A Note of Appreciation

By Dr. D

The Nov. 2nd US elections are largely complete now, although some returns are still being received from Alaska and other remote locations. There will also be recounts in some locations, although at this point, I have not heard of too many requests for recounts which is good. In almost all cases, we now have a clearly defined winner for each race.

This was a race of major importance, in many regards the very last opportunity to right the ship of state of the USA. Sarah and many of you have given your support and prayers to the success of that effort, and I want to tell you how very much that is appreciated. We have been given a limited victory in this battle. Many good, new people will be sent to Congress, names you have not previously heard, who will begin to change the way things are done there. Among these are Lt. Col. Allan West from Florida and Rand Paul from Kentucky (son of Ron Paul). Regrettably, many evil people will retain their seats in Congress such as Nancy Pelosi (California), Harry Reid (Nevada), Charles Shulmer (NY), and Barney Frank (Mass.) The Republican Party now has solid control of the House of Representatives where all finance bill must originate, so we can hope to see the socialist programs of Obama simply starved for lack of funding. The Senate is almost evenly divided, with the Democrats having a very slight edge.

One of the greatest disappointments, to me personally, is the Arizona House of Representative District 7 race. The incumbent is Raul Grijalva, a nationalized citizen, originally from mexico, and the challenger is Ruth McClung, an Anglo physicist. Grijalva has been described as the best Congressman that mexico has for many years. It looks like Grijalva will win 49/46% after the Dems dumped all kinds of money into the district to prop him up. What a shame! This is right on the border with mexico!

California, Illinois, and NY are on the route to fiscal suicide, and their choices for governor simply push that process along. It is baffling to see any state act in this manner, but it shows their own commitment to the illusions of socialism and the belief that there will always be someone to bail them out.

Without question, the TEA Party movement was the big factor in this whole election that changed everything. Had there been no TEA Party, it would have been for the most part a sleeper and there would have been no big changes. But the TEA Party appeared and shook the foundations, and it is going to continue to do so. In a number of cases, TEA Party candidates won; in other cases, the incumbents had to work mightily to stave off the efforts of TEA Party candidates, something they normally would not have expected. The race for 2012 has begun today, and the TEA Party will be a major force in shaping that race to be sure.

I want to that everyone who has supported the return to Constitutional government in the USA. We are not there, but we are beginning a turn in that direction. Your support and prayers are much appreciated. The spirit of America has been tarnished, but it has not been completely dulled and lost. It will shine again by the grace of God Almighty.

Dr. D

How Should We View the Jews?

By Dr.D

One of the questions that arises repeatedly among those of us in the West is “how should we view the Jews?” Within ourselves, this is one of our most divisive questions, causing much internal strife within Western civilization today. There are so many ways to look at the Jews, that it becomes at times a bewildering task to sort them all out. For example, we can say, “the Jews are, taken all together, only a handful of people, scattered across the face of the earth, and persecuted in many places. How can we have anything but pity for the Jews?” At the other extreme, there are many (besides the muzlims) who say, “the Jews are the source of all of the problems of mankind; get rid of the Jews, and the world will be a better place.” In this latter camp are the proponents of the famous publication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, purporting to be the evil plans of the Jews. In the first group, we find most evangelical Christians, who say things like, “Jesus was a Jew, so how can we possibly think evil of the Jews?”

All of us who live in Western society enjoy the benefits of a Judeo–Christian heritage, the direct result of the development of Christendom in Europe over the past two millennia. This is true for non–Christians as well as for Christians in Western society, because this is the basis for our civil law, our customs, every aspect of our culture is grown out of this background. In order to have a basis for an opinion about how we should view the Jews, we should first know something about them.

Click Link below:

Dr.D's analysis continues at Sarah: Maid of Albion II

COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD ARE NOW CLOSED

_____________
More comments on Sarah M0A II

Sad Thoughts on American Independence Day 2010

By Dr. D

As I write this, it is the afternoon of July 4th, 2020, American Independence Day once again. I have seen many such celebrations come and go, and there is a definite change that has taken place over the years.

