway; Jewish Neanderthals could only fantasize about latkes. We’ve come a long way since then.

The article goes on to explain:

Many calendars

The reason for this year’s rare alignment has to do with quirks of two calendars, the Gregorian and Jewish calendars. Much of the world follows the Gregorian calendar, which has a 365-day year based on the Earth’s orbit around the sun, with leap years every four years. The Gregorian calendar was implemented by Pope Gregory to keep Easter in line with the season it was originally celebrated in.

But the Jewish calendar, which was created more than 2,000 years ago, follows the waxing and waning of the moon. That calendar has 12 months of roughly 30 days each, which works out to a bit more than 354 days in a year. As a result, the Jewish year creeps earlier and earlier relative to the Gregorian calendar. But many Jewish holidays, such as Passover, are tied to seasons such as spring.

To keep holidays in line with their seasons, the Jewish calendar includes an entire extra month in seven of every 19 years. This year is a leap year, so Hanukkah and all of the other Jewish holidays came especially early in 2013. And Thanksgiving, which falls on the fourth Thursday in November, happened to come extra late this year, allowing for the convergence.

Because the extra month on the Jewish calendar will occur in 2014, Hanukkah will once again happen in December, Miller said.

“That also allows us to get Passover back in the spring,” Miller told LiveScience.

In reality, the Jewish calendar was implemented out of necessity. In days of yore, the Jewish court (Sandhedrin) would wait for witnesses to come forward, each month, to testify that they had seen the new moon. At that point, the court would declare a new month and word was sent out to all corners of Jewish habitation. As for the extra month required to keep the holidays in season, Jewfaq explains:

In ancient times, this month was added by observation: the Sanhedrin observed the conditions of the weather, the crops and the livestock, and if these were not sufficiently advanced to be considered “spring,” then the Sanhedrin inserted an additional month into the calendar to make sure that Pesach (Passover) would occur in the spring (it is, after all, referred to in the Torah as Chag he-Aviv, the Festival of Spring!).

Why did ancient Jews stop using witnesses to declare the new month? It was because of diversity. All was well as long as the Jewish population was homogenous and unified. But after the Babylonian Exile, when full-blooded Jews came into contact with the half-bloods (Samaritans) who had settled in the Land of Israel, tensions flared. From the Center for Online Jewish Studies:

The Samaritans were a mixed people, made up of Israelites who had not been exiled when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 722 B.C.E. and people of various foreign nationalities whom the Assyrians had resettled in the area in an attempt to ensure that Israel’s national aspirations could not again come to the fore. This mixed group had adopted a syncretistic form of Judaism that combined old northern traditions with those of the resettled nations. When work began on the Temple, the Samaritans approached the Jews to join in the project. The Judeans rejected the Samaritans because of their questionable descent.

In First Temple times it was possible for foreigners to join the Jewish people in an informal way by moving physically and socially into the land and adhering to its religion and laws. During the exile, Judaism had been transformed from a nationality which depended on a connection to the land and culture to a religious and ethnic community which depended upon descent. How else could Judaism have ensured its continuity when deprived of its homeland? The returning Jews from Babylonia could not accept the questionable genealogy of the Samaritans. On the other hand, there was not yet a system for religious conversion like that developed somewhat later on in the Second Temple period. Hence, there was no choice but to reject the Samaritans, even had they agreed to abandon their syncretistic practices. In response to their rejection, the Samaritans attempted, although with limited success, to influence the Persian authorities to halt the rebuilding of the Temple and to limit the powers of the priestly and temporal government of the Jews.

The Samaritans used various tricks in order to sabotage traditional Jewish life. One of them is described by My Jewish Learning:

Originally, there was not a set calendar for Jewish months. Instead, the Sanhedrin would declare a new month after receiving the testimony of two reliable witnesses reporting that they had seen the new moon. Then the message was spread throughout Israel and Babylonia via small fires on hilltops. When a new moon was announced, someone would go to the top of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem with a long pole of wood. He would set the end of his pole on fire and wave it around until he could see someone on another hilltop waving his own pole. The second person waved his pole until he could see a third person waving, and so on until the message reached Babylonia.

Eventually the Samaritans began lighting fires on hilltops in order to mislead the Jews, and so instead of fires, messengers were sent out from Jerusalem. By the later Amoraic period, a fixed calendar was set, and there was no longer any need for witnesses or messengers.

