Culturalism or...?

On this blog, we return every so often to the discussion of culture vs. race, or nature vs. nurture, if you like.

Over at TakiMag, there is a piece by John Derbyshire in which he addresses this issue.

Derbyshire discusses how some, who, although believing that human beings evolved in Africa 50,000 years ago, then stopped evolving suddenly after dispersing throughout the world, in groups widely separated from one another.

That does seem quite a contradiction for those who believe in evolution. How does one rationalize or explain away this sudden stop in what is supposed to be an ongoing process? How can it be that the races of human beings, despite the great variations in appearance, are still somehow exactly the same in all the ways that matter?

He discusses how the idea of the 'psychic unity of mankind' was developed by Adolph Bastian and then later by Franz Boas, who is one of the most influential figures in anthropology and sociology. So much of the 'thinking', if it can be called that, of liberal egalitarians is based on Franz Boas' theories.

This idea of the “psychic unity of mankind” is a sort of blank slate principle. It says that all human beings everywhere have the same physiological nature, most especially the same brains, and that all observed differences, both group and individual, are the result of “culture” acting on this infinitely plastic substratum—writing words on this ”blank slate.”

“Blank slate” is in fact sometimes used as an identifier for this point of view—this belief in the psychic unity of mankind. It is also sometimes called a “Boasian” viewpoint in honor of Franz Boas—poor Bastian seems to have been forgotten.
[...]
Those of you who like to trace things back through the history of philosophy will recognize culturism as an extreme form of existentialism. In philosophical jargon your essence is what you are, as it might be put on a police WANTED poster: white male, 190 lbs, married two children, etc. Your existence is that you are—the fact of your being in the world. The old philosophical conundrum is: Which comes first, essence or existence? Do you come into the world with preset atrributes—the essentialist position? Or do you come in as a blank slate, and have to get some attributes for yourself, as the mid-20th-century Existentialists argued, or have them imposed on you by your social conditions, modes of production, and so on, as classical Marxism argued? ''

I had never thought of this culturalist 'blank slate' theory as being existentialist, but it is that. And as Derbyshire notes, our offical dogma in this society is 'an extreme existentialist one.' It's usually expressed as the utopian notion that we can all, or each of us as individuals, do anything and be anything we wish to be. And if we fail to do so, it's because of some environmental cause; opportunity has been cruelly denied us, holding us back from achieving our dreams.

Obviously, as we've discussed here before, if we believe, as the doctrinaire blank-slate egalitarians do, that everybody is equal in potential, then we have to find some explanation for why certain groups fail to achieve on an equal level. If we refuse dogmatically to accept that because races are intrinsically different, each group has differing abilities, then we have to resort to blaming any disparities on 'racism'. Of course, the all-encompassing belief in racism accepts as a given that White people are being gratuitously malicious towards nonwhites, thwarting their every effort to achieve. This is unfair to minorities in that it gives them a false diagnosis of the problem, rendering a realistic solution nearly impossible, but even more, it is unfair to Whites who are labeled as born 'racists' who are guilty whether they acknowledge it or not. It is slanderous; it amounts to calling Whites an innately evil group of people, and the only people capable of what is now considered (by our liberal society) the worst of all human evils -- ''racism.''

Our educational bureaucracy and our politically correct politicians who set policy are invested in egalitarian belief, and so they are forced to keep re-enacting this absurd play in which certain racial/ethnic groups fall short in academic achievement, followed by the ritualistic response that 'racism' is keeping these groups from ''closing the achievement gap.'' The vast sums of money our governments spend on trying to equalize the races is never enough to close the persistent gap, and no amount of money can ever be enough, apparently. Yet this charade goes on and on, with no end in sight. Worse, the 'achievement gap' issue is further complicated by the introduction of yet other ethnic/racial groups who also fail to compete academically as egalitarian dogmas imply they should. So now we have not only the black/White 'achievement gap' to fret about, but also the Hispanic/White gap. And on it goes.

The egalitarian is forced to resort to the belief that 'culture' causes all significant differences among the races, and that if we just 'assimilate' everyone to our ways, they will be just the same as we are, and will eventually achieve at equivalent levels. If not, it's because we have not done enough to bridge the cultural divide. Or it's because Whites are so incorrigibly 'racist.'

So this stubborn belief in egalitarianism of course entails more spending of money, and renewed efforts to indoctrinate teachers and citizens in the belief that we are all really equal, but for culture, and culture can be taught or shared. More propaganda is generated in an attempt to 'correct' the attitudes of 'racist' Whites, and more 'hate speech' laws are passed to curtail the evil of 'racism.'

According to the blank-slate believers, inequality has nothing whatsoever to do with race or genetics. It has only to do with 'culture', and culture apparently grows out of the ground, or falls out of the sky like rain; it does not grow out of the soul and mind of a particular people or race.

It is not just the extreme left egalitarians who believe this; just visit any mainstream 'conservative' forum and you will find many staunch Republicans protesting that ''Bill Cosby is right; blacks just have to learn how to succeed in majority culture and give up the ghetto culture.''
Thomas Sowell wrote that black social pathologies were caused by their exposure to 'redneck culture' in the South. Again, a 'conservative' variation on the old evil Whitey explanation for everything.

Many 'conservatives' believe that Hispanics ''will assimilate just like everybody else, if you give them a generation or two. After all, the [insert favorite European ethnic group name here] assimilated." They say the same about even more exotic peoples such as Somalis or Hmongs. The belief is that they will all become as American as apple pie, given enough time and exposure to our 'culture.'

For an illustration of how the debate on culture vs. genetics goes, just read the discussion on this blog thread regarding the Walmart trampling death. The 'r-word' flies, and denials likewise follow. This kind of back-and-forth is never-ending.

Stating a belief in innate racial differences, especially where behavior is concerned, draws accusations of 'racism' just about every time.
So most "conservatives" fall back on the idea of culture as being the determinant, although nobody ever answers the question of how culture develops. There is an implicit belief that culture just happens, or that it's comparable to a suit of clothes that we can put on or take off at will.
Everybody is equally capable, apparently, of adopting any culture. How certain ethnicities and races come to have distinct cultures, that are unique to them alone, is never discussed, much less explained.

Derbyshire alludes to the reaction James Watson experienced when he stated a simple belief in IQ differences among the races.
But since the feared results of believing such differences exist are considered undesirable by liberals and egalitarians, the idea of differences must be banished from polite discussion. Any heretic who expresses such a belief must be dealt with by ostracism, job loss, re-education, or whatever means, in order that the forbidden idea not be spread.

But until or unless we can honestly acknowledge the simple and self-evident fact that we are not blank slates and not all ''the same under the skin", this pattern will persist. The endless laments about 'achievement gaps' and 'the failure of our schools' and our 'failure to integrate and assimilate' everyone, and the endless accusations of racism in all its various forms, all will continue, and the frictions attendant on these accusations will increase.

If you read the comments at TakiMag following Derbyshire's article, you will notice that one rather angry liberal commenter shows that he is fearful of the results which might follow an acceptance of innate racial differences. He mentions 'eugenics', for example. I don't know whether the commenter eventually will resort to the old reductio ad Hitlerum, but I would not be surprised.

Why do people, or liberals, I should say, fiercely resist the idea of innate differences? Is it because of their dogmatic belief that we all have a right to self-create and self-define? Or are they really fearful that some kind of totalitarian policies would be implicit in the idea of differences?

