For once...

Remember the story last November of the Texas man, Joe Horn, who shot two illegal alien burglars in his yard?
Good news: he's been no-billed. Read it here:
Grand jury clears Joe Horn in controversial Pasadena shootings

... Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, first heard the news in a phone call from 11 News.

"I'm sure Joe will be delighted," Lambright said. "I think the evidence showed that Joe was, in fact, within his legal rights to do what he did. He didn't want to do it, but he didn't have any other alternative."

Lambright said Horn still feels awful about the shooting and is not ready to comment publicly yet.

He said Horn is very grateful to the people who supported him and stood behind him.''

Of course the so-called 'community activists' see this as 'frightening.' For them, the ''right'' -- of certain groups of people, at least -- to trespass, burglarize, and escape with impunity is paramount, while the castle doctrine, allowing a man to defend home and property, frightens them.

The article concludes by telling us that police went to Horn's neighborhood 'as a precaution.' Precaution against what? 'Community activists' coming in to stir up more trouble?

Last December these same activists received a 'warm' welcome from Joe Horn's neighbors. Remember this video of that encounter? It was quite a shock at that time to see this kind of show of backbone. We have become so used to seeing the other side win every skirmish simply by default, because our side tends to be divided and/or apathetic. Once in a while we see glimpses of life on our side, and it is heartening.

I hope the people of Pasadena, Texas show the same resolute character they showed in the video should Mr. X and his friends return.

Which is better: jihad or Mexican reconquista?

Lately I've been paying less attention to what is going on in Europe, preoccupied as I am with the prospects of our own country. At Flanders Fields, Flanders has posted this video called E.U.: Multiculti empire.

It's 7 minutes plus in length, but it is worth viewing. It's one thing to read about what is going on there, but seeing it on these video clips really makes it much more immediate. At about 4:30 in the video, you will hear the Moslem call to prayer -- which Obama describes as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset." You be the judge.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And on the topic of Eurabia, over at Brussels Journal there is a piece called 'Reverse Colonization', regarding Diana West's observations of Moslems in Belgium.

What is different here, of course […] is that what is going here is not a traditional process of assimilation to the host (European) culture, but a quietly revolutionary procedure best described as reverse colonization: Europe is being colonized by Islam.''

The discussion thread heats up somewhat as some stubborn commenters, apparently our fellow Americans, think the Hispanic invasion is no problem; after all, Latinos are Christian and they are really nice people (with the usual anecdotes to back this assertion up.)

Mexicans, if we can't get a handle on this, trust me, aren't going to be the detriment to our culture that the ever growing Muslim masses are to Europe. Wait until Europe stares down the barrel of Iran's "Muslim" nuclear bomb.''

Stubborn. Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn. How do we get past this? I encounter it so often. Why should we 'trust' this commenter and all those who think like him, who assure us that turning America into Mexico will be just fine, if we relax and enjoy it?

Commenter 'Ernest' on the thread (maybe 'our' Ernest, who comments here sometimes) makes a valiant old school effort at talking some sense into the Hispanophiles on the thread, but apparently to little avail as they just repeat their nonsense verbatim, like a broken record.

Sometimes I wonder whether our 'invisible elites' whom we cuss and discuss here so often did not purposely unleash Islam on us so as to make the Latino invasion seem less objectionable to a lot of people. It seems to have worked that way. 'At least the Mexicans aren't trying to blow us up, at least they are Christian, at least we can intermarry with those nice people, at least they work hard....'' and so on, ad nauseam.

It's unfortunate that the Mexican version of the jihad against us takes the form mostly of common-or-garden crime: drunk driving, random violence of various kinds, drug-dealing, sex crimes. Yes, I know the Islamic invaders in Europe do similar things to the European people, but their aggression is more overt -- which stands a greater chance of arousing some kind of response from the slow-to-anger Europeans.

The Brussels Journals commenters seem to think that we in America are in better shape. I wish I could believe that.

Squandering our linguistic heritage

A while back, I read this piece about the decline of copy editors.

...As newspapers lose money and readers, they have been shedding great swaths of expensive expertise. They have been forced to shrink or eliminate the multiply redundant levels of editing that distinguish their kind of journalism from what you find on TV, radio and much of the Web. Copy editors are being bought out or forced out; they are dying and not being replaced.

Webby doesn’t necessarily mean sloppy, of course, and online news operations will shine with all the brilliance that the journalists who create them can bring. But in that world of the perpetual present tense — post it now, fix it later, update constantly — old-time, persnickety editing may be a luxury in which only a few large news operations will indulge. It will be an artisanal product, like monastery honey and wooden yachts.''

In other words, with the disappearance of old-time 'persnickety editing', quality will decline. I'd say it's already happening, not only in the open bias of the news media, but in the increasing numbers of errors, sloppy grammar, and even bad spelling. The copy editors who still exist, and who are not yet 'outsourced' to India, God help us, seem not to have the strict standards of the old days.

That's no surprise; as I often lament on this blog, standards in general are under siege; we live in a rebellious age, an age in which 'individual self-expression' is king, and in which standards are seen as repressive, unfair, biased, and elitist.

Our obsession with being 'non-judgmental' has reached every area of life.

When I was in college, before I declared a major, I considered linguistics. However I found that in the introductory linguistics class I took, the orthodoxy was that 'prescriptive' linguistics was bad, and was passé. The ideal was supposed to be simply 'descriptive' linguistics, which does not judge how people use language, and above all does not lay down or enforce rules of grammar, usage, or spelling, but simply describes. No dialect of English is the standard; all are equal and equally 'proper' or valid. Language is also an 'evolving', living thing which should not be ossified by rules and standards. But is our language evolving or going backwards?

I've noticed certain misspellings and grammar errors that seem to be endemic on the Internet, whereas I had never seen them previously. Now, don't get me wrong; I make mistakes. I don't claim to be without sin here. Sometimes I slip up with the keyboard; I spell better than I type. So I make mistakes, though Firefox's built-in spell checker catches them for me usually. But here are a few examples of those viral Internet solecisms:

'Wrecking havoc' -- or in some cases, 'reeking havoc' instead of 'wreaking havoc.'

'Wreckless' instead of 'reckless.' This one is particularly humorous to me; when we read of someone being charged with 'wreckless driving', does the writer think that the wayward driver is being charged for not having had any accidents? I suspect this solecism may have had its origin with the 1980s rock musician 'Wreckless Eric.'

'Reign in' - this one is seen so very frequently that I suspect it will take over and replace the correct phrase, 'rein in.' I actually saw someone use the correct phrase 'rein in' over on the Mudcat Forum, and for a moment it looked wrong to me, since I'm so used to the incorrect spelling. The metaphor refers to 'reining in' a horse, and has nothing to do with 'reigning' as in ruling.

'One in the same' for 'one and the same.' This one is prevalent too.

'Tounge' for tongue. I think it must be misspelled at least half the time.

'Here, here!' instead of the phrase, 'Hear! Hear!'

'Baffoon' for 'buffoon.' Is a 'baffoon' supposed to be a cross between a baboon and a buffoon?

'Shoe-in' for 'shoo-in.'

'Toe-headed' instead of the correct 'tow-headed.' I suppose it's understandable that many people today are unfamiliar with the term 'tow', meaning flax. 'Tow-headed' people are those who used to be called in archaic language 'flaxen-haired', having very pale blond hair. Since there seem to be fewer and fewer such individuals in our country these days, maybe we will have no use for the term 'tow-headed' or 'flaxen-haired' soon anyway.

'Pour over' as in 'pouring over old documents'. What liquid, I always wonder, is being poured over the documents? The word, as I am sure my readers know, is 'pore'.

'Hypocracy' for 'hypocrisy'. Would 'hypocracy' refer to rule by hypocrites?

'Hoards' for 'hordes' .

'Boarder' for 'border.' As in frequently-seen phrases like this: 'hoards of illegals are crossing the boarder every day.'

Those last two would not be caught by spell checker, since they are words, but just homonyms for the desired word.

And then there are the gramatically tortured phrases like these real-life examples I've seen:

'Being a second-class citizen at home, America was the perfect place for the Scots-Irish.'

Or how about this one: 'Charged with child abuse, four psychiatrists diagnosed him with schizophrenia.'

And this one: 'Scared to death and shaking I took her home.' This sentence was supposed to convey that 'she' was the one scared to death and shaking; not the writer.

What is it about the above few sentences which so many people seem to struggle with? I see these errors more and more all the time, and not just among average people posting on blogs or forums; I see them in newspaper articles, magazine articles, and hear them spoken by educated people. Obviously even the highly educated are not exempt from making such mistakes. The problem is, though, that these mistakes seem just fine to most people when they read or hear them.

Another thing that seems to give most people problems is this kind of thing:
'...as reported to she and her husband.'
''The prize money was split between he and I.'