Due to the increased area of Jewish settlement, it became impractical to continue sending messengers in this way. The system of fires, had it not been abandoned, might have continued to function, at least for a while.

At first glance, having a calendar is a great convenience. It takes away the guessing game, removes the potential for abuse and allows people to plan ahead. On the other hand, something important was lost: There was no longer an intimate connection between the rabbinical authorities (the Sanhendrin) and the people. The institution of a calendar was a major step downward into the abyss of rigid ritual. It helped transform the Jewish people from a people of trust to a people of codification. The calendar was one of the first stages in the ossification of warm flesh and blood. No longer did people have to meet face to face in order to set the pace of national life. Now, all one had to do was consult the calendar.

Hanukkah is the anti-diversity Holiday. Hellenized Syrians had defiled the Temple and were attempting to stamp out Judaism among the Jews. The traditional story of Hanukkah, as it appears in Wikipedia, reads:

When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was looted and services stopped, Judaism was outlawed. In 167 BCE Antiochus ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. He banned brit milah (circumcision) and ordered pigs to be sacrificed at the altar of the temple (the sacrifice of pigs to the Greek gods was standard ritual practice in the Ancient Greek religion).[17]

Antiochus’s actions provoked a large-scale revolt. Mattityahu, a Jewish priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah led a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah became known as Yehuda HaMakabi (“Judah the Hammer”). By 166 BCE Mattathias had died, and Judah took his place as leader. By 165 BCE the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy was successful. The Temple was liberated and rededicated. The festival of Hanukkah was instituted to celebrate this event.[18] Judah ordered the Temple to be cleansed, a new altar to be built in place of the polluted one and new holy vessels to be made. According to the Talmud, unadulterated and undefiled pure olive oil with the seal of the kohen gadol (high priest) was needed for the menorah in the Temple, which was required to burn throughout the night every night…

The oil needed to be pure, the Temple needed to be purified and the nation needed to be purged of the cultural imperialism that had tainted it. Of course, all this is relative; there is no such thing as a “pure culture” and, as a matter of fact, they even could have used olive oil that was less than pure. But the concept behind Hanukkah is to take back the culture that is ours, that our enemies would extinguish if given the chance.

Perhaps it’s time that America had it’s own Hanukkah.

The Seattle Times recently reported:

Saying it has an obligation to prepare students for a more global society, the University of Washington will require undergrads to complete a course in some area of diversity — economic, cultural or political — before they can graduate.

The new policy, initiated by a group of mostly minority students, followed three failed attempts over the past 22 years to introduce changes meant to ensure that all graduating students know a little more about other cultures and people who differ from them than they did when they first arrived.

It’s sad when an official cult spreads its tentacles around the globe, eating up precious resources and ruining lives in the process. But it’s even more sad when young people buy into the propaganda and become pawns for the rich and powerful.

Not that I feel sorry for the “mostly minority students” who spearheaded the drive to require diversity training for graduation at their university. It’s a feather in their hats that they’re sure to profit from for decades. Call me naive, but I can’t help feeling that some of them, maybe most, actually believe they’re doing a good turn for the world. But within their lifetimes, “diversity training” will mean little more than an official cry of “Can’t we all just get along?” This cry will likely fall on deaf ears as a multitude of interest groups, ethnic, racial and religious, vie for their share of an ever-shrinking pie.

If we all were to suddenly get along, it would not bode well for the top diversicrats who pull the strings. It would be bad news for organizations such as the SPLC or the ADL. Their livelihoods depend on manufactured “hate.” They thrive on fear and their witch hunts for “racists”, “homophobes” or “Islamophobes” never cease. “Diversity” is an industry and, just like big tobacco (allegedly) or McDonalds, it feeds on our impressionable young.

When a young person first gets tangled up in the lies of the diversity cult, he is a victim. But as he grows older, in ever darker shades of an evil continuum, he becomes a perpetrator. As in the movie The Body Snatchers, innocent people are transformed into soulless aliens.

I love children. I take great pleasure in their innocent laughter and play. It pains me to ponder them being reduced to little more than units of production to be fed into the insatiable maw of the diversity industry.

Some Americans are under the impression that there are vast regions, in Peru, where Spanish is not spoken. Where indigenous languages reign supreme. From what I’ve seen, this is not the case.