Many of the people who express these kinds of fears are members of minority groups (sometimes ethnic Whites) who feel themselves to be endangered by an acknowledgement of ethnic and racial differences. Some of these people identify strongly with nonwhites, and have a knee-jerk resistance to any ideas which they deem potentially ''racist".

I am not surprised that the leftists and liberals cling fiercely to their egalitarian, blank slate belief system. Reality never intersects with their perceptions. But I am perpetually frustrated that many who are somewhat more to the right, who pride themselves on being 'realistic', insist on mouthing the same platitudes as the left-liberals. How do we get past this?

Shoppers rampage

On a Free Republic thread about the deadly stampede by frenzied Walmart shoppers, post #8 asks why the media are using an incorrect picture to illustrate the story. The picture apparently being shown is (I believe) from a Target store, and it looks like a racially-mixed group of people, some White, some black, some of unidentifiable race. However, the correct picture of the site of the Walmart stampede shows a group which appears to be close to 100 percent black.

The poster asks why the media are using the wrong photo. Need we ask? It's all part of the media's campaign of deception and obfuscation in the name of political correctness.

The other incident of 'Black Friday' violence, which resulted in two people being shot dead in a Toys R Us store, is reported in the usual odd fashion of today's PC media; the race or ethnicity of the people involved is coyly avoided in the article. This lack of information usually leads me to conclude that the perpetrators were nonwhite. The media are never shy about telling us when a White person commits a crime.

Is it important to tell us the race or ethnicity of a criminal suspect? I say it is, especially when the suspect is still at large. But in countless cases I've seen reported on the TV news, a suspect will be described only by the type of clothing worn, and by sex. For instance, a 'male wearing dark-colored clothing' is a popular description of criminal suspects. If this person is at large, he is still a danger to others, and yet his arrest is made less likely by the lack of a clear description.

When this kind of thing first became accepted practice by the media, and presumably by law enforcement agencies, many skeptics denied that such a policy existed, saying that only paranoid 'bigots' would make an issue out of racially ID-ing suspects. But it's since been acknowledged by news media that they in fact avoid such racial identifiers out of a desire not to ''stigmatize members of ethnic communities unfairly."

So rather than ''stigmatize'' someone, heaven forbid, let's let criminals run free and possibly victimize other innocents. Innocent lives are not as important as the ''feelings'' or the ''self-esteem" of 'ethnic communities.'

As for these disturbing events among 'Black Friday' shoppers, if one can call stampeding mobs 'shoppers', what have we come to, that there can be so many people willing to regress to savage behavior in pursuit of ''stuff", such as big-screen plasma TVs and game systems?

Many other questions come to mind: why are people knocking down doors (literally, in the Wal-Mart incident) to obtain these high-ticket items? The very people involved are the people the media tell us are ''deprived'' in some way, unable to participate in America's prosperity. It looks to me as if they are doing better than many middle-income people, if they can afford these luxury items. And if the economy is so troubled, why do so many Americans seem to have so much disposable income? Are they living beyond their means, charging these items on maxed-out credit cards? I've often idly wondered this kind of thing. When I still lived in the Big Multicultural City, I often saw residents of a certain housing project. Supposedly these people were at the bottom of the economic totem pole, yet they had $200 shoes, gold chains, and designer label clothing. I saw virtually no one who looked poor or deprived. In my youth, there were people (Whites as well as other races) who looked truly poor, being inadequately clothed and shod. Now the 'poor' people seem quite middle-class. Even homeless people sometimes don't look completely down and out.

Still, we are told that we are in some kind of new 'Great Depression', or on the verge of such a crisis. Are we? You'd never know it by these berserk shoppers.

But the behavior of the Walmart shoppers is apparently causing many people to think 'naughty' politically incorrect thoughts, at least if we can judge by the comments at many of the newspaper web pages. The first link I provided above, from the New York Daily News, contained some rather over-the-top comments, at least by PC standards, and I would not be surprised if such comments are deleted, or if commenting is shut down, as usually happens when people go off the reservation and make ''bigoted'' comments. It's interesting to see that some people are speaking up and making connections that were unthinkable in some quarters until recently.

This article contains the usual psychobabble explanations for the savage behavior of the Walmart mob, and some commenters actually see through it.

The all-knowing 'experts' say that fear was behind the behavior:

A fear of being unable to afford gifts - given today's economic woes - may drive many consumers to shop competitively for bargains at dawn, say local psychologists and sociologists.

Many people abandon their normal behavior when caught up in the urge to snag discounted plasma HDTVs like those on sale Friday at Wal-Mart in Valley Stream.''

Leave it to psychologists to try to elicit sympathy for those who trampled a man to death.
Why on earth should anybody ''fear'' not being able to buy an HDTV? It makes sense to fear not being able to buy food, or not being able to provide shelter for ourselves or our families, or not being able to get crucial medical care. Those wants are grounds for fear and distress, or at least concern. But ''fear" of not being able to buy pricey luxury gifts or even 'presents' for oneself? That's just greed and lust. And it is not something we should empathize with.

The exasperating thing about those who are so avid to buy Chinese-made junk because it's cheaper is that we Americans in general are not a frugal people, and we are not a deprived people. I suppose if this country were like the old Soviet Union, in which people told of having to stand in line for hours to get a simple loaf of bread, the desperation to 'get stuff' might be somewhat understandable. But as of now, at least, these frenzied bargain-hunters, who will stay up all night to get in a line to buy TVs or game systems, are not needy or hungry or desperate. They don't ''need'' these things at all.

We are a spoiled, self-indulgent, acquisitive people when you come right down to it.
Our parents and grandparents in many cases knew real want, and they knew the value of a dollar. Most of us today have never known hunger (except when on a self-imposed diet) or want. There's no excuse for Americans to act like starving people fighting over a loaf of bread.

Not all of us individually are guilty of these things, but as a society, it's true of us.
It's tempting to blame these trends on the media, and advertising. They do play a huge part in creating lusts in people for these luxury items and what used to be called 'status symbols.' Or some blame Walmart for their irresponsibility in enticing people to these dog-eat-dog shopping frenzies, and for failing to hire sufficient security and other staff to deal with rampaging hordes of 'shoppers'. Some say we should not blame Walmart. I say there is blame to go around. People of good character would not be engaging in this kind of savage behavior in quest of a "cheap'' $800 TV, but retailers should realize they are courting disaster by catering to the worst instincts of some people. Most people might be able to behave in a civlized and restrained way at these sales. Others, unfortunately, are not, and retailers surely know their customers. Walmart stores in certain areas are notorious for the kind of underclass clientele they attract and cater to. True, many middle-class people are bargain-hunters but most know to stay away from such places because of the kinds of customers who throng such stores. For that reason (and because I like quality, non-Chinese made merchandise) I shun Walmart.

So Walmart was irresponsible, but ultimately the stampeding hordes are the guilty ones. No individual blame can be affixed in a situation like the Walmart one; a number of people apparently trampled the poor man who died; no one can say who was most responsible, but it appears that there was a general callousness and indifference to his life and safety on the part of all the crazed shoppers. So they bear a collective responsibility and guilt -- which I doubt will trouble any of them. Reports said they were resentful and angry at being asked to leave when the injured and dying man was being aided by the paramedics. Getting their loot was uppermost in their minds. This is sad, and appalling.

Was this just an isolated incident? Unfortunately, probably not. Was it a harbinger of what is to come? I hope not, but I fear it may be, as we descend into Third World status in this country.