It seems that everybody is afraid to say 'to her and her husband' or 'between him and me.'
I suspect that people have been conditioned to think that, since sentences like 'Him and me went' are ignorant, then the phrase 'him and me' is not a legitimate phrase anywhere.

I don't advocate becoming a language vigilante; nobody likes to be corrected publicly, or in a tactless way.I don't go around correcting people, especially people I don't know well. I do think we as parents should correct our children, but in a gentle way. Needless to say, teachers and copy editors are paid to teach and to correct, and I suspect they are too concerned with harming somebody's 'self-esteem' so they let errors slip by.

The English language is one of the richest and most nuanced languages in the world. The sheer number of words at our disposal in the English language is quite staggering. And I suppose that in itself is part of the problem; so many words to remember, and to differentiate.

It's a shame that with such an expressive language we neglect it, and fail to develop and use the full potential that is there.

I suppose it's inevitable with the decline of our educational system, and the general dumbing-down of our culture, that our language is becoming less and less precise and careful. Maybe in the overall scheme of things, these matters are trivial, but I do believe that language shapes thought as well as thought shaping language. Both work together. The more precise and specific we can be with our language, the better and the more clearly we communicate.

Oddly familiar news from the past

On one of my forays looking for old books and ephemera, I found a number of wonderful old cookbooks (which I always enjoy; people ate so differently in the past) and a cache of some old newspapers from the 1930s. It's quite fascinating to read the old newspapers; it's like visiting another world for a while. The past, as we say around here, truly is another country.

The banner headline on one of these papers, dated April 18,1934 reads:
Negro Cult Followers Battle Detroit Police

I attempted to scan this for you all, but my scanner is not working properly, so I will just transcribe it.

Raid on Cult University Resented

Scores of Detroit PolicemenTrampled and Beaten by Mob of 500 Excited Negroes

Leaders are Jailed

'Knowledge of Spook Civilization' Taught Children

Detroit, April 18 -- Negro followers of the 'Cult of Islam', estimated by police to number 500, rioted today at police headquarters, where they had gathered in the mistaken belief the court arraignment of some of their leaders was to be held. They trampled and beat nearly a score of policemen.

Six policemen required hospital treatment. Dozens of other persons suffered less serious injuries before the rioters were dispersed by a riot squad of fifty men swinging night sticks.

The violence was the aftermath of a raid Monday on the "University of Islanm" [sic] whose curriculum, police investigators said, included such subjects as "general knowledge of spook civilization".

Fourteen leaders and instructors were arrested, charged with contributing to the delinquency of minorts and with subversive teaching.

The mob of negroes first gathered in Clinton Street, adjoining police headquarters, and after fifteen minutes of fist fighting, was broken up. A few minutes later, the fighting was resumed in front of police headquarters. A riot squad of fifty policemen finally scattered the demonstrators by using their night sticks.

Apparently, the crowd had gathered to attend the arraignment in recorder's court of fourteen instructors in the "University of Islam", who were arrested Monday night in a raid on the cult headquarters.

'Get the coppers'

The fighting started, police said, when a large negro identified as one of the cult leaders, shouted "get the coppers."

The cult, police believe, is a revival of another order which disbanded two years ago after a voodoo human sacrifice had been revealed.

The fourteen persons facing arraignment today were rescribed [sic] by police as instructors in the "university" and are charged with contributing to the delinquency of minors and subversive teachings. All gave Oriental names and none, investigators said, had teachers' licenses.

The "university" was raided at the request of public school officials who had become alarmed over the withdrawal of several hundred negro children from the schools. The roster of the school showed 400 names.

Police said they had learned that John Mohammed, 24, described as the cult leader, charged $1 for a "baptismal" ceremony by which negro members adopted Oriental names.

The curriculum of the "university" contained some ten standard subjects as "general knowledge of the spook being displayed for ,000 [sic] years," "general knowledge of spook civilization" and "the duty of a moslem."

I wonder how this story would have been reported by today's media? Or how the local authorities would have handled the situation?

And back then there was no CAIR and no Islamic lobby, no Moslem congressmen or other electeds to intervene.

How much has changed since then and yet how much remains the same.

Addendum: I found another contemporary account of the same events here. It adds a few details.

Arraigned on a charge of contributing to the delinquency of minors by keeping them out of public school, University of Islam instructors kept their mouths tight shut. From the textbooks police learned that the school's curriculum included courses in General Knowledge of the Spook Being Displayed for 6,000 Years, General Knowledge of Spook Civilization, The Duty of a Moslem. Sample lessons:

"The actual knowledge of a sun of man has searched for 66,000,000,000 years or more and have not located the spook yet."

"Sampson was the man who muscled up the stone in the City of Mecca. It weighed 3,000 Ib."

"Mohammed killed 6,000,000 Christians in his time and put 90,000 heads in a hole."

So is it a social construct after all?

Once again, it's a liberal who speaks politically incorrect truths about racial matters. Nader is not on our side but even a broken clock is right twice a day: Nader: Obama trying to 'talk white'

Nader said he is not impressed with Obama and that he does not see him campaigning often enough in low-income, predominantly minority communities where there is a "shocking" amount of economic exploitation.
[...]
"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

In the Free Republic discussion of this article, a commenter asks:

'How should Obama talk? Should he sound like an African-American? That makes no sense. He's 50% white, and the rest is a mix of his Arab and Kenya heritage.''

Another Freeper offers:

Uhhh....Ralph. He is white. He’s as much white as he is black.''

Another says:

Why are liberals so hung-up on race?'

Yet another bizarrely insists:

Obama is MORE white than black. Arab bloodlines are not considered black bloodlines.''

Another says:

While BO's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. His father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab. (His father's birth certificate states he is Arab, not African Negro).

I'll leave it to you and others to sort this out as to legitimate sources, etc. One source is as good as the other. Pick your own pew. Since Obama is purportedly half-black and half-white, why does his "birth certificate" say "African". This is not 100% true.'

First, I've read the claims of his being mostly of 'Arab' ancestry on his paternal side. His father's appearance is 100 percent African as far as I can see; if there is any 'Arab' ancestry it must be so remote and so diluted as to be invisible. So I put no stock in that claim, although the Freepers seem willing to believe it because their only apparent objection to Obama is that he is a crypto-Moslem (and he may well be) who is partly Arab.

But the more baffling question for me is this: there seems to be a new (to me) definition of 'White.' Since so many on the 'right' are genuinely upset that Obama does not prefer his White ancestry, it appears that there is some newly-devised definition of White wherein anybody with half-White ancestry is 'White'. This was never the historic definition of White anywhere that I know of. So what is up with this new understanding of racial categories? Are conservatives finally surrendering to the 'race is a social construct' dogma? It could be interpreted that way. Or do conservatives think that when someone is half-and-half, one can pick a race? If so, the definition of White will be substantially changed.

This whole issue seems to be a curiously emotional one for many 'conservatives'. I've commented here before about how I've read so many rather hurt comments from Whites asking why Obama won't claim his White ancestry. They truly do seem genuinely wounded by this; they say things like 'he was raised by his White grandparents and grew up in White culture but he won't call himself White.'

Whence the hurt feelings here? I don't get it. I can see how the White relatives who raised him might feel hurt and rejected, but why should random White people be so emotionally invested in this?

I wonder if many people, 'conservatives' as well as liberals, truly crave acceptance by blacks and other minorities (but primarily blacks). Is this just one more manifestation of the White guilt Nader alludes to? Do we think that our Original Sin might be washed away by Obama's embrace of his White ancestry? Would that be the ultimate absolution White liberals (and 'conservatives') are yearning for?

If so, I would find that more understandable, though servile, and less troubling in a way than the idea that we are suddenly ready to re-define racial categories or to proclaim that race is, after all, a social construct, or whatever we decide it is.

Does a black man become White by 'talking White' as Nader says, or does reading ''lit fic novels'' make a black man White, as Steve Sailer implies here? I thought Sailer believed that race is real. Maybe I've misunderstood him all along.

...white Democrats haven't seemed to like black candidates much. They've looked down upon non-racialist pragmatic black politicians like former LA mayor Tom Bradley as Uncle Toms, yet also looked down upon racialist politicians popular with blacks like Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al as buffoons. So, Obama is the unexpected answer to their fantasies. A black candidate who has worked hard to establish a career for himself as a South Side racialist, but who is really a lit fic novel reading white man in a semi-black skin.''

Shades of 'Stuff White People Like.' Is being White a matter of having 'White' cultural preferences, like the caricatured, aracial 'Whites' of the SWPL blog? There are plenty of Whites who are not 'lit fic novel reading' types; where do they fit in?

There have always been a few blacks, regardless of whether they have White ancestry, who speak standard American English, have conservative ideas, or work in predominantly White professions or businesses. Are they then automatically Whites?