While in Cusco, in the heart of the so-called Quechua speaking region, what I saw was a dying language. Only the older people speak it on a regular basis. My queries confirmed that they generally make little or no attempt to teach it to the younger generation. When I asked a street vendor if he spoke Quechua, he replied “yes” and agreed to speak some in front of my camera. What I got was a mixture of maybe 70% Spanish and 30% Quechua. I may post it on YouTube and let viewers decide. A young lady, who works at the hostel I stayed at, invited myself and another man to her home for lunch. She knew I might buy an alpaca sweater from her (I did). She told me that she understands some Quechua; her parents used it mainly to keep secrets from her, much as older Jewish immigrants used Yiddish for subjects they didn’t want their kids to understand. Her older brother did speak it, but he admitted that he makes no effort to teach it to his own daughter. Getting the father to speak Quechua for my camera was like pulling teeth. He simply could not fathom why I would want him to do so if I didn’t understand it. I asked him if he enjoys American music and he said “yes.” I asked him how he could possibly appreciate it if he couldn’t understand the words. In the end, he acquiesced.

When I brought up the obvious fact that such a generational disconnect means their language, an important part of their heritage, was dying, I got the standard answer: Out in the country, everybody speaks it – even children. You’ll get the same answer everywhere a language is disappearing. As a matter of fact, I was out in the country (somewhere in the Sacred Valley) shortly thereafter. A young girl, dressed in traditional garb, stood with her sheep in order to get money from tourists. I asked her if she spoke Quechua and she replied “no.”

While in Mollendo, a teenage boy approached me and asked where I was from. Then he asked which languages I spoke and told me he speaks Spanish and Quechua. So young speakers are out there and there is still some hope for Quechua. Several indigenous languages, included Quechua and Aymara, are considered official languages in Peru. Officially, the government is concerned about their preservation. It recognizes them as important parts of Peruvian heritage. Toward this end, they are taught in schools. But experience has shown that teaching a language in schools will not save it from extinction. Look at Gaelic in Ireland. They teach it in schools there – but how many Irish actually speak it? My guess is that teaching it in schools can be counterproductive; it makes kids look at it as more of a burden than a treasure. If the government were serious about protecting Quechua, the children would be actually taught in it, not just about it. Street signs would have Quechua alongside Spanish. Sort of like they do in Wales with Welch.

Some Peruvian parents give their children Quechua names. Some musicians sing in Quechua. I bought a couple of cds that consist of such songs. But all you hear on the radio is Spanish. I’m sure they have programs in native languages, but you have to know how to find them and they don’t seem to be very popular.

I was going to visit Puno, where Aymara is supposedly widely spoken. Illness prevented me from doing so. But I did hear Aymara spoken while on the bus from Tacna to Arica, Chile. Some middle-aged women were speaking it right beside me. I get the impression that quite a few people still speak it here in the far south, probably due to the relative isolation.

There are many small villages in the Amazon jungle outside Iquitos. I stayed in one called Mishana. I also passed through a couple more. Each time I asked the locals if they spoke any language other than Spanish. The answer was along the lines of: “We’re mestizos here and we speak only Spanish. To hear native languages, you must travel very far out.” It was interesting that even the local guides did not know this; they’d never even bothered to ask.

I met a young Chilean man at my hostel here in Tacna. He’s an anthropologist who specializes in indigenous cultures. He tells me there’s an upsurge in native identity, and that young people are more interested in their roots. That’s all fine and good – except that human sacrifice has continued to be a problem in one or two places, and the authorities had to arrest a shaman. Can indigenous peoples maintain their identities in a positive way? Should they even try? I think they should. If they don’t, they’ll default to “brown nigger” status and become just another blight upon humanity. But ultimately the choice is their’s.

I came across an article* by Jay Ambrose in today’s Columbian newspaper titled “Super Bowl exemplifies some vital American virtues”. I happened to be with a Filipino friend and wondered out loud which virtues Ambrose would list that are specifically American.