Personally I am doing more online shopping or giving gift cards, rather than descend into the chaos of shopping malls at Christmastime.

The citizenship issue

We've all been watching the discussion of the citizenship questions regarding Obama. I've said almost nothing about it because the whole subject is so complicated, seemingly, that it makes my head swim to try to sort it out. And regardless of what some critics say, we don't know for certain where Obama was born; the question of his birthplace is far from settled.

According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate

The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.

"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]

So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.


Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.

And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements


However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:

...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''

Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.

I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.

But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.

Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.

This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:

The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.

Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.

Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.

But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.

All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.

I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.

Happy Thanksgiving 2008

I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving, with lots of good company and good food; I hope that you all may be surrounded by those you love.
In honor of Thanksgiving, I offer you a poem by Edgar Guest, and it may be a little on the corny side, but if we can't enjoy corny, sentimental, homespun poetry on Thanksgiving, when can we enjoy it? We live in a cynical age and a little corn will do us all good.

Thanksgiving

Edgar A. Guest

Gettin' together to smile an' rejoice,
An' eatin' an' laughin' with folks of your choice;
An' kissin' the girls an' declarin' that they
Are growin more beautiful day after day;
Chattin' an' braggin' a bit with the men,
Buildin' the old family circle again;
Livin' the wholesome an' old-fashioned cheer,
Just for awhile at the end of the year.

Greetings fly fast as we crowd through the door
And under the old roof we gather once more
Just as we did when the youngsters were small;
Mother's a little bit grayer, that's all.
Father's a little bit older, but still
Ready to romp an' to laugh with a will.
Here we are back at the table again
Tellin' our stories as women an men.

Bowed are our heads for a moment in prayer;
Oh, but we're grateful an' glad to be there.
Home from the east land an' home from the west,
Home with the folks that are dearest an' best.
Out of the sham of the cities afar
We've come for a time to be just what we are.
Here we can talk of ourselves an' be frank,
Forgettin' position an' station an' rank.

Give me the end of the year an' its fun
When most of the plannin' an' toilin' is done;
Bring all the wanderers home to the nest,
Let me sit down with the ones I love best,
Hear the old voices still ringin' with song,
See the old faces unblemished by wrong,
See the old table with all of its chairs
An I'll put soul in my Thanksgivin' prayers.

Happy Thanksgiving, all, and may God bless you.

Note: the illustration above is from a magazine cover by Wilbur G. Kurtz. The picture was 'Home for Thanksgiving', and it appeared on a 'Progressive Farmer' magazine cover in 1934.

'We Gather Together...' story of a hymn

On a previous Thanksgiving, I posted a link to this article , A Hymn's Long Journey Home, which tells the story of the song ''We Gather Together to Ask the Lord's Blessing.'' Realizing some of you have read it before, I post it because it's an interesting little story which tells us something about the early history of our country, as illustrated by a hymn.

Those of you who are old enough to have gone to school in the 'old America,', before the name of God was banished from our schools, probably remember the hymn, or in fact sang it in school. I know I did.

We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing;
He chastens and hastens His will to make known.
The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing.
Sing praises to His Name; He forgets not His own.

Beside us to guide us, our God with us joining,
Ordaining, maintaining His kingdom divine;
So from the beginning the fight we were winning;
Thou, Lord, were at our side, all glory be Thine!

We all do extol Thee, Thou Leader triumphant,
And pray that Thou still our Defender will be.
Let Thy congregation escape tribulation;
Thy Name be ever praised! O Lord, make us free!''

The linked article tells us about the Dutch origins of this hymn, and about how early Dutch colonists (among whom were some of my ancestors, and probably those of some of my readers as well) brought this hymn with them from Holland. Read about the history behind it at the link.

Although our country has an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon character deriving from the early English colonists in New England and Virginia, it's appropriate to remember our all-but-forgotten Dutch roots and this hymn is one reminder of that.

And the words of the hymn seem to be appropriate to our present situation in troubled 21st century America.

A fictional presidency, from 1932

I always suspect that the programmers at TCM have a political agenda, and as I watched the movie 'Gabriel Over the White House' yesterday, it would seem as if that movie were chosen to make some political point, although the message of the movie itself is vague, and has been read several ways depending on one's political leanings.

For those of you who haven't seen it, 'Gabriel' is an odd movie, released in 1933, apparently produced by William Randolph Hearst during the 1932 presidential campaign. Does it seem as if that particular election keeps coming up lately in the context of today's news? It seems so to me.

Controversial since the time of its release, Gabriel Over the White House is widely acknowledged to be an example of propaganda, although contention exists as to which ideology it is espousing.

Filmed during the 1932 presidential election on the orders of media magnate William Randolph Hearst, the film was intended to be an instructional guide for Franklin D. Roosevelt during his presidency. Hammond as he exists prior to his accident is an amalgamation of caricatures of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt's immediate predecessors. After his accident, he is Hearst's idealized image of the perfect president, the president he wanted Roosevelt to be.

These facts, coupled with the film's almost chilling accuracy at predicting Roosevelt's economic programs, lead many, particularly classical liberals and conservatives, to believe that film is a sympathetic portrayal of what might be social liberalism's worst excesses, or even socialism.

Social liberals often counter these claims by declaring that the film's politics trend more toward fascism than socialism. They point out that both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini took steps similar to Roosevelt's in stabilizing their countries' economies and both men were much more like Hammond in their social and foreign policies (e.g., massive military buildup, martial law, secret police, show trials, etc.) than Roosevelt. They further point to Hearst's well-known dalliance with Nazism, including his attendance of the 1934 Nuremberg Rally, as evidence of their theories.

Recently, author and history professor Robert S. McElvaine wrote an editorial for the left-wing OpEdNews.com in which he compared current President George W. Bush to Judson Hammond.''

That last comparison figures; liberals always see a likeness to their favorite ''right-wing'' bogeymen of the day.

The movie is available on DVD, for those who are interested. Or, you can watch the movie at YouTube, in segments, and this link has a talky intro in Spanish, no less, but I include the link because as of now, the comments below the clip are interesting. I suggest you check them out, while they are there. The commenters see a resemblance to today's politics, and to the coming administration. That is what struck me when I watched the movie this time around. I first saw it perhaps 15 years ago, and it impressed me simply as a quirky, odd movie with an ambiguous message. This time, however, I saw the possibilities of a presidency which might resort to authoritarian measures in the service of liberal principles.

I won't go into great detail on the plot of the movie; I am not a movie critic, obviously. The synopsis is at the Wikipedia link.

The first time I saw the movie, some of the historical references went over my head; for instance, the ''Army of the Unemployed" in the movie represented the real-life 'Bonus Army', whose story I was not familiar with previously. I've recently been reading about the 'Bonus Army' in my old 1930s newspapers.

The events depicted in the movie, with the ''Army of the Unemployed" are based on real-life events, but in real life, there was violence used toward the 'Bonus Army', who had set up a tent city in Washington, D.C. The 'army' was made up of World War I veterans who had been promised a bonus for their military service, payable in 1945. However, with the Great Depression, many veterans were unemployed and hungry, and asked for their bonuses to be paid immediately. The Senate, however, rejected a bill which would provide for an early payment.

A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.''

Were any of you taught about this in school? I was not.

The movie President, supposedly being under the influence of the angel Gabriel, carries out his "populist" policies by establishing martial law.
When he sets up miltary tribunals and bombs gangsters into surrendering, we are to understand that this is the agenda he's been given to carry out, his 'divine mission'. So we are to cheer on this president and his authoritarian regime because he is doing it all in the name of ''the people'', the downtrodden, the little guys.