A prominent example would be Oprah. She 'talks white', so much so that she was on the receiving end of many jokes by some stand-up comics back in the early days of her career, before she became some kind of saint. She is culturally more White than black, it seems. She may claim some non-African ancestry, probably American Indian like 90 percent of blacks do. But does anybody say she is anything other than black?

To me, the old commonsense rule still applies. If someone looks black, they are black, even though they may have White genes. African genes are outwardly dominant. No one with one White parent and one black parent looks White. In the past anyone who suggested Obama might justifiably call himself White would be viewed askance, to put it mildly.

So what is going on with this silly-putty view of racial identity?

Somewhat pertinent is this post which discusses American blacks' ancestry:

Studies have repeatedly shown American blacks average ~20% European admixture, while white Americans show minimal if any non-European admixture. Gene flow was overwhelmingly one way.

It is no surprise that among American blacks "self-report of a high degree of African ancestry in a three-generation family tree did not accurately predict degree of African ancestry". The overwhelming majority of American blacks have "African" (black) parents and grandparents. No doubt most of Aframs' European genes entered the Afram gene pool more than 3 generation ago. Aframs without recent white ancestors may range from light-skinned to coal-black. We see no such variations in the phenotypes of white Americans.''

That first sentence I quoted disposes of one of the common myths or 'arguments' of the social construct devotees: the claim that 'many White Americans have African blood, so there is no true White American.'
I've heard that said or seen it claimed in many internet discussions.

But the racial myths and half-truths will go on as long as they serve the purpose of blurring all distinctions.

Rendered defenseless: 'Binding the strongman'

''Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house''. - Matthew 12:29


At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'

Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:

Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn’t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn’t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''

Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.

And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''

I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.

As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.

And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.

The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.

JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:

An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.

Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.

[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''

That's the question.

Bannockburn

"After the aforesaid victory, Robert the Bruce was commonly called King of Scotland by all men, because he had acquired Scotland by force of arms.'' - Chronicle of Lanercost

June 24 is the anniversary of the historical Battle of Bannockburn in Scotland, which was the decisive battle in the first War of Scottish Independence. The Battle of Bannockburn took place in 1314, some 694 years ago.

To provide some perspective, it was 20+ generations ago for most of us; I know this because some of our family's ancestors were there that day, the Douglases and Stewarts, on the Scottish side and some of our English ancestors on the other side. So which side should people like my family sympathize with?

Most Americans, because of our own struggles for independence from the English, and also because a number of Americans claim some Celtic roots, sympathize 100 percent with the Scots in that struggle.

When we consider how long ago that is, how many generations removed from us, it's amazing that the wars of Scottish independence, of which Bannockburn was a part, carry such emotional resonance for so many Americans today, even though we are mostly reacting to a fictional, jazzed-up version of that era: Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

The Hollywood version makes the British, and especially Edward II to be the evil ones; this is very much a trend these days. The English are often depicted as cold-blooded, ruthless, and entirely unsympathetic; they are the 'bad guys', oppressors. The English are now, perhaps alongside Americans for much of the rest of the world, seen as the arch-Whites, the most oppressive of an oppressive race. I think it's rather troubling that so many people accept these stereotypes.

For those who are interested in reading the actual historical accounts of the event, this website claims to have the most complete account.


The Wikipedia entry here also gives a good summary of the events.

However, for an alternative view which critiques Mel Gibson's version of the Scottish wars of independence, see this page.
From all I can discern, his criticisms are valid.

I can just hear some answering that 'that's just nitpicking', or 'it's just a movie; it's called artistic license.'
Yes, but shouldn't truth at least be a serious consideration in making a movie like this? I think the real facts, minus Gibson's little additions and liberties, are every bit as dramatic and stirring as the Hollywood version.

We seem to live in an age which is too relaxed about truth and facts, wherein most people seem to adhere to the postmodern idea that 'there is no truth, only competing narratives.' However, when Hollywood depicts historical figures and events, their 'narrative' becomes a kind of established truth for most people, who get their history from movies and TV programs.

I think truth does matter. By turning history into silly putty, which can be twisted and re-fashioned this way and that according to popular trends or prejudices, we do a great dishonor to our ancestors who lived the events in question. And the story of Robert the Bruce, Bannockburn, and the whole struggle between England and Scotland is part of the actual history of many Americans whose roots go back to England and Scotland during that momentous era.

If we create a false past on which to base our present understanding of the world, we will never see aright; we will be making erroneous judgments based on falsehoods, and we will be led in the wrong direction as a result.

The spirit of both sides who fought at Bannockburn is something which is our heritage; that spirit can serve us well if we reclaim it and rekindle it in ourselves.

And it's important to remember that in a sense, these battles were internecine in nature. The Scots had a definite identity and heritage, but many of the noblemen who were slaughtering each other in the battle were descendants of a common ancestry. Bruce as well as his foe, Edward II, had Norman/Viking ancestry. They all shared a common Christian faith, and were of the same ethnic origins, not many generations before.

In that sense, the wars seem more tragic. And we might take a lesson from that, too.

Note: another good source on Robert the Bruce is the biography of that name by Ronald McNair Scott.

The campaign hits a few bumps in the road...

...but it rolls on just the same. Obama continues to make one gaffe or misstep after another, but it will likely have little effect; those who support him will do so no matter what; the only people he offends will be people who would not have followed him anyway.

First, the business of that silly fake presidential seal:

Obama Pulls New Presidential Seal

Succumbing to an avalanche of criticism, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has apparently decided to back away from its trial balloon of a new presidential seal.
[...]
“That was a one-time thing for a one-time event,” Robert Gibbs asserted to CNN about the rather intricately designed seal that made its debut last Friday.

The new seal was unveiled on Obama's podium when he spoke to a group of Democratic governors.

The Obama seal did include the American bald eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, but the resemblance ended there.

The Latin phrase "E Pluribus Unum," which translates to "Out of many, one," was replaced with "Vero Possumus," which translates to "Truly, we are able" — a rough translation of the Obama campaign slogan "Yes we can."

I had to do a double-take when I saw the seal with the high-school 'Latin' motto. 'Vero possumus'? What does that mean? My first thought was of rodent-like marsupials when I read it. In fact, my first thought was: is that the motto on the Great Seal of the Possum Lodge? Those of you who are familiar with the Canadian TV comedy, the Red Green Show, will know what I am talking about. See the Possum Lodge seal here.

As you can see, though, the Possum Lodge seal is barely more risible than Obama's, and the Latin is only slightly more silly: 'Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati' = 'When all else fails, play dead', with the emblem on the seal being a supine possum -- playing possum.

Actually I would vote for Red Green or any of the Possum Lodge guys before I would vote for either of the two 'major' candidates being thrust on us.

But Obama's blunders extend to more than just clumsy attempts at self-aggrandizement. I'm gaining a new respect for James Dobson here:
Dobson to Attack Obama for Distorting the Bible

Dobson deserves credit for being willing to call Obama on some of these things, as others tiptoe around and don their best kid gloves.

And there's this statement from Obama: Obama: America is 'no longer Christian'

''Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.''

I suppose it could be argued that this is the standard rhetoric that is used by all public officials these days, the cliches about how we are a 'multifaith nation' with all paths leading to the same God, and so on. But if Obama thinks we can be a 'Christian nation' while not being 'just' a Christian nation, or that we can simultaneously be a Hindu nation, a Mohammedan nation, and whatever else, then he truly does not understand the faith that he claims to follow.

At the very least he could acknowledge that we have, to date, always been a predominantly Christian nation, and that our Founders, though many now say they were not all Christians, honored the Christian faith and based our laws and mores on Christian beliefs and values. We were a Christian nation without having an established state religion, but a Christian-based nation nonetheless. Now I suspect Obama is going to be doing his part in rewriting the history of this country to the specifications of the one world agenda.

This piece cites a Washington post article and a Pravda article, no less, on how Obama's possible election will 'make racism America's biggest problem.' Sadly, America's biggest problem at this point is race, though not what they are calling 'racism'. The mere fact that we have so many mutually antagonistic and basically incompatible peoples in this country, all nursing grievances against the historic majority Whites, is the problem. And the problem is, the majority population have had most of their natural racial consciousness and solidarity whipped out of them for the last half-century at least. Therein lies the insoluble problem. Yet for all the indoctrination which has been so heavy-handedly employed, people have still not completely knuckled under -- yet. The powers that be are getting rather desperate and impatient, and they are going all out to bludgeon us with the agenda, hoping to quash any stubborn opposition. The Obama campaign is, I think, designed exactly for this purpose. It's meant to force this issue center stage, and pummel us into submission, or force some kind of showdown in which it's hoped we will be brought to heel.

I can think of no other explanation for the mere fact that Obama, out of nowhere, is likely to be our next President, aided by the completely subservient media. The campaign has forced the racial issue into our faces so far, and we've still got almost half a year until election day. It will be a long several months ahead as we are bombarded with all this nonsense and propaganda.