The article describes the game thusly:

In fact, I think the whole affair – patriotic prelude, the football game itself, crowd fervor, technological wizardry, an advertising onslaught, the halftime extravaganza and more – speaks to a remarkable American energy, even a certain joyfulness…

And the frivolity did have touches of unifying seriousness, the most moving of which was the wondrous singing of “America the Beautiful” by a chorus of 26 children from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn…

Football… (is) a game of psychological ups and downs that make a difference, of skill and character and, believe it or not, of intellect and must consider strategies, counter-strategies and ingenious tactics…

He goes on to mention the power outage, Beyonce’s performance, the fact that the opposing coaches were brothers. But, as I read each “American virtue,” I said to my Filipino friend, “surely they don’t possess that particular virtue in the Philippines, do they?”  He shocked me by revealing that all these virtues exist in the Philippines as well.  So I wondered if the Filipinos learned patriotism, musical talent, technology and togetherness from the Americans. I became confused trying to fathom how new immigrants, from all corners of the world, magically acquire these virtues upon arrival in America. I marvel at the thought that, had those immigrants ended up in other lands instead, they would have had to make due with whatever second-rate virtues they have in those lands.

I’d always wondered why it is that national governments are so eager to conquer new lands (and hold on to land they’ve already got). Now I know: It’s to spread their virtues. As land falls under their sway, their special virtues are bestowed upon that land. These virtues are then, by some unknown mechanism, transferred to those who live on that land. Amazing!

I almost asked my Filipino friend why his people were so determined to free themselves from American rule. Think of all the virtue they gave up on by pursuing independence. They could have become like Puerto Rico; all its citizens are Americans. As such, they share our virtues.

I feel so fortunate to have been born in the United States of America. Had I been born just a couple hundred miles south, in Mexico, I would have had to cross the Rio Grande to get my virtues.

On second thought, maybe I would have been better off in Mexico. Mexico has the virtue of maintaining its own specific culture while the U.S. has been busy taking a little from here and a little from there, haphazardly mixing them together and hoping for the best. I remember, as a child, concocting my own cereal like that. It was so bad even the dog wouldn’t eat it.

*Currently the article seems to appear only in the printed version.

In the aftermath of the horrific murders in Newtown, Connecticut, a lot of questions are being asked. Here are some pointed questions that deserve attention:

1)  Have mass-murders becoming more frequent in recent years?

The general consensus seems to be “yes”. According to Psychology Today:

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that’s very good news, there’s a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

If such killings have become more common, we should be asking: What has changed over the last few decades? We’ll deal with this later.

The same article states, “As for demographics, the mass murderer is typically a white male.” And this brings us to our next question.

2) Are most mass-murderers, in the U.S., white males?

The above Psychology Today article links to another article from goodmenproject. In that article, Christian Piatt quotes David Lohr:

Typical mass murderers are usually conservative, middle-aged, white males from relatively stable, lower-to-middle-class backgrounds.

Piatt goes on to consider factors that could cause white males to be more  inclined to this kind of violence. He lists: “Hate group” propaganda, role models such as Hitler and Stalin, Isolation, access to weapons, shock and awe and hopelessness. I’ll leave it for others to debate the details of his claims, but I will point out that “hate group propaganda” is extremely hard to come by except on the internet, and even there anti-white hate groups predominate. Furthermore, if any sort of pro-white literature were behind the shootings, how do we explain that the vast majority of victims are white? As for role models, I’ll point out that for every negative white male role model, there are dozens of positive ones. If anybody has easier access to weapons, it’s ghetto blacks and Hispanics.

But to the question, are most American mass murderers white males? Apparently so – but so are most American males in general. The trend is to take a quick look at mass murderers, conclude that most of them are white males, and then assume that this means white males are more likely to be mass murderers. This is faulty thinking.

Motherjones has a comprehensive analysis of the mass murders that have occurred in the U.S. since 1982. They consider a total of 62 mass murders in their analysis and write:

The killers: Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old.

That comes out to about 71% of them being white males. Assuming that the male proclivity for violence is universal across races, this figure is roughly what we would expect if whites were as likely to be mass murderers as any other race. In other words, white males are no more likely to be mass murderers than other males. So all of the soul-searching about white males supposed higher risk for such crimes is for naught. Well… almost for naught. Whites are less likely to commit violent crimes than blacks or Hispanics – but, when it comes to mass killings, they are just as likely. So it’s all relative; compared to overall rates of murder, assault and rape, whites are more likely to be the culprits. But, outside of this context, no more so than anybody else.

3)  Can we honestly blame the proliferation of guns?