When I was very young, the US was embroiled in WW II, and Independence Day was observed with a sort of grim determination, reminding everyone that we were at war. It was a war that had to be won, we simply could not afford to loose that war. That war was won, and the Allies began the process of rebuilding themselves and the conquered nations of the Axis as well. Almost immediately they found themselves in the Cold War, the seemingly endless battle of wits with the Soviet Union and Red China. There was the idea that communism must be physically “contained.” This led to the Korean War, and later to the Vietnamese War.

Attitudes toward support for war were changing in the US throughout this period. During WW II, as far as I can tell, there was 100% support for the war effort. I am unable to find anyone who dissented, although people tell me that there were some. They must have been very few in number. By the time of the Korean War, Americans were war weary, and it was harder to generate support. Even so, they went, and there was very little objection or lack of support. I was personally familiar with a number of young men who were sacrificed to this war.

When the Vietnam War came around, there was much less support for the war. The way that American involvement was begun was considered by many to be illegitimate, with no clear entry point, but by having Americans simply serving as field advisors to the South Vietnamese Army who gradually got the US sucked into the battle. There was much question about why America should be involved, what US interests were in this area, and just why America should be expending lives there. Particularly on college campuses, the war was rather soundly rejected, and those who supported it were ostracized for their support. It was not seen as a matter of patriotism to support the Vietnamese War, but as simply war mongering. Of course, many of those doing the ostracizing were not very clear on the concept of patriotism either.

The military draft was ended and an all volunteer military was created which was supposed to solve many problems. Perhaps it did solve some, but it meant that the military now tended to come primarily from the segments of society that were otherwise unable to get ahead in life. They did put in place some educational requirements, but they have tended to look the other way on those requirements at times when recruitments have been difficult to achieve. This has led to a surge in number of minorities and women in the military, neither of them being good for the long term effectiveness of the military. This has been the US military that operated in Desert Storm in Kuwait in the early 1990s and again now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Throughout this whole period, American education has been under a process of transformation, beginning in the 1960s. Prior to that time, American education had been heavily fact based, focusing the attainment of necessary skills and reasoning ability, with rather tight discipline in the school classrooms. This is not to imply that students were beaten or abused, but there was no foolishness in class; school was about learning, not acting out fantasies. There was little if any concern for “social promotion.” One great advantage, however, was that there were no special needs children in the classroom; they were provided for in separate facilities.

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing today, there was a move to integrate all children into the classroom, including the most disabled and disruptive right along with the well behaved and advanced students. This was thought to be “fair,” in the sense that it taught each of the students to get along with all of the others, both brighter and not so bright as themselves. The fact that it played havoc with the learning process was just passed over lightly. There were many other innovations in the way mathematics would be taught, Marxism would be worked into the curriculum through social studies and several other places, the study of traditional English literature would be gradually discarded in favor of contemporary authors with a Marxist flavor, etc.

One particularly critical area is that of history that would be gradually re–written to completely re–invent the history of our nation. Instead of the glorious true history of a modern nation carved from the wilderness which I was taught, today’s young people are taught that the nation was well developed already by peaceful, nature–loving native peoples who were slaughtered like animals at a packing house. With regard to the native American Indians, the truth is that many were killed fighting the white man just as they had traditionally fought among themselves. They were nomadic peoples, with the exception of the pueblo Indians, and they did little or nothing to develop North America. This is why, even as late as the early 20th century, there was new land to be broken, arable land that had never been plowed. The America built by white people has provided unparalleled opportunity for all of the people of North America, including the native American Indians and the American Blacks. What is taught, however, is that America is a land of oppression for these peoples, a place where they continue to suffer. This is true, to some extent, because they have been given the opportunity and encouraged by some to develop a mentality of entitlement, rather than seize the opportunity to work and achieve. Those who have worked have done well, but those who have felt entitled do suffer because there are never enough government handouts to satisfy them.

So our history has been corrupted in the mind of our young people, and many of our young people even disavow their own history. Too many of them do not even begin to know it. One of the popular late night comics, Jay Leno, has demonstrated this in a devastating way with some public interviews shown in this video: http://tinyurl.com/28e3cto

As Leno’s video shows, the minorities do not know American history, with the exception of the older black man. But even the white people do not know it either. These people with no sense of the history of this country certainly cannot claim any real sense of ownership of the country. It seems likely that this is why they have no objection to the vast hoards of illegal aliens streaming across the southern boarder. For these people, those aliens are not taking anything that belongs to them. These people do not see that they have a stake in America. America has never really belonged to these people at all.