Along these lines, blogger The Narrator at Signals from the Brink has an interesting take: he opines that the vast majority of White Americans don't believe the multicultural, egalitarian party line, and never will. He says that the reason for the apparent inertia of most of us on this question is that we just haven't taken it seriously heretofore.

Most Whites haven't, as yet, reacted strongly against multiculturalism because they don't see it as a truly serious threat at the moment (just a growing irritation).''

He says that most believe the situation is just something that can be easily reversed if and when we decide to call time on it. I agree with him that this attitude will make any such reversal harder and more costly as time goes on.

Lake Wobegon and old America

Tom Piatak writes about attending a live broadcast of Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion radio show.

I have been listening, on and off, to Keillor’s show for many years, and I’ve read several of his books. The interesting thing about Keillor is not that he is a Democrat, but that, despite his liberal politics, the show he produces has a strong conservative, even reactionary, streak.

Last night’s show was no exception. We heard, as is typical for Keillor, a lot of old American music, including a song from the 1932 campaign. Although an unabashed liberal, Keillor is a Christian, and his show often features old hymns and Gospel songs, and last night’s program had a moving hymn about the Good Shepherd.''

I, too, was a listener to PHC some years ago, and I found a certain charm in the program, and in Keillor's soothing, mellow delivery and style. I love the old-time music which was usually featured on the show.

And although, like Piatak, I never lived in a town which closely resembled Lake Wobegon, the small-town old America motif was universal enough that all Americans, at least those old enough to remember the old America, could relate to many of the endearing qualities of Lake Wobegon as described on the show.

I was also able to relate somewhat to the Scandinavian-tinged culture of the fictional Lake Wobegon through my experience of the Northwest, which in times past had a strong Scandinavian presence and cultural influence. The 'new' Northwest is fast losing that character and is on the way to becoming just another multicultural Nowheresville.

When I used to listen to PHC, I was still quite the liberal, and I sensed very much that Keillor and the gang were of the same persuasion. You see, liberals, especially of the baby boom generation, have a certain kind of slumming nostalgia for the 'old America', in the form of liking vintage clothes for dress-up, antique furnishings and gewgaws, and old-time music, especially of the 'downmarket' variety such as bluegrass, honkytonk, and blues. It's a kind of American multiculturalism: aren't those hillbillies and hayseeds quaint and funny? And aren't we oh-so-sophisticated for condescending to listen to their primitive music?

That kind of cultural tourism and condescension is one of the things that I find most irritating about my own jaded generation. And I perceived it in spades on Keillor's show. So as I became a fully-fledged conservative recanting all the liberal nonsense that had accreted in my life, I rather lost my taste for Keillor and his somewhat arch portrayal of middle America. With liberals, there is often a fine line between nostalgia and a certain kind of snickering at old America as sophisticated folks would snicker at their awkward country cousins.

Keillor is not, I am sure, a Christian in the sense that perhaps Tom Piatak understands it. I suspect where the 'Christian content' of his show is concerned, it derives from Keillor's 'cultural Christianity.' Christianity, specifically of the Lutheran variety, seemst to be a central part of the old American culture of Minnesota, just as some variety of Bible-believing Christianity is a central part of all small-town Southern communities. It's part of the culture, and everybody who grew up in the old American South imbibed some of it, even if they were not churchgoers, or real believers. Keillor is a 'cultural Christian' or perhaps simply a liberal Christian, which involves liberal politics dressed up in clerical robes, speaking Christian lingo.

I recalled this story about Keillor from just after the 2004 elections:
Born-agains should not have right to vote

Posted: November 15, 2004

Speaking in the aftermath of the presidential election, Democrat radio host Garrison Keillor says he is on a quest to take away the right of born-again Christians to vote, saying their citizenship is actually in heaven, not the United States.
Keillor, host of the popular National Public Radio show "A Prairie Home Companion," made the comments during a speech at Chicago's Rockefeller Memorial Chapel and during his radio monologue the Saturday after the election.


"I am a Democrat – it's no secret. I am a museum-quality Democrat," Keillor said. "Last night I spent my time crouched in a fetal position, rolling around and moaning in the dark."

According to a report in the University of Chicago's Chicago Maroon, Keillor told the audience: "If born-again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?"

And yes, some said, 'oh well, he's just kidding, just being satirical.'

Here, however, on this blog Keillor's response to a reader who questioned his statement is quoted. The reader had asked whether he had in fact meant to say 'postmillenialists' and not 'born-again' Christians:

Caroline,

I grew up among post-millenialists and probably that's why I conflated them with born-agains in one big ball of wax and I apologize for my inaccuracy. However, I don't think that the term "post-millenialist" would instantly register with our public radio audience, so one is forced to use shorthand. Thanks for your thoughts...
Keillor then went on to another subject entirely, his memories of singing the Star Spangled Banner.

So, after reflection, Keillor says he does not advocate a constitutional amendment taking the vote away from all born-again Christians -- just some of them. Thanks for the clarification.

Addendum (11/20/04): I received the following e-mail regarding Ms. Sato's (and Garrison Keillor's) use of terms:
Caroline Sato is incorrect. It's dispensational premillennialists who believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. They believe in an always imminent rapture. Postmillennialists believe that through the preaching of the gospel, the world can be transformed.''

I find it curious that a Protestant, even a liberal one, would put down 'born-again Christians.' First of all, he would be aware that the Lord said 'except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.'

So in truth, all real Christians must be considered born-again. However, I've noted that liberal Christians often scorn that term, as do many Catholics. But if Keillor thinks 'born again' is a disparaging term, he is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, then.

Here, in the Wikipedia entry, there are many quotes from Keillor. For example, here's what he thinks of Republicans:

Keillor calls Republicans "hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. .. .tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, nihilists in golf pants."

While claiming that his book describes "the politics of kindness, Keillor also says that Republicans are "criminal" and worse, "evil, deeply evil."

Well, a few years ago I would have been quite incensed by that tirade, but now, given my lowered opinion of Republicans and self-described 'conservatives', I have to say it's not 100 percent false. The truth hurts sometimes. Some Republicans are corporate shills, and all the rest.

The sad part is, many Democrats are worse, albeit their sins and crimes are simply different from those of the Republicans. But I suspect that Keillor's seething hatred of Republicans extends to real conservatives, and all of us who hold within us the old America, that of the era in which Keillor goes slumming and rummaging on his show.

As far as Keillor's own identity, which many are assuming he is drawing on in his performances, the Wikipedia article also contains quotes indicating that Keillor's on-air persona, with many references to Norwegian-Americans and Lutherans, is all fictional. He is not Norwegian by ancestry (his name should give that fact away) nor is he Lutheran by religious affiliation. Apparently his frequent references to Lutherans simply indicate his cultural familiarity with Lutherans in his native Minnesota. He says his family were members of an obscure group called the Plymouth Brethren.

Reflecting on all this, I can see that liberals like Keillor may wax nostalgic over old America, but the old America which they mine for quaint cultural relics is not the real old America, the one realists remember fondly. They put a liberal veneer on the past in order to make it acceptable by their standards. They expunge the parts of our cultural history that embarrass them. The bowdlerized liberal version of our past is, for some liberals, simply censored and cleansed of the un-PC parts. That's the Keilloresque version. It's apolitical for the most part.

For some, usually filmmakers, the view presented is a politically revisionist view of old America, in which political correctness reigned, and 'racists' were few and far between and were quickly put in their place by anachronistic liberals who saved the day. I've noticed how most movies of today have to inject some politically correct bits in order to show that the illiberalism they object to so much is the anomaly in our history, while their liberal, multicultural America was always there in an incipient form, at least. Movies like 'Gods and Generals', with the obligatory racial commentary scene, or The Patriot, which had its noble slave scene, and so on.

Liberal nostalgia is the cultural form of revisionist history; liberals like to conjure up a 'real' old America in which people make speeches full of 21st century cliches about tolerance and inclusiveness, and in which the people who represented the real beliefs and attitudes of the era portrayed are shown as slimy villains.

Keillor's Lake Wobegon may be a kinder and gentler kind of liberal nostalgia than the Hollywood preachy kind, but it's ironic that liberals who like to sentimentalize about certain aspects of the past are hellbent on destroying everything that remains of that past, content, it seems, to turn our heritage into a quaint museum piece, which is long-gone, and deservedly so.

In what appears to be willful ignorance, they refuse to see that the Lake Wobegons of our country are the unique creations and reflections of the people, the specific group of people who inhabit that place. The Norwegian bachelor farmers of Keillor's Minnesota created a distinct place which will never be the same once it is dominated by Mexicans, Somalis, or Hmongs. Those who believe that people are interchangeable and that the place makes the people, and not vice-versa, are taking a sledge-hammer to our unique heritage, and wreaking untold damage.

It's not a new thing...

Apropos of our discussion the other day about the roots of the counterculture and also the subject of advertising propaganda, I was looking through some old images and found some interesting ones.