This kind of populism was very much in the air in the 30s, and it's reflected in a lot of the movies of the time, such as ''Meet John Doe'' and ''Sullivan's Travels.'' Perhaps it's natural that the country leaned in this direction then; there were obviously very real grievances against the wealthy and powerful, who did seem to exercise an influence far beyond what our system should allow, and there were egregious injustices which seemed to demand to be rectified.

I did find it ironic in the movie that 'President Hammond' calls the ambassadors of the world together and more or less threatens them into agreeing to disarm by a show of force. They all, of course, promise to stop their arms race, and thus everybody lives happily ever after, at least in the fictional world of this movie.

On my first viewing of this movie some years ago, I could not have imagined a presidency like this one, in which a president assumes dictatorial powers, meeting little resistance. Now it seems much more thinkable. And even if such a presidency showed a benign face, acting in the name of the ''people'' or the downtrodden and oppressed, it would still be a dictatorship nonetheless. I honestly believe that many ''liberals'' despite their constant braying about right-wing authoritarianism would be overjoyed to have a left-wing authoritarian in power; leftists and liberals generally believe, earnestly, that the end justifies the means. And that concerns me.

Breakup?

A Russian political analyst, Igor Panarin, is predicting the breakup of the United States.

MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.

[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."

The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.

I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.

As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.

As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.

Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.

As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.

Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.

Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.

How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.

From the newspapers of 1932...

On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, 1932, grocery store ads show these prices for the turkey dinner and various 'fixings':

U.S. Prime Turkey 25c lb.
U.S. Prime Corn Fed Geese 20c lb.
U.S. Prime Corn Fed Ducks 20c lb.
U.S. Selected Spring Roosters 10c lb.

2 lb. jar Extra Good Mince Meat 23c
Fancy Almonds 18c lb.
Fancy Walnuts 17c lb.
2 lbs. Cranberries 29 cents
3 1/2 oz. Bottle Stuffed Olives 10c
2 large cans Solid Pack Pumpkin 23c
9 lbs. Sweet Potatoes 25c
Fancy Celery, per bunch 4c
Hill's Bros. Coffee; per lb. 35c

Free Delivery
A far cry from today's prices, and of course the free delivery is mostly a thing of the past.

Also at this time in 1932, the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, the country was in somewhat the same situation as we find ourselves in today. A new president had just been elected, the country was in economic distress, and the president-elect was expected to come into office and clean up the mess, put things right. President Franklin Roosevelt was of course the president-elect, a Democrat who was seen by many as some kind of knight on a white horse who would 'fix' the depression which was widely blamed on the outgoing Republican president, Herbert Hoover.

The New York Times editorial page has lately called for President Bush to leave office without delay, simply break precedent and clear out so that today's Man on a Horse can come in posthaste and put the world to rights. However, it's odd that back in 1932 the installation of the new administration was still by tradition delayed until March of the following year.

An editorial piece in this 1932 paper, titled 'Speed Lame Ducks' Passing' says this:

Franklin D. Roosevelt does not take office until next March. However, it is already apparent that he will have a tremendous influence on the government policies that take shape between now and then. He and President Hoover are trying to shape a mutually satisfactory stand on the war debts; the short term congress is looking to him constantly, for guidance and advice.

All of this adds one last, clinching argument to the case for the now pending 20th amendment to the constitution -- the lame duck amendment which would abolish the short session and cause a new president and congress to take office at the beginning of January instead of the beginning of March. That amendment must be ratified by 19 more states. Let us hope that their action can be prompt."

Today's 'Comment of the day' from AmRen

Many of you may have already read it, but the subject under discussion is the selection of one Tino Cuellar to head up the new administration's working group on immigration.

“Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.”

In other news, president-elect Obama has announced that: a Mr. Fox will be placed in charge of the US Department of Hen Houses; The US Sheep and Lamb Protection Agency, will have a Ms. Wolf as its new head; the CIA will be co-chaired by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale (of Bullwinkle fame;) and that the Department of Homeland Security shall have either Osama bin-Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its new secretary. It is believed that Mr. bin-Laden is the stronger contender of these latter two potential appointments, since President Ahmadinejad is currently running his own country and might have conflicting interests…

As always, God help us all!

Posted by John PM at 6:28 PM on November 24

Amen.
This would be funny were it not so tragic.

The toxic wasteland

A while back, I blogged about certain biased TV commercials, among them the Brinks Home Security Ads, one in particular involving a young woman at home alone as a White male attempts to break into her house. There are several such ads involving White male lawbreakers. The most egregious one lately depicts a thirty-something black woman, obviously representing an upper-middle-class single woman, who casually throws away documents into her recycle container. A thirty-something White male, who does not look like the 'criminal' type, but rather like your average middle-class White guy, jogs by and slyly steals the documents from the black woman's recycling. The commercial warns about 'identity theft.'

What are the messages of ads like this? Obviously that crimes are not infrequently perpetrated by White men, even by average, innocuous-appearing White men.

As the commenters here mention, it could be said that the Brinks people don't want to alienate minorities or be accused of 'racism' in depicting nonwhites perpetrating crimes --- even though many people are aware that statistically, nonwhites figure in more than their share of crime, proportionately speaking. No, there's no excuse for these ads. If the advertisers are so worried about the reaction of Jesse Jackson or other racial grievance-mongers, they could simply make the criminals vague, shadowy figures, who are racially unidentifiable. They could simply show the criminal in silhouette, or show his shadow, or a portion of him without indicating his race. But no; they give us a good look at the perpetrators, making sure we see that they are White, and rather ordinary-looking White guys at that, the type you would not edge away from if you met them on a darkened street. It seems that, whether or not the advertisers intend it, they are putting across the message that White men are not to be trusted, and that if you are victimized, chances are it's some Joe Average White Guy who has done it.

Another ad in the same vein, actually a 'public service announcement' about child abuse. I've searched for it on the Internet and it seems no longer to be available. But some of you may have seen it. In it, a little girl of 10 years old or so gets on an elevator with a man, presumably her father. The only other passenger on the elevator is an older black woman, of the type so often seen in commercials: the ultradignified type. The White man looks at the black woman and makes some small talk, 'how ya doing?' or something, and she looks warily at him, then at the little girl, who seems very subdued. As the man and little girl leave the elevator at the next floor, the black woman sees, emblazoned on the back of the man's jacket, the words ''Child Abuser." The little girl looks pleadingly back at the black woman, as if to say ''help me, save me from this man.'' The elevator door closes, and a voice-over says something like ''trust your instincts'' or something of that nature.
Some of you may have seen it; if so, please correct my description of it if I am remembering it incorrectly.

In any case, I don't think it's any accident that they chose a White man to be the evil child abuser, or that the 'good citizen' in the video is a black woman, just as the good citizen and victim of identity theft in the Brinks commercial is a black woman.

One of the most objectionable things about political correctness, to me, is that it lies. It turns reality on its head, and asks us to believe that this is a reasonably accurate reflection of the real world. Some will say ''people know that TV is not reality, and vice-versa." Well, some people do, but there have been a number of studies showing that people often base their view of reality on what they see on TV, whether on the news or in fictional programming on TV and in movies.

For instance it's been shown that those who watch a lot of TV (and thus, by definition, spend less time actually interacting with the real world out there) have a skewed perception as to how much violence occurs. And these ads misidentify the likely perpetrators.