Being much older, I do not see it in that way. I know where my family started out in the western Carolinas in the late 1700s, worked their way across Tennessee and Alabama in the early 1800s, and eventually wound up in south Texas by the time the Civil War ended. I know that my great–grandfather was a Superintendent on the King Ranch in south Texas and I know where my grandfather farmed and worked for the railroad. I have tried to pass this sense of ownership on to my children, the idea that we are Americans because our people came to this land and helped to build it into what it is today. Our blood is in this soil, and our bones will be in it some day soon. This is our land; it belongs to no one else.

The evidence seems to be that we are losing this land simply because we have not passed on the idea that it is ours. We have not taught the true history of America, but have allowed a pack of lies to be taught instead. We have not instilled a sense of ownership in our people, an understanding that it is up to each and every one of us to maintain this country. Our people think of the country as belonging to “them” and that everything is controlled by “them.” They fail to realize that “them” is actually “us,” that we the people are the ones who control this country. So they have no sense of ownership, so sense of wanting to protect what is their own. This country belongs to “them.” If we cannot turn this around, we have lost the battle.

Thinking Rationally About Immigration

By Dr. D

Who should be admitted to live in our countries? We are told often how much immigrants contribute to our countries, both economically and culturally. We all hear the old saw about, “we are a nation of immigrants,” which is truly ludicrous in the UK but less so in other nations of the Anglosphere. We are told that we have a positive need for immigrants, even though our eyes and common sense tell us otherwise. Finally, we are sent on guilt trips, saying that we have a moral obligation to accept immigrants.

In a recent article by Johann Hari in The Independent titled “Islamists, their victims, and hypocrisy,” some aspects of this question are examined . In his article, Hari discusses the cases of two recent applications for asylum in the UK that have rejected, and two known Pakistani al–Qa’ida members who are going to be allowed to remain in the UK. One asylum application refused is from a young lesbian (age 27) in Iran who fears for her life and thought she should be allowed to come to the UK where she could live freely. The second refused asylum application is from a 29 year old Pakistani man who has written atheist tracts online, and now fears for his life in Pakistan. He thinks he should be allowed to come to the UK where he can be free to pursue his atheism. Each of those refused were told to stay where they were and “live discrete lives.” Hari says that the trial that determined that the two al–Qa’ida members were such was “a Kafka–trial” where the defendants were not allowed to hear the evidence against them. This seems like a strange allegation to level at a trial that the defendants essentially won, event though they were convicted. They seem to have achieved all substantive goals, so I’m not sure what more was wanted.

Hari then goes on to make a strong argument that, when people in the West deal justly and mercifully with Muslims, it has a far bigger impact on them than any other way we might deal with them. Somehow, he has shifted the argument to be about whether to torture or not, which really is not the same question as whether to admit immigrants or not, but in Hari’s mind, it seems to be the same. And then he comes to his closing paragraph, which I quote:

Brave, bold voices like Kiana and Amit’s do more to undermine Islamic fundamentalism than a thousand bomber–planes that only vindicate the Bin Laden narrative for so many. By sending these remarkable dissidents to die, we aren’t only betraying them – we are endangering ourselves.

It is a nice summation of his argument, and it has some truth in it, but we need to examine it further. (Kiana and Amit were the two who were refuse entry into the UK.) These two people are definitely the products of their own societies. They have taken their stands (lesbianism, atheism) in defiance of their societies of their own free will. I do not for a moment wish to deny them that choice, but I do wish to emphasize that it is their choice, and that their choice has consequences that are their own to bear. Those consequences should not become the burden of anyone else, and most especially not of any other nation.

With respect to Hari’s contention that they will do so much more good if they live, I have to say that they will do the most good if they live in their own societies, rather than hiding in the safety of the West. They should not be in the West, creating ill will for us with the Muslim world, but rather they should be in the Muslim world working reform there. The only way the Muslim world will change is when Muslims make that change; it will not happen from the outside. How many Muslims do you think Ayaan Hirsi reaches?

It is right that these people were denied entry into the UK; they made choices and they must live with the consequences of those choices. It would also be right, if it has been correctly determined that the other two are truly members of al–Qa’ida, which was a choice on their part, to face the consequences of that choice. Life is full of choices, and we do not get to start over, but rather we have to continue to play our hand, based on our previous choices, including mistakes.