The first is an Insurance Company ad, above, from 1952. The text is not legible in this smaller-sized image, so I will quote it here:

There are moral alternatives to war. We do have a choice. We can choose plowshares over swords...and thereby diminish the danger of a final and all-destroying war.

Most of the world's people -- nearly two-thirds of the human race -- are hungry. Remove this hunger and we remove most of the explosive possibilities in the world.

We, here in America, have crossed the threshold into the world of plenty. In the past ten years we have had twice as much new food as new people -- and our population has grown at a rate faster than that of India!

This American pattern of plenty gives us a platform from which we, in decency and humility, can help build a true brotherhood of man, living together peacefully in a prosperous world. Now, for the first time, we can help a hungry world feed itself. We will achieve peace only if we carry out this moral responsibility -- wholeheartedly, with the same vigor with which we have waged wars. It is up to us.

If we start now -- in politics, in economics, in social organization -- we can make abundance blossom for all the world.

Let us embark on the crusade toward creating PLENTY -- Pattern for Peace.''

The above is said to be ''From a recent address by Murray D. Lincoln, President of Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.''

I can understand how, in 1952, war-wearied Americans might be eager for some proposal or policy which would guarantee that there would be 'no more wars.' But is it true that poverty and hunger cause all wars, or that 'feeding the world' would guarantee peace? Did World War II happen because of poverty or want? Or World War I?

So, since this ad was printed, we've had more than half a century of trying out these utopian do-gooder policies. I wonder how many billions we've spent on 'foreign aid' or hunger relief efforts via the UN since then? And how much good has it done? Have our efforts and our dollars ended hunger or brought stability and peace?

Look at the picture in the ad. Back in 1952, few Americans would have proposed bringing the world here for us to feed them in our land, but does the picture not seem to imply that we will all cohabit together in America? The White man at the plow looks as though he's the one in harness to do all the hard work.

This picture, with its 'we are the world' motif, reminds me very much of the picture below, which actually appeared 9 years later, on the cover of the April Fool's Day 1961 version of Saturday Evening Post.

Everybody knows Norman Rockwell as the quintessential American heartland painter. He was particularly known for his magazine covers, most notably the Saturday Evening Post covers. We always associate him with rather corny middle American nostalgia, with his images of freckle-faced, red-headed boys and girls, the kind who used to be called 'all-American boys' and girls. (Today, of course, Barack Obama and the exotics who appear in our commercials are held up as truly American.) But when I first saw this illustration, called 'The Golden Rule', by Rockwell, I was rather taken aback, because it seemed so out of step with the work we associate with him. I wondered if it was not painted during the early 70s, when the diversity obsession set in. But no, it was painted in 1961, during an era in which America was still very American. Remember, the 1965 Immigration Act was still four years in the future when that picture was painted.

And of course, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the Golden Rule, but at some point, the politically correct commandment became do unto The Other at the expense of your own. Open your gates and doors wide to the entire world, no questions asked.

Here we are, 47 years on, and America is starting to look very much like that 'Golden Rule' painting, with those famous 'all-American' Rockwell faces surrounded by people from the four corners of the globe. Was this a prophetic painting? Or a prescriptive one, like the Farm Bureau Insurance Ad?

Was this 'pattern for peace' or a pattern for PC?

In any case, it seems this campaign to change our thinking about ourselves and our role in the world has been going on for a long time; it's only accelerated recently and become more obvious to us.

A Canadian viewpoint

We all know that Western nations in general are being swamped by Third World immigration, much of it of the legal variety, and that all Western nations are being transformed to a greater or lesser degree by all this wanton social engineering fostered by our derelict governments.

Here's a piece from a Canadian blog which links to a surprisingly frank article in a Vancouver paper, having to do with immigration, multiculturalism, and Canadian identity. The article is more open than I would expect to find in the Canadian media, and the blogger's own commentary is right on the money. It's reassuring to know that there are still people, regardless of the damper on free speech, who see what is going on and who are taking a stand against it.

I certainly wish our Canadian cousins well in their effort to preserve their country and their existing way of life.

H/T Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Calling all social conservatives...

Where are all the social conservatives?
Not here in this discussion.

The discussion is about this story, regarding the young girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts, who apparently made a pact to become pregnant.

It makes me ask: what is going on in Gloucester?
According to City-Data.com, Gloucester is 96.2% White Non-Hispanic, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.6% black.
Allowing for the usual case that these statistics are several years out of date, and also that they represent an undercount of illegal immigrants and others, it seems likely that most of the girls involved are White, of unknown ethnicity.
Here there is a City-Data forum discussion of the story.

So what is going on here? It's not really a surprising story given the trends, going back some years, among Whites in which the illegitimacy rate has been climbing, although not nearly as high as that of blacks or Hispanics.

The fact that the degraded pop culture makes slutty behavior acceptable if not outright glamorous and 'cool' certainly contributes to this kind of thing.

But in the discussion at ParaPundit about the pregnancy pact, it seems that there is little social conservatism on display, except from Randall Parker himself. Granted, many of the regular commenters there are not conservatives; some are liberal or libertarian. But why are there so few socially conservative comments in many such discussions? Are social conservatives a dying breed? It certainly seems that way if you read around the Internet at the 'conservative' or Republican watering holes.

The comments about how girls in past eras married at very young ages are reminiscent of some of the comments made in this discussion on Brave New World Watch a while back. The subject was the FLDS (another subject on which I seemed to be at odds with most conservatives), and the consensus seemed to be that very young marriages could not be opposed on any kind of principle, seeing as how our grandmothers or great-grandmothers married at young ages in many cases. My argument was that the vast majority of young girls (and young men) these days are not ready or willing to truly raise any children they conceive, unlike the older generations, who were mature in a social and emotional sense at much younger ages. However, my argument was dismissed out of hand, as you see.

My grandmothers, both of them, married at young ages. In the case of my paternal grandmother, she was all of 16 years old -- but she lived in very different times, in a different world, you might truly say. In her day, most girls of her age finished school at the end of 8th grade. A relative few academically able young people went to high school, on their way, perhaps, to college. The majority did not. Many rural young girls who left school at 13 or so remained at home until marriage, helping with farm and household chores. In urban areas, some young girls went to work. All these girls who did not go to high school and college were gaining real-life experience and had responsibilities, often involving caring for younger siblings or relatives. Very few young people in that era were granted unlimited freedom and large allowances to play, to take in 'entertainment' or to lollygag with their friends unsupervised. They tended to marry young, without having had a lot of 'experience' in terms of relationships. People often married their first sweethearts, or people they had known since childhood.

By contrast, too many of today's teens have a surfeit of free time, with no adult supervision or interaction, a shocking amount of money provided by their parents, and access to a lot of lurid popular entertainment (rap and hip-hop music, violent and explicit movies and TV shows). The combination is a very unhealthy mix.

Hence, a gaggle of teenage girls making a pact to become pregnant.

Those who argue that these girls are simply responding to their biological urge for motherhood -- which is, by definition, good -- don't address what will happen once the girls actually give birth. In an ideal society, we would probably have a lot more early parenthood -- but in the context of a sound marriage. How likely is that for these girls? Nobody seems to know, or be willing to say, who fathered the children the girls conceived. One of the fathers is said to be a 24-year-old 'homeless' man. Are these candidates for happy families? Are they equipped to raise the children to be decent people?

Girls are biologically capable of motherhood, in many cases, while they are in elementary school. So the argument that they should become mothers because they are physically prepared for it would logically mean that we should have 11-year-olds becoming mothers. Why not, if biological readiness is all that matters?

If we are going to argue for motherhood as early as girls can manage it, we have to acknowledge the studies showing that the younger the mother, the more the risks.

I just don't see where this argument, that early motherhood is desirable because it's biologically possible, comes from, especially where 'conservatives' are concerned.

Women are also biologically capable of bearing children up until menopause. Back in the pre-Pill days, women often had babies in their late 40s and occasionally, in a rare instance, over 50. Is that also desirable because it's physically possible? Most of us would say not.

I can't help asking whether there is not a movement to lower the age of consent that is masquerading as a simple wish to go back to the 'old days' when 13-year-olds could marry.

Our present-day society is much more complicated than the one our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in. We can't wish away all the complications and say that immature, narcissistic, dysfunctional teens should just start having kids because they are anatomically capable of breeding.

So what would the conservative ideal be for these girls? Statistically speaking, they are unlikely to give their children up for adoption by married couples, as would have been done in many cases before the Sexual Revolution. Statistically, it would seem most likely for them to give birth, though remaining unmarried, and to go on as before with their lives: attending school, putting their babies in the school nursery or daycare with all their friends' babies, and just participating in all the usual teen social activities: dating, partying, or whatever. Chances are, the babies' grandmothers may be the de facto mothers of the babies. In the old days, when a girl ''got in trouble'' and the father had absented himself or was otherwise unavailable or unsuitable, occasionally the mother of the girl raised the child as one of her own, and the real parentage was not discussed. But that will not happen here; the girls will ''keep'' the babies while not assuming full responsibility. A bad situation all the way around, ensuring that, at least in some cases, the babies will be dumped in day care while the mother works when she is an 'adult', and most likely there will be multiple 'daddies' or 'uncles' in and out of the household as the mother pursues her dating life despite motherhood.