This article actually acknowledges how the public's perception of the justice system is influenced by 'court TV' shows.

I am surprised that they admit that there is an overrepresentation of black judges on these ''reality'' courtroom shows.

During the 2000-2001 television season there were nine reality court shows in syndication, The People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court, Judge Hatchett, Judge Greg Mathis, Curtis Court, Judge Mills Lane, and Moral Court.

Six of the nine judges were male, two were white, and four were black. Three judges were women, one white woman, Judge Judy and two black women, Judge Hatchett, and Mablean Ephraim on Divorce Court. When the 2001-2002 television season began, there were eight daytime court shows, and none of the judges were white males. In January 2002 Larry Joe Doherty, a white male, aired on a new show entitled Texas Justice. When the 2002-2003 season began seven shows remained with three male and four female judges. The fourth woman was Judge Marilyn Milian, a Cuban American, who took over The People's Court. Of the seven current television judges, only Judge Doherty is white and male.

In real life, however, most judges are white and male. Only 3.3% of all judges in the United States are black, and the percentages are even lower for Latinas/os and Asian Americans. Women comprise only 7% are of all federal judges and 9% of all state judges. The percentage of black women judges is even lower than the percentages for blacks and women generally. Thus, it is surprising that two black women, one Cuban American woman, one white woman, two black men and only one white man preside over the seven reality court television shows that air daily in most major cities.

Perhaps the overrepresentation of women, blacks and black males on TV reality court shows simply reflects network attempts to reach targeted viewing audiences. Yet this over representation is not only a distortion of actual judicial demographics in the United States, it also is a distortion of demographic make-up of the television population generally. A recent survey of the small screen by Children Now found that only 17% of the prime time television population is black; 75% of the prime time television population is white. Women account for only a third of prime time television characters.
The Children Now study concedes that increasingly women are portrayed on television as professionals like lawyers and doctors, and whites and blacks "appear with about equal frequency as physicians, attorneys and in service/retail/restaurants jobs." Thus, television creates the impression that women and non-whites, primarily black male lawyers, are well represented in the legal community.

Whatever the reasons, the over representation of women and non-white judges on reality court shows, coupled with the perceived over representation of black judges on television in general, is problematic in the highly racialized society in which we live. The over representation of women and black male judges on television not only sends an erroneous message about the extent of their representation in the judiciary, but may actually undermine popular support for increased racial and gender diversity on the bench by suggesting that our nation's benches are already diverse, or that blacks and/or women have taken over the courts.''

Of course the writers turn this around to demonstrate how reality does not measure up to the fanciful world of TV in this respect; obviously, as they see it, blacks and women are underrepresented and White males overrepresented in the real-life judicial system, as lawyers and judges.

On television the court room is integrated. On the shows the race of the bailiff is always different from the race of the judge. Also male judges tend to have female bailiffs and female judges tend to have male bailiffs. Since all the shows share this feature, clearly race and gender are factors considered by snydicators. Perhaps syndicators realize that integrated courtrooms with women and black judges appeal to television audiences. The presence of women and non-white judges in integrated settings reassure viewers that justice in the United States is meted out impartially. While there are positive aspects to this portrayal of the courts, there are negative aspects as well.

One political scientist speculates that white's misperceptions about blacks' standing in American society make be the result of the success of some blacks. "As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods," and the increased sense of competition these observations engender in white Americans. It is no surprise that whites with the greatest misperceptions about the socio-economic status of blacks are less educated and affluent. Since less affluent and educated viewers are some of the same people who watch more daytime television, the possibility of the distorted information about the gender and racial composition of the judiciary is increased.

When virtual integration actually occurs, it easy for this group of whites viewers to doubt claims of the under representation of women and non-whites in the judiciary and the need for American society to make meaningful steps to address this problem. The fantasy of a racially integrated society keeps many whites from confronting how little contact they have with non-whites, especially black Americans, in real life.''

So they admit that there is a desire to change reality by means of presenting these skewed, inaccurate images to viewers, thus influencing them towards more 'egalitarian' attitudes.

Far from showing viewers a more equitable and realistic picture of life in the real world, and of minorities as individuals and as a group, TV shows us a make-believe world in which virtually the only blacks are those who are affluent, educated, upscale, and urbane. And of course they are usually shown as the ''good guys'' in contrast to the depictions of Whites as nerds, incompetents, slobs, or criminals.

If we didn't know better, we would assume that all the stories of high crime rates or other social 'dysfunctions' in the ghetto are mere stereotypes created by 'racists' who have it in for blacks. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what is alleged all the time by black 'activists' and politically correct advocates for minority groups.

And many Whites who have no real-life experience of blacks believe the TV stereotypes; it's those people who constituted the pro-Obama White voters. Sure, there are a certain number of self-hating far-left Whites who voted for Obama, but there are a lot more who know nothing about other races except what they see on TV and in the movies. These people are the targets of the advertisers who are busy creating a make-believe parallel universe in which middle-class White guys steal black women's identities.

Just as this writer says, TV and the media generally foster anti-American, anti-White attitudes. And I suspect that is what they set out to do, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Television entertainment is mostly boring, immoral and disgusting. Content is so disgusting and unreal as to be a factor in anti-American hatred and anti-American terrorism around the world. A people whose main or only contact with American culture is the crap they see on American television programs would, reasonably, develop a strong anti-American attitude based on what they watch on U.S. television and not based on the reality of American culture. If my only contact with American culture were American television, I also would hate America.

For decades, television and the media in general have been throwing at us an unending stream of weird, violent, smart alecky and perpetually enraged Hollywood Negroes, glorified homosexuals, sexually irresponsible urban women, assorted terrorists and criminals, unethical business people, and anti-American, anti-family, anti-White, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-personal-responsibility, anti-achievement, and anti-American-culture messages.''

Just as the writer concludes above, TV is more than ever a 'vast wasteland.'
Whenever the subject of media bias and the general worthlessness of television comes up, the usual cries of 'kill your TV' are heard. But is that the ultimate answer? If you overhear somebody slandering you, insulting you, lying about you, even threatening you, is the answer just to stop your ears and ignore it?

I think we have to be aware of what the public in general is being told and being fed, and we have to be cognizant of the effects of the pernicious propaganda in the media, and try to counter it, rather than attempting simply to shut it out.

Many of us, in more optimistic times, thought that if we wrote letters to the media or to advertisers, or boycotted sponsors or networks, our voices would be heard. Now, I am not inclined to place much trust in those methods. The advertisers, sponsors, media executives -- they all seem to be ideologues with an agenda over and above either informing or entertaining, or even selling products. They are propagandists, on a mission which only incidentally concerns selling products or entertaining people.

When you have true believers in charge, I don't think there's much hope that they will be interested in placating dissatisfied viewers or readers.

I don't think the ''just change the channel'' or ''just use the off button'' approach is sufficient. We still, unfortunately, have to live among people who are consuming the toxic waste that is purveyed by the advertisers and the media generally. We have to live with the consequences of the campaign to dumb down and indoctrinate our neighbors and families.

What is the answer, if any?

Childhood books

There's a very good post by Stephen Hopewell at the Heritage American.
It's about Louisa May Alcott's book Little Women, and its depictions of traditional womanhood. I'm sure all of you are familiar with the book; even some who have not read it have seen one of the several Hollywood treatments of the story. My favorite Hollywood version was the 1933 movie, starring Katharine Hepburn, but the 1949 version, with June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, and Mary Astor, was also good.