In a nutshell, the answer is “no”. Attempts have been made, and debunked, to claim that guns were uncommon in early America. As a matter of fact, guns have always been an important part of American culture. A glance at a “homicide by firearm versus gun ownership” table at wikipedia doesn’t seem to show much correlation between gun ownership and homicide. Even if it did, the argument can be made that more dangerous environments prompt more people to own firearms for protection. I think it’s more likely that the main contributors to such violence are 1) Ethnic diversity and the conflict it entails 2) Political factors such as the War on Drugs 3) Cultural factors such as alcohol us and religion and 4) Racial composition of the population in question.

Each time there is a mass shooting, the reaction is predictable. “Gun-control” advocates demand more “common-sense” gun laws and gun rights advocates respond that, had a responsible person been present at the time of the shooting, he could have saved many lives. Gun control advocates seem to believe that there should be an inverse relationship between the number of people killed by firearms and the gun rights we enjoy. According to them, the more gun murders there are, the more laws should be passed to restrict the ownership of guns. This is like saying, “The more dangerous your neighborhood is, the less right you have to defend yourself and your loved ones.”

There is little doubt that politicians will feel the pressure to “do something”. Obama will take advantage of the recent mass murder and advance his anti-gun agenda. It almost makes me wonder if Adam Lanza was working for Obama. It’s almost too convenient. Then again, it was only a matter of time before a tragedy like this happened.

4) In what ways has America changed, since 1982, that might have brought about the increase in mass killings?

How has America changed? Let’s list the ways:

a) Technology has advanced. We now have cell phones, flat-screen T.V.s, personal computers and digital cameras. According to the Motherjones article cited above, 1982 was the “magic year” when mass killing really took off. Getting back to Christian Piatt’s list of why white men are more likely to be mass killers, one of the items was “isolation” and, to be fair, 1982 was the year that the internet protocol, TCP-IP was standardized. While there can be little doubt that the internet has contributed to social isolation for some people, it didn’t really take off until the late 1980′s and early 1990′s. I doubt there were any young white men wasting away on the internet in their mother’s basements in 1982.

Can a society advance technologically without experiencing an increase in violent crime? If Japan can do it, why can’t we? I think that, while technological advancement may contribute to violent crime, we cannot honestly point to it as playing the decisive role.

b) Our population has vastly increased. Obviously, the population of the U.S. has been increasing every year for a long time. This increase has strained our infrastructure, altered our way of life and put pressure on ecosystems. But there was no spike in population increase in the early 1980′s. Our population was steadily increasing at about two million per year. While it’s possible that we reached some sort of threshold in those years, where something in the human brain snaps and human life loses some of its value, I’m not aware of any such theory. Two of the most densely populated regions of the world are relatively safe: Hong Kong and Malta. Japan is another example.

c) We have become more “diverse.” A USAToday article sums it up:

The number of nearly all-white communities has plummeted since 1980, dramatic evidence that the nation’s growing racial and ethnic diversity has spread far beyond large metropolitan centers into smaller towns and rural parts of the heartland, new research shows.

Communities where whites are the majority are still the norm (82.6%), but those where they dominate are gradually disappearing, according to an analysis of Census data by Penn State‘s Population Research Institute. In 1980, about two-thirds of all places were at least 90% white. By 2010, only a third were. The number of places where no group is a majority has more than quintupled.

“This trend is pretty geographically pervasive, and even residents of small towns and rural areas are encountering diversity face to face,” says Barrett Lee, Penn State sociologist and demographer and lead author of the study released today. “It’s not something they just read about in the newspapers anymore.”

Indeed, the increase in the non-white population is probably the most visible difference between the America of 1980 and the America of today. This is a direct result of the 1965 immigration act and lax border control. It was whites who created this country, and it had belonged to whites, for the most part, until the great push for “diversity”, which defined itself early on with forced busing. We read, in Wikipedia:

In the 1970s and 1980s, under federal court supervision, many school districts implemented mandatory busing plans within their district. A few of these plans are still in use today…

I was a victim of forced busing back in the late 1970′s. I wrote about my experiences here. Even for those white youngsters who didn’t experience the horrors of forced busing directly, the cultural impact was immense. Just as Native American children were taken from their native culture, and introduced to an alien culture, so too were white children forced into close proximity with inner-city blacks. The difference being that there was little protection, for the white children, from the brutality of the black ghetto. Safety was not a priority. “Diversity” was the priority.