A recipe for future problems, for the child and society.

Ideally, the mothers-to-be would marry the fathers, who would be responsible young men, and all would live happily ever after. But in a world in which young people are devoted all too often to hedonism and self-seeking lifestyles, and few are ready for adult responsibilities until well into their twenties, or even older, there is little likelihood of that. Odds are that a sizable percentage of the babies will be supported, to some extent, by public funds.

So how do we prevent these things? I am afraid that our society has become so decadent that it's all but impossible to shield your children from the corrupting influences that are out there. I've certainly known many young people from conservative Christian homes, in wholesome communities, who run away, engage in promiscuous behavior, have children without benefit of wedlock, or become drug-addicted.

Many well-meaning parents are too busy to keep tabs on what their children are doing, and have rather shallow relationships with their children. Sometimes this is not their fault, as the demands of earning a living, long commutes to work, and managing personal concerns conflict with parenting. Still, in many cases, some of these factors are under the control of the parents, and they are simply too self-absorbed to put their children and family life first. We do have more control over these thing than many admit.

Still even with the best intentions and the best efforts at good parenting, things go wrong. The pull of the tawdry popular culture is just too strong, and it's too ubiquitous. Unless we live like the Amish, there's no chance of completely avoiding the temptations. I hear that even the Amish sometimes lose children to the 'world.'

In the meantime, though, social conservatives (if there are any still left) should be doing all they can to resist the pull of the depraved culture around us. We are supposed to be preserving, or if that is no longer possible, trying to restore the best of our traditional culture, based on the Christian values of our culture.

Giving in to popular trends, going with the flow, or rationalizing bad behavior from a libertarian standpoint should not be the approach we take.

Where did we go wrong?

I've posed that question in various forms on this blog.
The usual answer is that it all started to go wrong in the 1960s.

Lately there has been a spate of articles about the 1960s rebellion, which culminated in a sense in the year 1968. Christopher Hitchens writes about it here.


Here, however, is a piece from TNC on the subject of that era which deals with the origins of the Sixties -- in the Fifties.

The writer refers to a piece from the New York Times Review of Books called 1958: The War of the Intellectuals, by Rachel Donadio.

Donadio tells us of the intellectual intensity of the 1950s, which is a perspective we don't hear too often. So many who think that the New Age of Enlightenment began in the 60s like to exalt that decade and its pretensions by comparing it favorably to the 50s, which is painted in drab colors as an age of oppressive conformity and repression.

There was a lively cultural scene and considerable intellectual ferment in the 50s. Even the popular culture which is decried by many today was a much more genteel and elevated kind than today's popular culture. The debasement which so characterizes today's pop culture was absent then.

But beneath the 'conformist' and mundane surface, there were signs of the coming social revolution. Donadio does not describe these things in critical terms; she simply notes them. For example, the beginnings of the attack on 'value judgments' which is part of the destruction of all discernment and discrimination.

Donadio quotes essayist and critic Dwight Macdonald's essay from 1960 called 'Masscult and Midcult.'
She says

The leveling process taking place in the culture “destroys all values, since value judgments require discrimination, an ugly word in liberal-democratic America,” Macdonald wrote. Masscult, he added, “is very, very democratic; it refuses to discriminate against or between anything or anybody.”

Macdonald, whose politics were all over the place during his life, was at various times a leftist/anarchist, a Marxist, and by the 50s, a dedicated anti-Communist who puzzlingly, became enamored of the antiwar movement of the 60s, and the New Left. Still, he was in general a social conservative despite his strange political affinities. This seems odd to us now because there are very few social conservatives among the liberal/leftists. For that matter, there are few social conservatives on the so-called 'right' these days, considering how fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism have come to be the norm on the right.

In a sense, Macdonald represents the rather complicated nature of the intellectual establishment in the 1950s. The New Criterion article describes how the supposedly 'conformist' and conservative 50s contained the seed of the counterculture sixties, in which conformity to tradition and the upholding of standards in all areas of life became anathema.

Macdonald and so many other intellectuals of the 50s era, though at first disparaging and disdaining the 'Beat Movement' slowly capitulated to the sixties counterculture and embraced the idea of 'radical chic', fawning over student agitators and black militants.

I suppose the question that ought to be asked is: why was there so little resistance to these pernicious ideas and movements when they came along? How do people make such sudden shifts? It's easier to explain when young people, seeking identity and individuality, eager for novelty, embrace some radical idea or fad. But what of people past middle age, as Macdonald was in the 60s? I suppose his early leftist ideas reemerged, and of course intellectuals and literary types are not necessarily average, typical people of their age and time.

Starting with the intelligentsia, American society was soon seduced by the counterculture, and the effects are still being felt, with the present-day acceptance of 'gay marriage', feminism, obsessive egalitarianism, hatred of all standards and discrimination, and the whole constellation of counterculture ideas.

The article makes another point about the sixties counterculture: there was practically nothing original in it; it was mostly warmed-over Beat Generation standard-issue Bohemian rebellion.

Most if not all the hallmarks of the counterculture were there in the Beat movement: drugs, sexual anarchy, anti-art (art which violates the old norms and esthetic standards), leftist politics, and even the fascination with exotic and outre religions.

And it was already present in a considerable degree in the staid-and-sober 50s. Careful observers of popular culture from that era can see the incipient rebellion even early in the 50s, for example, in the movie 'The Wild One.' Marlon Brando, as motorcycle gang-member Johnny, when asked what he is rebelling against, answers truculently: ''Whaddya got?''

That line is often quoted, especially by sixties types who have made rebellion their life theme.

I like this summation from the TNC article:

In a word, the establishment of the Beat “church” was significant as a chapter in the moral and cultural degradation of our society. Regarded as a literary phenomenon, however, what the Beats produced exists chiefly as a kind of artistic antimatter. It would not be quite right to say that its value is nil, for that might imply an innocuous neutrality. What the Beats have bequeathed us is actively bad, a corrupting as well as a corrupt phenomenon. To borrow an image from the Australian philosopher David Stove, the Beats created a “disaster-area, and not of the merely passive kind, like a bombed building, or an area that has been flooded. It is the active kind, like a badly-leaking nuclear reactor, or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle.”

It's very facile to blame the 60s and the 'hippie' baby-boomers who supposedly invented all these corrupting influences which have come to dominate our society. And as a boomer myself, I don't let my generation off the hook. We have plenty to answer for, and I've tried to make some amends for my youthful errors, while some, unfortunately, are as fanatical as ever in theirs.

The rot started, as I have said before, before the 60s, while my generation was in kindergarten, or perhaps sooner. I've mentioned before that the Civil Rights Revolution was well underway when I was a child; it was a fait accompli by the time I was of voting age or even before I was very politically aware.

And the other, perhaps more important part of the process, the social/cultural revolution, was underway much earlier, as well.

Does it matter so much when it began, or who began it? The thing is to recognize where we took the wrong turnings and to go back and retrace our steps, lest we become even more hopelessly lost.

More about the mixed-up multicultists

Here is blogger The Narrator's dissection of that piece I posted about yesterday. Great post.
The blog, Signals from the Brink, appears to be another needed contribution in the effort to get the truth out there in opposition to the flood of lies and propaganda.

'Act in the living present'

First, the story being discussed here has been posted on a number of blogs and forums, and has occasioned a lot of discussion, most of it of the garden variety shock and outrage that accompanies -- and should accompany -- any discussion of such acts.

However, the linked discussion begins with a reasonable blog entry -- at least until I hit this sentence:

For that matter, while the possibility of the execution of an innocent man troubles me, I don't regard this consideration as very telling.''

Execution? Innocent man? I'm lost here, I confess.
First, there was no 'execution' in the legal sense. The man was stopped in the act of committing horrible violence on a child, violence which was real enough and serious enough to cause the child's death. He had to be stopped. As for his possibly being 'an innocent man' -- good grief; there were several witnesses to this thing, and it seems the police arrived on the violent scene in progress.

It would seem that there was little doubt about his 'innocence.' So I don't understand the blogger's mention of that as a possibility.

The discussion that follows degenerates into a 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' exercise in splitting hairs over capital punishment and whether it is or is not moral, or Christian, or fair, or whatever, and whether concern for 'potentially innocent' suspects should be given equal consideration alongside victims.

The exasperatingly pedantic tone of the discussion adds to the frustration it inspired in me.