A critic could, of course, call the book false, a romantic fantasy. Even if this is so, the type of fantasy a society creates says something real about its soul. And in Little Women one sees a deep love between sisters and between mother and daughters that is utterly free of feminist distortion and resentment towards males. So, too, it was innovative as an early form of the American “domestic novel.” In the words of Madeline Stern:

Little Women is great because it is a book on the American home, and hence universal in its appeal. As long as human beings delight in “the blessings that alone can make life happy,” as long as they believe, with Jo March, that “families are the most beautiful things in all the world,” the book will be treasured. (1)

The values held by the March family amount to a uniquely American conglomeration of stern Calvinism and English bourgeois values: a strong work ethic and a dislike of the pursuit of money, ostentation, and habits like drinking and gambling; but a very worldly enjoyment of art, music, games, nature, and conversation.''

I really like the second sentence in the excerpt above.
Read the rest at The Heritage American.
The discussion of Little Women started me thinking about the various books I read as a child, many of which were books that were read by virtually all children of the time. It's true that Little Women, like certain other popular childhood books, was a ''girls' book''. Many children's books, just as with adults' fiction, were divided between those for female readers and those for male readers. Boys tended to read more adventure books, involving action, travel, conquest, and so on.

But there were certain books that most children, both boys and girls, read. For example, The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum. Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Mark Twain's books. Aesop's Fables.The Arabian Nights. The Joel Chandler Harris 'Uncle Remus' stories.
Grimm's Fairy Tales. Hans Christian Andersen's stories. (I loved Andersen's stories, all of them. The Snow Queen was a special favorite for some reason.) Classical Mythology was popular with both boys and girls.

Girls read the 'Nancy Drew' mysteries while boys read The Hardy Boys.

In the realm of fantasy and fairy tales, George MacDonald was a popular writer among many children even when I was a child. I think he has been very influential over several generations.

Another more mundane writer whose books I enjoyed as a child was Lois Lenski ,who wrote about children in different regions of the country. Another series of ''girls' books'' which I read avidly were those by Maud Hart Lovelace. She wrote, among other things, the ''Betsy-Tacy" books about friends named Betsy and Tacy. They followed the lives of these girls as they grew up.

An interesting side note: this web page is devoted to explaining the cultural references in the Betsy-Tacy books, which would likely be foreign to any young girl of today who might read the books. I don't recall being baffled by these references when I read the books as a child; I think this is due to the fact that children of my era did not live in a world which was that drastically different, at least in a cultural sense, from that of 50 years earlier, the time in which the books were set. We did not need a translator or a lexicon to explain these things to us. Nowadays, however, children live in a very different world from that of my childhood, and the differences are not all due to our more advanced technology. It is more a matter of our not being conversant with the classic Western cultural matrix that everybody of earlier (pre-1960s) America shared. For instance, most of us knew the phrase ''All of Gaul is divided into three parts", and most of us knew the poem "Lochinvar." These things are absolutely foreign to the average child of today.

Many of the books we read as children were by British authors: those by Tolkien, Kenneth Grahame (The Wind in the Willows), Lewis Carroll, Enid Blyton, E. Nesbit, A.A. Milne, Edward Lear, Frances Hodgson Burnett (how I loved 'The Secret Garden!), Anna Sewell, Andrew Lang.
Mother Goose.

We read books by European authors like Johanna Spyri (Heidi), or the aforementioned Hans Christian Andersen, or books like The Wonderful Adventures of Nils by Selma Lagerlöf.

We read things like the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, or the Robin Hood stories, or Aesop's Fables, or Grimm's, or Greek and Roman mythology, and we sensed that these things belonged to us; they were a part of our history and our origins, even we here in America. We had a sense of continuity.

But what I get from looking back at the books which most of us read as children is the message that we were much more a unified people then, with a common culture, a set of common cultural references, many of which were introduced to us as children. We had a sense of being part of a much larger, much more ancient culture. . Do children of today, except for some homeschooled children with good instruction, get that same sense?

Sadly, most of the young children I know of today, even those from good homes with conscientious parents. do not read that many books at all, and when they do it is the fad books of the moment, like Harry Potter. Now, I know some of my readers are probably Potter fans, and to each his own, but they are just not on a par with the books of the past, especially the truly classical books. I hear so many parents saying ''anything that gets them to read is good. We want them to read, and so whatever interests them in reading is good for them." Really? I question that sentiment. Suppose your child is undernourished. Would you say that ''anything they eat is good, so I let them eat whatever they like best; at least they're eating." I don't think you would find many parents who would use that line of reasoning; otherwise we'd be giving kids a diet of fast food, chips, twinkies, and cokes. So why is any reading material good ''just as long as they're reading"? We should take as much care to provide wholesome and edifying reading material as we take in choosing healthy food for our children's bodies. In fact I might say that unwholesome reading material can do more harm than junk food; childhood is a time for building good habits and good character, and that is even more important than the physical body in some senses.

Some of my Christian friends don't seem to try to feed their children wholesome mental food by encouraging good reading habits. I don't know that there are many good books for children out there, other than the classics; many of the newer books for young children are steeped in political correctness and liberalism in some form. Books for the 'young adult' group often feature foul language and sexual themes. The excuse is always that ''this is today's reality. Kids use profanity and hear it all the time, and they are exploring their sexuality." So it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

One of the reasons our culture and our people are in such dire straits is that we've lost touch with our roots and our longstanding cultural heritage. Without even basic familiarity with it, how can any of us, particularly the younger generations coming up now, be proud of or protective of something with which they lack even a passing acquaintance ?

Generations are divided against each other because our children, in many senses, have grown up in a different country and a different culture than that of our generation and earlier generations. This is by design; the leftists and liberals were very astute in seizing control of academia and the arts, so as to surround the younger generations with different ideas and influences than those of earlier eras.

Those of you who do home-school, I trust you are including classic reading material, and works that represent the best of our Western cultural traditions. Much of what is produced today is suspect, and is often tainted, even if unintentionally, with political correctness.

Older books, describing an earlier era and a different way of life, have the effect of broadening a child's outlook, and opening the mind to other and better possibilities than those visible in today's world.

I know that many parents will say that 'kids today won't read that old stuff; they have to have something they can relate to.' Many children today seem sadly rather cynical and steeped in 'streetwise' kinds of entertainment. The trash on some of the ''children's" TV networks is very much of the 'urban', multicult variety, and this alienates children from their own rightful culture. I don't know what the antidote to this trend may be; killing the TV is a good start. If I had young children now, there would be no TV, and no modern movies.

Another criticism often made of the older books or of any older traditional fare, like movies, is ''the world was never really like that; it was whitewashed and idealized. It was really uglier than that. No such world ever existed.'' All I can say to this is that it's true that the world is imperfect and has always been imperfect. But to insist on exploring ugliness and the dark side of everything is to shut out the light. We get more of what we choose to focus and concentrate on. Why not exalt the higher instincts and our better potential? Why not show the good of which we are capable, rather than the bad and the ugly, as we do today?

And it is not wrong to idealize and to show a world which is just that little bit better than the world we see outside our windows. It gives us something better toward which we can aspire and strive.

"We never reach our ideals, whether of mental or moral improvement, but the thought of them shows us our deficiencies, and spurs us on to higher and better things." - Tryon Edwards


What books did you read growing up? Which ones inspired you or shaped your character or outlook?

Blue Ridge Mountains Dancers

The Blue Ridge Mountains Dancers at the Newport Folk Festival. No date is given; I'd guess it's from the early 60s, based on the clothes and hairstyles.

I love the old-fashioned Appalachian dancing: flatfoot buck dancing, clogging, whatever. These dancers are so full of life and energy; this video makes me smile, and makes me want to dance. Hope it gives some of you, at least, the same enjoyment.

Reconstruction, Part Three?

On a recent McNeil-Lehrer Report, the subject of Reconstruction was brought up, in the context of the meaning of the recent elections. The video is here.

And over at the Kinism.net forum there has been some discussion of the issue of Reconstruction, sparked by the remarks made by Peniel Joseph. There is a 'Reconstruction References' thread here.

And because I think it's important to look back at those little-discussed events in our history, I've posted a little basic background on the subject over at the Forum, also. I hope those interested, especially those who are unfamiliar with that sad chapter in our history, will check out any information over at the Kinist forum and also at the VA Forum. Our schools do not teach the full story on that era, and the facts are hard to come by.

Our current politically correct histories will not tell the truth about some past events, so it's always best to seek out older sources.

Secession Hill

Abbeville, SC is the birthplace of some of my ancestors, and also the birthplace of Southern icon John C. Calhoun.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.

From the Declaration of Secession:

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that

In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''

A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.

Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.

45 years ago today

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot.
What seems to have been played down over the years is the fact that his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a leftist.
Here, Daniel Pipes writes about "Lee Harvey Oswald's Malign Legacy", and references a recent book by James Piereson on how the assassination of JFK led to the ''liberal rage'' which has built since then.

'Looking back from the year 2050'

Blogger AndyK has another interesting post, relating to the theme on which he has been posting: the possible future breakup of the U.S.A. He presents a story by William S. Lind which was published back in 1995. It's a piece of what I suppose would be speculative fiction about a possible future for the U.S., based on current trends. It's called Militant Musings -- Looking back from the year 2050.

It tells of a breakup of the USA into several smaller countries, with a restoration of traditional conservative values, and is rather graphic at times. It's long but worth the time to read.''

It is worth reading; it's fascinating to see how well the writer foresaw some of the present trends, even from the vantage point of 1995. Anyway I recommend going over to AndyK's blog and reading it. It really is a fairly quick read.

Here's a little excerpt:

You see, some time around the middle of the 18th century we men of the West struck Faust’s bargain with the Devil. We could do anything, say anything, think anything with one exception: Verweile doch, du bist so schoen (Stay, you are so beautiful). We could not rest; we could not get it right and then keep it that way. Always we must have novelty – that was the bargain.

It’s funny how clearly the American century is marked: 1865 to 1965. The first Civil War made us one nation. After 1965 and another war, we disunited – deconstructed – with equal speed into blacks, whites, Hispanics, womyn, gays, victims, oppressors, left-handed albinos, you name it. In three decades we covered the distance that had taken Rome three centuries. As recently as the early 1960s – God, it’s hard to believe – America was still the greatest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most productive, the freest, a place of safe homes, dutiful children in good schools, strong families and a hot lunch for orphans. By the 1990s the place had the stench of a Third World country. The cities were ravaged by punks, beggars and bums. Laws applied only to the law-abiding. Schools had become daytime holding pens for illiterate young savages. Television brought the decadence of Weimar Berlin into every home.

Didn’t anyone realize that when the culture goes it takes everything else with it? Of course, some people knew. But going back to a culture that worked, to traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, meant breaking the Faustian bargain.

Read the entire thing at the link. I like how the story offers some rays of hope. Things may seem to be falling apart, but who knows whether something better might ultimately come of it?

Blog type

I'm distinctly uninspired this evening, so I've been over at a site called Typealyzer.com which supposedly assesses the personality type of the blogger based on the content of a blog. It's all based on the Myers-Briggs personality typing system, which classifies individuals according to introversion/extraversion, intuitive vs. sensate, thinking vs. feeling, and judging vs. perceiving. I won't try to explain all that; some of you are probably familiar with it, and if not, you can read about it here.

Anyway, Typealyzer says this of my blog:

The analysis indicates that the author of http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com is of the type:
INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

This is interesting because I've been classed as an INTP based on the MBTI tests I've taken.

The Myers-Briggs typology is supposedly based on the ideas of Carl Jung, and as most of my regular readers probably know, I am not a big fan of psychological theories or of Jung's school of thought, but there seems to be some validity to the MBTI, from my own experience of it.
So, as with anything else, I sift it and discard what is not useful, while taking on board whatever seems valid.

Any other INTPs out there? Have any of you been 'typed', or had your blog typed with Typealyzer?

Anglo-Saxon+Protestant=Guilt

Over at TakiMag, Paul Gottfried has a piece about Christianity, specifically Protestant evangelical Christianity and the Obama cult, as manifested in a Northern Michigan election party. He relates how a friend sent him clippings about the behavior of many young Christians in northern Michigan upon Obama's election:

In this heavily Protestant and very Nordic region of the country, the youth had trouble containing their joy on the outcome of this year’s election, according to the Northern Weekly Express. Throngs of young adults gathered at an election day party at the InsideOut Gallery in Traverse City, where the full house “rocked the rafters” as they watched Obama storm to victory. “Some of the biggest cheers that night came when images of African-Americans were shown on the big screen, WEEPING FOR JOY at the election of Barack Obama.” The paper hastens to remind the reader that this victory was ‘by any measure, one of the MOST SIGNIFICANT events in the history of the United States.” Even without the use of caps, the Northern Weekly Express conveyed the ecstasy of the hour by showing the glowing faces of the Northern Michigan young standing beside cardboard images of their black savior. The election party looked more like a revival meeting than a Friday night bash, and it radiated something akin to the joy of being cleansed of one’s sins.
[...]
I think this hysteria that I’ve been observing is religious in nature. It is not confined to the atheist, social engineering Left; it is also very much alive and well among religious Protestants, and particularly among the Evangelicals and Mennonites of my acquaintance. These people are anything but non-believers. Nonetheless they entirely agree with Obama’s remark, made to Pastor Rick Warren, indicating that sin means “sexism, racism, and homophobia.” A neighbor, who is a very orthodox Mennonite minister and who has the Nicene Creed on his wall, was campaigning for Obama, as an act of overcoming the ingrained racism of his community.
[...]
The exaltation of the supposedly downtrodden, as an act of group atonement for social sins and for thinking bigoted thoughts, and as the prelude to building a truly egalitarian society, have become characteristic of those seeking righteousness. Religious fervor has now been turned toward the task of validating designated minorities, including illegals streaming across our Southern borders. Such behavior is no longer specific to professional atheists, raging at the Christian Right. It is now to all appearances an epidemic spreading through the American religious community and one that is likely to continue to spread. And unlike its manifestations in non-Protestant America, in Protestant America, the advocacy of multiculturalism is definitely aimed at the displacement of traditional ethnic-cultural communities—or of what remains of them.''

I am not sure that I understand that last sentence, and from what I read it to mean, I don't agree. How is 'non-Protestant' America less guilty of promoting the displacement of traditional communities when it supports mass immigration?

The PC Christian phenomenon he is describing is not something that began with the Obama campaign, although Obama provided a figure around which these multicult 'Christians' might rally. The present-day trend in mainstream Christianity, towards embracing leftist positions on all social matters, has been going on for some time. Rick Warren gets a passing mention in the article, though he should be front and center; he has been a big influence in this trend among formerly conservative Christians towards leftist, politically correct values, and away from the Biblically-based faith of their fathers. Warren, with his emphasis on pop psychology and the 'self', along with a warmed-over social gospel, has brought many Christians into line with mainstream liberal ideology. It's no coincidence that Warren is rubbing elbows with the Bono types, and with globalists.

The brand of Christianity that Warren and his followers promote is the kind of thing which causes many outside the Christian sphere to denounce Christianity as being detrimental to Western peoples and their survival.

It's no secret that the mainstream Christian denominations have been heavily infiltrated by leftists since at least the 1940s, if not sooner. The WCC has long been known to be sympathetic to leftist radical causes. The left, as we know, has been fairly open about its longstanding effort to infiltrate and subvert from within all the institutions of our society, and the churches are not exempt; far from it. Influencing Christians away from the Word of God and towards the leftist/socialist/globalist worldview is a strategy aimed at removing one of the last obstacles to the remaking of the world, the erasure of borders, and the breakdown of family and extended kin loyalties.

The fact is, however, this is not just something that can be blamed on Protestantism or those dreaded 'WASPs' again. All branches of Christianity are to some extent affected by the new politically-corrected counterfeit Christianity.

I don't think that it is peculiar to Protestantism, although the TakiMag commentariat might be likely to suggest that, at least those with an open Catholic or Orthodox bias. Obviously the Catholic hierarchy has been in the forefront of activism in favor of open borders, especially when the borders being erased separate us from Latino Catholics, who are now being eagerly welcomed by the Church hierarchy. I've been told by some that the Church rank and file are not as fervently open-borders as the leadership, but I am not sure about that.

However, Protestant churches have been moving towards globalist politically correct ideology, too. Personally, I think it's all a part of a larger trend in Christianity, in which Christians of all denominations seemingly believe that to be a good Christian, one has to embrace one's exact opposite. To champion the rights of those who are not only extremely 'Other' in relation to us is seen as a virtue, and embracing those who are openly hostile to us, even our avowed enemies, is seen as the highest virtue, as saintliness.

We could see the recent events in the Castro District of San Francisco in the light of this. A group of Christians have been going into the Castro to pray and witness to the ''gay community.' However, in the aftermath of the recent furor over Proposition 8 in California, many of the local 'gays' were enraged by the presence of the Christians and by their public singing and praying. So they set upon the Christians, shouting obscenities and threats, and apparently even attempting to molest some of the Christians.

The Christians in question mostly reiterated how they loved their attackers, and forgave them, refusing to press charges for molestation or sexual assault.

I am certain many Christians will say this is exemplary, highly Christian behavior, and that all good Christians might hope to show such character in a similar situation.

I won't try to argue that point; it deserves another post to itself. But it exemplifies the seeming value today's Christians seem to attach to those who are the most hostile towards us. This is how you prove your mettle as a Christian: to lay down and passively accept abuse by others, or to sacrifice yourself so as to benefit some 'Other' who is either indifferent or hostile towards you. I wonder if our forefathers would have interpreted Christianity this way. They certainly did not embrace self-destruction as peoples in the name of Christianity.

Again, I know those who despise Christianity will say that this is exactly why they despise Christianity: because it makes us the doormats of the world. It makes us self-abasing and self-abnegating, and downright masochistic in some cases. I hate to use Freudian jargon but the term masochistic seems to be the only term available to describe those who find some kind of gratification in being mistreated or abused by others. And that sums up much of the Western world's behavior these days, as our leaders avidly seek people to come and loot our countries.

There may be an element of seeking redemption for our supposed collective 'sins' of xenophobia and 'racism'. We have collectively been seized by an apology mania, in which we are desperately seeking someone to whom we can apologize and make restitution for our past 'sins' or the transgressions of our fathers. In Catholic terms this is a seeking of absolution from another human being. But this is not Biblical Christianity; Christians know that we can only be redeemed by Christ, not by another human being or group of human beings.

The comments following are the usual mixed bag, with the usual axes being ground. There is usually at least one in the TakiMag comment box who has to blame the Protestant Reformation for all the evils in the world. But there are a couple of good comments, one by Condor.
Another commenter later in the discussion turns the discussion to the usual condemnation of 'WASPs', saying that the Kennedys, for example, were merely emulating WASP culture, assimilating to WASP 'Boston Brahmin' norms. That argument never dies. It's usually resorted to by those of later immigrant stock, who are still resentful generations after their families immigrated here, resentful of the WASPs -- who gave them the opportunity to become Americans. It shows that no good deed goes unpunished.

The same anti-WASP commenter cites David Hackett Fischer and his work 'Albion's Seed.' I've read Albion's Seed, and it's an interesting book, a sizeable, hefty book, with a lot of information, but it is not Gospel. Fischer is not the last word, and it's really getting very old to hear people citing him in support of their pet theories. The anti-WASP faction really love Fischer. It's too bad he has gained this cult status, and his interpretation seems to go unchallenged.

Gottfried seems to imply in his article that WASPs somehow deserve the animus the various ethnic groups direct towards them, because they ''excluded" the various ethnic immigrants of the Ellis Island wave. Well, there is another side to that story. I might easily say that the various ethnic immigrant groups who have this monumental, generations-long grudge against WASPs are people who suffer from inferiority feelings, and who felt envy towards the WASPs who built the country to which their ancestors sought admission. It seems to be human nature to resent someone to whom you are beholden. We see this with all the minority 'victim' groups, and in fact their cult of victimology, which has done so much harm in our day, could be said to have been pioneered by the various ethnic immigrants. It is they who, to this day, bemoan the supposed 'discrimination' their ancestors suffered when they landed here from the Old Country. The Irish have their centuries-old vendetta against the English for having 'stolen' their country and their culture and their language. That anti-English tradition must have colored their perceptions of the Anglo-Protestants they met here. The rhetoric is exactly the same as that of Third World peoples, American Indians, and others. It might be argued that all the opportunistic 'huddled masses' of today are following the template established by the Ellis Islanders and their descendants.

The whole cult of anti-White or anti-Western resentment might be seen as being based, ultimately, in the 'undeveloped' world's resentment and envy of European man's accomplishments and successes. Look at the Anglo-Saxon as being sort of the epitome of Western strength and dominance (think of the British Empire at its height, or American dominance during its heyday) and success. The most successful are always regarded with a mix of envy and resentment. Sometimes the resentment escalates to hatred and desire for revenge, the desire to pull down the most successful and destroy his accomplishments, which are seen as an affront to the less successful peoples.

The Anglo-Saxon male is the target mostly because he inspired so much envy and resentment by his successes -- and also by his generosity. Sometimes generosity is despised as weakness, even by those who are the recipients of that generosity.

''Envy always implies conscious inferiority wherever it resides." - Pliny

So, again, we have the usual blaming of Christians, and the blaming specifically of Anglo-Saxon Protestants for the perils we are facing now.
How long will this continue? I could blame the later waves of immigrants for their grudges and resentments, and their tendency to champion The Other out of spite towards WASP America.

It is not just the nonwhite victim groups that have fostered this White Protestant guilt syndrome, but all the other immigrant victimhood-cultists. Many White Protestants who are not identified with some ethnic victim group end up absorbing some of the blame and guilt directed at old-stock Anglo-Americans.

We could see that we are all in this together, and that what happened in the mid-19th century should be put aside in the name of saving what remains of our heritage. Can we do that, or will we continue to snipe and one another and undercut one another?