But back to the original question, who should be admitted to live in our countries? Long ago, when more rational thinking prevailed on all subjects, and particularly on matters of national sovereignty, nations made decisions about whom to admit as immigrants on the basis of the interests of the host nation. Generally speaking, the host nation considered the assets that the would–be immigrant would bring to the host nation in terms of wealth, knowledge, various skills, and some times simply brute force manpower. But it was the needs of the host nation that determined whether the immigrant was accepted, not the desires of the immigrant.

I am sure that the word refugee has been in the English language for a very long time, but I think it really began to have major significance after WW I. There were large number of dislocated people in Europe, more than ever before, with the breakup of the Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire. All of this expanded many fold after WW II with more displaced people all over the world. The idea of refugees has be employed to play on Christian sympathies to permanently accept people from all over the world into our nations, bringing completely misfit elements into our societies. This continues apace today at an accelerating rate today with many coming from Africa and the Middle East. I think it is necessary to ask the question, “are these people truly refugees, or are they time bombs, waiting to explode?”

There are parts of the world where on–going warfare has been the norm forever. This is true in parts of Africa and elsewhere. If you pluck someone up from there, it is probably correct to call that person a “refugee” in some sense. But moving those people somewhere else in the world does not make them peaceful, civilized people, it just moves the war somewhere else. We have seen this with the large numbers of Somalis transported to Minnesota who are now terrorizing the people of Minneapolis–St. Paul just like they were back in Somalia. They did not all become Americans of Swedish and Norwegian descent when they landed in Minnesota, strange to say, and Garrison Kellior does not know what to say about them being the good liberal that he is.

Since the earliest colonial days in America, people have immigrated to the US. For a long time, there were no restrictions at all on who could come, but eventually laws were passed limiting the number who could come each year from each country. At almost any point along either the northern or southern border of the US, you can literally simply walk across the border; there are no physical barriers at all in most places. For most of our history, there has been no problem, with either of our neighbors, and there is still no problem with Canada. Mexico is a different matter, however.

Mexico has vast internal problems, and rather than seek to solve their own problems, their solution has been to send much of their population to the US to earn money to send back to Mexico. This has been going on for at least forty years with the connivance of the US government as well. The US government has simply stopped enforcing the immigration laws, although the laws remain on the books. As a consequence, many thousands of Mexicans stream into the US illegally every day. They often come in as “mules” carrying illegal drugs, but then go on to take low skill jobs at low wages that are often paid in cash. In most cases, no taxes are paid on these wages, and it is an entirely off the record transaction. Much of the money is sent back to Mexico by wire transfer. They live on food stamps and various types of welfare in many cases, they use the hospital emergency rooms for all of their healthcare needs (they cannot be turned away there, even if they say they cannot pay), they often turn to thievery, rape, and murder. Even those that “succeed” in the sense that they find stable employment and establish a home, usually do not learn English and develop no loyalty at all to the US, always thinking of themselves only as Mexicans even to the third and fourth generations.

Some will have heard of the new Arizona immigration law that has caused quite a furor. I have read the whole law, all seventeen pages of it. It is very bland reading, and it simply says, in very plain English, that local law enforcement is authorized and indeed required to enforce the federal immigration law. It does not permit any of the undue stops or searches that people are so upset about, indeed they are prohibited. People say, “but it might be enforced that way.” Well, yes, a policeman might stop you any time and mistreat you, but how often does it happen? There are severe penalties for the policeman that does such things. The state of Arizona is simply trying to protect its people, to do the job that the federal government has long neglected to do. The citizens of Arizona have been subject to the most amazing dangers and harassments and this is long overdue.

With regard to the central question of whom should be admitted to our countries, I would like to adduce two principal statements:

1. We should only admit those who bring a positive benefit to the host country. There is no obligation to admit anyone at anytime, no matter what their pleading may be. Life is unfair, we have to live the life we are given.

2. The people of the third world, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, etc., must all stay where they are and fix their own broken societies. Anglo–Saxons cannot do it for them. They would not accept it if we tried, and we should not feel that we have any obligation to try. This does not mean that we should not be willing to help in moderation, but the prime responsibility rest squarely with them. We discourage them from doing this most necessary task if we shelter them in our countries.