Another thing: the discussion (and many of the news stories reporting the incident in question) made no mention of the name of the suspect. Just for the record, his name was Hispanic (Sergio Aguilar) and it may be he was illegal, but that is not the main point. His heritage and culture are not inconsequential, as far as I'm concerned. Why? Because culture plays a part in how we comport ourselves individually and in groups. And culture is linked with race. Certain groups are demonstrably more likely to commit violent crimes. That's something most oblivious 'I'm no racist' Americans need to understand; the fact that we are becoming a Hispanic country will not just mean more good Mexican restaurants. It will mean our country will come to resemble Mexico more and more, and this kind of thing is part of it.

But that's not the point of this post. I'm more troubled by the fact that even among conservatives, or 'conservatives', there seems to be a moral obtuseness that hints at how much liberal ideas have filtered into the conservative discourse. This fussing over whether the mad-dog individual beating the child was 'innocent', whether in a hair-splitting legalistic sense, or in an absolute moral sense, should not be taking place. At all. Especially not among conservatives.

30 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago, I cannot imagine those questions being raised and fretted over except among hyper-liberals.

Not so long ago, it was simply a given that should citizens or police come upon such an act happening, the attacker would need to be stopped, by whatever means worked, up to and including lethal force. The fretting about how someone could have stopped him without killing him is just decadent.

I suppose, in a way, this is a predictable side-effect of years of propaganda on the right about how ''all (human) life is sacred.'' Now, this line seems to have come into use as a weapon against the pro-abort crowd. However, the liberals, while not deeming unborn babies' lives to be sacred, certainly seem to think that all criminals (or suspects') lives are sacred. But was this idea of all human life being sacred a commonly-held idea in the old America? I honestly don't remember ever hearing it until after abortion became legalized.

Does the Bible say that 'all human life is sacred'? It certainly holds that all is created by God, and implies that all beings are created for a purpose. Since God is the Creator and giver of life, it isn't ours to decide arbitrarily to end a life, our own included, unless certain circumstances existed. The Bible commands capital punishment for murder. And here, the liberal will say, regarding the situation of the man beating the baby, that 'he hadn't been tried or convicted.' Yes, but under Biblical law, someone threatening innocent life is to be stopped from taking life, by force if need be.

The Bible always differentiates between shedding innocent blood and the blood of a criminal, or even someone in the act of harming another, who has not yet been 'tried and convicted'.

I have never been able to fathom the obtuseness of many liberals who cannot or will not see the difference between using lethal force to stop a dangerous attacker, or executing a killer, and taking an innocent life. It's as though most of our people in the West have become morally blinded.

Distinctions are important; how can we have reached the point where we seriously think that it may be morally wrong to kill a man committing such a heinous act? Can we no longer discern between killing someone for a valid reason, in extreme circumstances where a life is at stake, and wanton murder? Have we gotten too squeamish and too timid to deal with moral absolutes, and thus resort to shilly-shallying over life-and-death matters? I think we have, and I think this is manifest in many areas of our society these days. For example, our reluctance to defend our borders. Nobody wants to be unfair to these nice people who just come here to work and make a better living for themselves and their children. Like Mr. Aguilar, perhaps? Nobody wants to believe that among those nice, hard-working church-going, pious immigrants that there are some like Mr. Aguilar. We must always presume the best of everybody, the evidence notwithstanding.

We refuse to take tough stands and make hard choices. We would rather stand by and wring our hands and discuss fine moral points about the ethics of any possible action we might take to stop whatever evil we are up against. Sometimes, we just have to act and not stop to analyze and shilly-shally. (And by the way, that word comes from the phrase 'Shall I? Shall I?" The favorite phrase of the hesitant and the timid).
Sometimes we don't have the luxury of being timid and self-critical. Sometimes we have to 'act, act in the living present.'

But as for the question of killing a suspect, it's unfortunate, I think, that the English translation of the Ten Commandments uses the phrase 'thou shalt not kill' when the original phrase meant 'thou shalt not murder'. Hence the moral confusion of many about capital punishment. Every time some killer is executed and the bleeding-hearts gather around to protest and weep crocodile tears, the protesters carry signs saying 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' And someone lectures us, saying that if we execute killers, we are 'no better than they are.' Such people are moral imbeciles.

As for the case of the man, Aguilar, murdering the child, I can only say that anybody who is not outraged and sickened by his actions does not deserve the label of 'civilized human being'. Anybody who wants to split hairs about whether or not he may have been 'innocent' has his priorities exactly backwards.

The Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775

It's good to remember our history and our heritage. Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Here is a link to a number of contemporary accounts of the battle.

Were the celebrations premature?

Amid all the rejoicing and congratulations all around on the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, I've been wondering when the other shoe would drop. I mean, I applaud the Irish voters' choice, and I would certainly wish the EU would be thwarted in their designs, but my feeling was that it was rather naive to think that the referendum would be the end of this question.
This blogger's viewpoint coincides with my gut feeling.

''For the time being, though, the eurosceptics can enjoy their brief moment of triumph and, for sure, we have been given a strong propaganda victory. But, in reality, nothing has changed. The treaty is not dead – it is not even resting. The march of European political integration goes on unchecked. These fanatics will stop at nothing.''

And then today Hibernia Girl posts this: Daniel Hannan explains what's next for the Lisbon Treaty

EU treaty: What next
By Daniel Hannan
15/06/2008

"Wouldn't it be easier to dissolve the people and elect another in their place?" Bertolt Brecht's words hang over the European Union this week as its leaders struggle to get around Ireland's "No".

Even before the official result had been declared, the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, announced that the Lisbon Treaty was not dead and that ratification would continue. One by one, the various national leaders put out statements to the same effect.

On Sunday, David Miliband and Nick Clegg confirmed that their parties would carry on voting for Lisbon.

"It is not truly democratic that less than a million people should decide the fate of half a billion Europeans", said the leader of the Euro-Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.''

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, aka 'Danny the Red'. I remember him from the student left revolts back in the late 60s. This is who is part of the 'elite' who are engineering this whole totalitarian project.

Read the rest over at Hibernia Girl's. She is much more knowledgeable about this situation than I.

'Equality at the expense of liberty'

Of late, I haven't been reading The Brussels Journal as closely as I did in the past. To be honest I am more preoccupied with what is happening within our country (or what used to be our country) than with Europe. I find many of the articles there lately to be rather tepid, but this latest piece by 'Takuan Seiyo' is one of the best things I've read concerning not only the situation in Japan, but the lessons for the West which are implicit in the Japanese experience.

Just as a bit of context, I expect my readers have all seen this distressing article which appeared in the last few days:

Japan must boost immigration

...We think it would be appropriate for Japan to accept immigrants to make up 10 percent of the population over the next 50 years," the lawmakers said in the report, which was unveiled late on Thursday.

"Japan is an island country situated in the Far East, and seen as having a relatively homogeneous population, so some say it is not suited to accepting immigrants," the lawmakers said.

"It is a fact that we have less experience of immigration than do Europe and America. But we are facing harsh times," they added.

The report also called for Japan to accept more refugees. Asylum seekers are currently admitted to Japan only in very rare cases.''

This should be disturbing to all Westerners, and not just to those who admire the Japanese culture. To me, it's one more piece of evidence showing that the tentacles of globalism and 'multiculturalism' have reached to the opposite side of the planet. So far, it has seemed as though the 'one world' elitists were content to let Asia remain Asian, focusing their efforts on de-Europeanizing the West. I've long thought that this must surely be a temporary oversight on their part, or maybe the Japanese need further 'softening up', more conditioning to the multicult before they would be willing to accept being colonized or 'diversified' with people from the backward nations. It looks as though the 'powers that be' have decided the time is ripe.

Takuan Seiyo does not address this latest bit of news in his piece, but he makes many very cogent points about the contrasts between Western culture and that of Japan, and about how we might learn from each other. He describes how Western ideas, disseminated via the ubiquitous mass media, have come to change Japan, particularly (as always) among the younger generations.

He discusses the writings of Masahiko Fujiwara, a professor who has written about the decline in Japanese traditional culture.

In late 2005, Fujiwara published a book entitled The Dignity of the Nation (3). Within six months the book had sold two million copies, making it Japan's second best-selling title of 2006, after, tellingly, Harry Potter.

Fujiwara is a patriot who does not like what he sees in contemporary Japan. In his book, he criticizes the Western values of logic, democracy and individualism and decries their negative impact on Japan. He lists symptoms of the disease ravaging the world's developed countries: disintegration of the family, educational collapse, crime, terrorism, drug use, AIDS.

He attributes this decay to the failure of Western logic and rationality that has set root also in Japan.

Fujiwara adduces, wrongly, that meritocracy and capitalism are among the causes of this sickness. This is a common opinion among Japanese "conservatives" that is debatable with respect to Japan but is grossly ignorant with respect to the West.

Meritocracy was the great strength of the West in the 20th century, until it was abandoned in favor of the very hobbling pox that Japan, to Fujiwara's dismay, has been trying to wean itself from. Our fetish now is to insist on equal results, on equality among unequals, on social promotion instead of merit-based promotion. And Western capitalism has degenerated to printing and shuffling money and phantom money, and it has been perverted in other ways too – but even now it has a salutary foundation that Fujiwara misses entirely.
[...]Fujiwara names these Western "starting points" on which the West's social arrangements are based: freedom, equality, democracy and, of late, globalization.

Freedom, Fujiwara writes, has degenerated into nothing more than unrestrained egotism. Equality is a fiction, a lie used to mask a reality of great inequality, or to wield as a club in the constant class, race and gender skirmishes roiling the West. Globalization is worldwide homogenization, and not to the highest common denominator. And democracy is based on an erroneous assumption: that people are capable of making mature and informed judgments.

Only a governing elite can curb democracy's tendency to run amok, says Fujiwara. Members of the elite must possess four characteristics: a broad cultural and historical erudition, an ability to see "the big picture," exceptional strength of character, and sufficient love of their people and country to sacrifice for them their lives in an hour of need. Japan, Fujiwara adds, used to but no longer has such an elite. One of his greatest delusions is that Great Britain, France, and the U.S. still do.''

It's evident to those of us living in the West, those of us who care about our peoples, that our elites no longer possess these qualities in the least, most especially the last one: love of their people and country, and willingness to sacrifice for them. Our leaders not only lack these qualities, but they embody the very antithesis of these qualities.

Seiyo then discusses the role of social class in this situation. I had just been ruminating on this subject when I read this piece, so it coincided rather nicely with my musings. I have been wondering (and I realize this is heresy in today's America) whether we in America, more than many other Western countries, have gone too far to the egalitarian end of the spectrum regarding social class. Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of some of our Founding Fathers, there was during their age, still an aristocracy of sorts in America. These people were not aristocrats in the European sense, bearing hereditary titles and special privileges, but there was an idea that there was a sort of aristocracy of birth and character in the sense that people born of 'good' families should live up to a high standard, and set an example to those lower in the social order. The idea of noblesse oblige was still extant.

I've written before about how Thomas Jefferson's phrase ''all men are created equal'' has caused untold mischief, and is now threatening to destroy us as we are hobbled in our attempt to deal with mass immigration and racial grievances. I am convinced that Jefferson did not mean for his phrase to connote an absolute equality among men.

John Taylor of Caroline (and perhaps John Randolph of Roanoke) said ''I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.'' Yet in our zeal to repudiate monarchy and aristocracy in general, it seems we've gone too far in embracing the leveling spirit. As it is, we have an elite who constitute an aristocracy of sorts, but they are not an aristocracy in the old genteel meaning of the word. They lack the superior education, the high standards, the sense of duty to kin and country, and above all, they lack the nobility of spirit which marked the best of the old aristocracy. Many of our elites are not of 'good families' as they used to say, but are merely riff-raff with money. Coincidentally, I was watching a documentary about a scandalous crime among the supposed members of the 'upper crust' in a New England town; their behavior was indistinguishable from the behavior of the guests on Jerry Springer. As I watched it, I thought of how money is the sole determinant, these days, of who is considered 'upper class', while higher standards, dignity, and restraint are conspicuously missing among most of 'high society.' Look at the behavior of the Hiltons. These are people who've accumulated wealth but who have no 'class' in the old sense. Money can't buy class. Even worse than the tabloid scandals of the 'upper class' is their lack of loyalty and their utter selfishness. Our elites of old at least had loyalty and a sense of nobility of character in most cases.

And the notion that the quintessence of the upper class is decoupled from any considerations of wealth and is instead linked to descent from warriors and, much more important, to character traits that once were the idolized hallmark of warriors: honor, chivalry, loyalty, courage, honesty, good manners, modesty, self-restraint, contempt for materialism, love of justice, love of country and of its deity.

Values and virtues tend to trickle from the top down, rather then percolating from the bottom. And that has huge implications. Since the newly invigorated merchants in 17th century Edo (Tokyo) started emulating samurai customs, such as the tea ceremony, Japanese with higher aspirations have sought to adopt the values and comportment of the upper class. The ethos by which those are transmitted is, by now, so widely diffused that it's an essential part of Japanese schools' curriculum, for instance in a wise book, The Tsurezuregusa, written by Kenko, a Buddhist priest and poet at the Imperial Court, around 1330.

1330! How many books reflecting traditional Western virtues as perceived even a hundred years ago are still being taught in Western schools? Instead, the psychotic Western elite disseminates the contemporary values it has minted: erasure of history, custom, and the white peoples’ ethnic identity; prostration before hostile aliens without and within; tolerance über alles; equality at the expense of liberty; quantity rather than quality; flesh over spirit; indulgence over will; statism over self-reliance. All these are a contagion that destroys, rather than a restorative that invigorates.''

I've lamented before that we have no leadership, and when I say leadership I don't just mean politicians, who are all too often a venal group of people, but people of accomplishment who inspire us, people who champion what is right, people who care about their country and their people and speak out on our behalf, or who work to uphold our culture at its best, our traditions, our heritage. There is an utter vacuum at the top.

I think most who read this blog agree with me that the idea that 'all men are created equal' is false, and that certainly all peoples are not equal in abilities or in character, and certainly it follows that all cultures are not created equal. I think most of us agree that blood and heredity count for something in how people grow to be what they are; we are not born blank slates. Good and decent people usually produce good and decent children and people of low character have children like themselves more often than not. And it should not even be necessary to state the obvious, that yes, there are always occasional exceptions. But as always, those exceptions don't disprove the rule.

We are to some degree a product of heredity as well as environment. Extreme liberals of course believe environment is all, and that we are all infinitely malleable, blank slates. Conservatives know better -- or they should know better.

Seiyo talks about how the Japanese have upheld many of the values of the old samurai code, which have to do with honor, shame, and 'contempt for base behavior.' We in the West had our code of chivalry, which is not an exact parallel to the samurai code, but similar enough. To some extent that code has been preserved in Southron culture, but it's weakening. We in the West have, as our Christian faith and ethics have been weakened, succumbed to the 'non-judgmentalist' dogma which is at the core of psychology. Standards and rules are considered 'elitist' and 'undemocratic.' And many conservatives acquiesce to this unhappy state of things. Why?

The very concept of base behavior has vanished in the West, because to perceive and loathe baseness we would also have to be taught to perceive and revere highness – and that's committing a high crime in the degenerate West of today, a crime of discrimination, discernment and "judgmentalism." We much prefer the distinction of legal / illegal – but that distinction is, per se, base, for it invokes the state’s guns, batons and watching eyes as the generator of virtue.''

As a child, I was taught by older family members and elders in general that certain behaviors were 'trashy', 'low-class', and that we were to be better than that. Is that elitist? Probably, but I've retained these ideals all of my life and passed them on.

Elitism, centered by a strong moral code and set of ethics, is not a bad thing. I wish we could get over this childish, rebellious egalitarianism and regain high standards once again.

Along with our discarding of standards as 'elitist', we have lost our concern for courtesy in interpersonal relaitonships and we've lost our emphasis on quality in our workmanship. This is visible in our dealings with others every day, and in the marketplace, we settle for poor service and shoddy standards. America once had very high standards in all areas of life; American-made products were generally well-made and reliable.

Americans were once very courteous and helpful in our interactions; businesses put the customer first. No longer. There is a general air of apathy and surliness all too often. This is also exacerbated by the intercultural misunderstandings, and the presence of so many Third World peoples among us who observe no niceties, no small talk, no 'please-and-thank-you'.

Seiyo also mentions the honesty of the Japanese people, and their belief that stealing is 'base behavior.' Too many of us no longer have any such moral or ethical convictions, or even a sense that doing such things is a cause for shame, and is degrading intrinsically. Add to that the numbers of people from corrupt Third World countries where moral standards are lacking or drastically at odds with our own, and we have an increasingly value-deficient society.

Here is something else that we in the West might rediscover: the proper order of our loyalties and priorities:

Japan is one of the world's greatest supporters of the United Nations and of other global institutions, partly because its people and leaders are too naïve and ignorant to understand some of the malign mechanics that animate such institutions. But even in their enthusiasm for multilateralism, the Japanese do not forget the proper order of things: love of family, love of hometown, love of country, and only then love of mankind.

White people, in contrast, have turned this on its head so that love of mankind comes first, love of hometown and country are quaint and rare relics, and love of family is increasingly disappearing too. While the pierced-and-tattooed future of the West is busy with the problems of the Africans, the Palestinians, and Inconvenient Gorefiction, Fujiwara says: "There is no such thing as a 'global citizen,' and teaching such a fiction does a hundred times more harm than good." '

Fujiwara says it all there.

Seiyo says that the diversity mania that is raging through the West is absent in Japan. I hope he is right; I hope that xenomania, as it exists in the West, does not spread further. I hope that it isn't too late for us to be cured of our terminal case of it.