The loss of one’s culture has many ramifications. Among them are a loss of self-esteem, higher rates of suicide and higher rates of substance abuse (including alcohol and tobacco). Whites suffer from all these at higher rates. It’s not much of a stretch to view the increasing incidence of mass murders as a symptom of a wider mental/social illness. It’s not far-fetched to say that the sense of loss, persecution and alienation that accompanies the overwhelming drive for “diversity” (AKA “fewer white males”) can trigger violent reactions in a few. These violent reactions do not make white males more dangerous than non-white males, but they may make them as dangerous in some circumstances.

Somehow I got signed up for the “Opposing Views” newsletter. I don’t know how; it just happened. “Opposing Views” appears to have a leftist bias, but they do have interesting articles once in a while, so I never unsubscribed.

Here’s a tidbit from the latest Opposing Views newsletter:

Kindergarten isn’t the place parents assume their kids will get their first reality check. It’s usually where kids can believe in magic and Santa and his elves and reindeer — where imagination is fostered and encouraged.

This wasn’t so for a Texas kindergarten teacher, whose only “dashing through the snow” this year was dashing the hopes and breaking the hearts of her 5-year-old students by telling them Santa isn’t real.

The parents of a 5-year-old girl received the unexpected news when their daughter came home from school one day and asked if Santa is real. (If any kids are reading this, it’s a dumb question. Of course, he is.)…

The mother, Susan Tietz Gammage, said she emailed the principal of the school to complain about the incident, who responded that he was “horrified” about the anti-Santa statements and that the teacher has been reprimanded and “given tools” to deal with the situation for following years.

So, if a teacher was reprimanded for telling her students (they are students, aren’t they?) the truth about Santa Claus, does this mean she’s not supposed to teach them the truth? Aren’t those kids at school (kindergarten is school, isn’t it?) to learn? Let me hastily add that I don’t believe it’s good form for a teacher to go out of her way to destroy his student’s religious faith, whatever it may be. There must be a list of topics the teacher is supposed to teach his students – and the myth of Santa Claus surely isn’t on that list. But if the subject just happens to come up, and if one of the children happens to ask about it, then I would expect the teacher to tell him the truth. Education is about the truth.

Those parents who feel strongly about their children believing in Santa Claus should send them to a religious school.

I couldn’t help but notice the phrase “anti-Santa”. When we promote race-realist concepts, concepts that are strongly supported by the latest science, we are accused of being “anti-black” or “anti people-of-color.” Stating a fact does not make somebody anti anything. I will qualify this by stating that if the teacher went out of her way to destroy the children’s belief in Santa, then this would mean she’s against the playful, and innocent, childhood concept of Santa Claus. In the same way, if I went door to door in a Mormon neighborhood and argued against the Book of Mormon, this would probably mean I’m anti-Mormon. But if the subject came up and I stated the truth about it, then all it means is I’m stating the truth.

Childhood innocence is up to parents to protect and gradually replace with wisdom and responsibility. Discovering the truth about Santa Claus is a lot like finding out about sex. If the parents introduce it with a smile, a hug, playfulness and love, then there is nothing traumatic about it at all – even if the child has already had his eyes opened by another and approaches his parents with questions (as in the above article). If the parents laugh a silly laugh, give the child an affectionate pinch on the cheek, and explain it in terms he can understand, then all is well. But if the parents show anger or stress, the child will pick up on this and become traumatized. There is very little a teacher can do, short of actual abuse, that a parent can’t make right. In fact, a teacher’s mistakes are often great parenting opportunities.

It’s a pity so many children attend kindergarten. Because of kindergarten, the most formative years are taken from the parents and given to strangers. It’s a pity because a parent’s main priority in life should be to raise his own child. It appears that public education has caused too many parents to forget the skill of parenting, as we can see from the parental reactions in the above story.

Truth be told, in many cases both parents are forced to work so that they can afford a house in a safe neighborhood. With both parents working, they have little choice but to avail themselves of public schools. It’s a cruel irony that they are forced to send their children to schools where the “wonders of diversity” are pounded into their heads – the same diversity that forced both parents to work in order to escape it, thus rendering them unable to home-school and making it more difficult to teach their children the dangers of diversity. At the same time, a big chunk of their earnings is expropriated in order to perpetuate, and expand, this diversity. It’s diabolical.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers