Liberals bicker over who's the purest leftist

But it's all liberalism at bottom. As I said, liberals bickering over which one of them is the purest unadulterated leftist. Thus when liberal commenters Isaac Parker and Tony G., very careful to emphasize the word "illegal" in their initial posts so as to preemptively establish themselves as legitimate multicultists and liberals, state a few negative facts concerning that form of immigration, leftier-than-thou commenters "a" and Laura respond in typical leftier-than-thou knee-jerk fashion accusing the former of being racists and haters and bigots for daring to speak any negative about immigrant groups, legal or not. Tony G., in a grand display of multicultist "oneupmanship", responds strongly by announcing his strong support for LEGAL immigration, and the thread just continues down the same pathway with liberals of various ranks trying to outflank their comrades, staking their personal claim to the liberal highground. Rank-and-file liberals trying to outflank themselves. Funny.

It's all in relation to this Tulsa World story published yesterday, August 7, in which we find this explanation for the growth of the Hispanic population in Tulsa from July 2006 to July 2007:

Marvin Lizama runs voter registration drives through the American Dream Coalition. He said some people left because of 1804, but many others are attracted to Tulsa's quality of life.

"Hispanics are coming here because they see that there's great opportunity," Lizama said. "This is a great city if you want to raise your kids, get a great education for your kids."

I should like as well to turn Mr. Lizama's attention to the comment section of the Tulsa World article in question. If the commenters there are any indication of the quality of education in the Tulsa public school system, then Mr. Lizama may want to rethink his position on that. As far as Tulsa being a "great city", I would simply ask: as compared to what, Mexico City?

Read More

Obama Speaketh, and the church sayeth Amen!

Here's a story from ABC News on Caesar Obama's 2006 statements which are now, two years ex post facto, the focus of so much media attention. (Hat tip VA)

I could take several different approaches to the topic if that were my desire, but they'd all boil down to the obvious singularity: Obama is indeed, as Dr. Dobson has stated, a "fruitcake", unfit to be president of the United States. And he has a sizeable contingency of lesser fruitcakes who fawn over his every word, to wit:

The speech delves into Obama's view of the constructive role religion plays in society, beseeching "work that progressive leaders need to do" on the subject, followed by his views of "what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge." (emphasis mine)

That included "the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice," Obama said, as well as "the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

First of all, someone pointed out in a comment to the article that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In a response to the comment another commenter asked the question "so what do you think is meant by the "establishment clause" of the first amendment? Well, obviously, by the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the founders meant to say that Christians in particular can't, uh, well, uh ... let's let someone with authority to speak on the matter answer that; here are his credentials:

I am a pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S.

Whoa! You got my attention Pastor. Proceed.

I see nothing wrong with Obama's comments as quoted in this article. In fact, I applaud them.

Ok, fair enough. But why do you qualify your support for Obama's statements with the phrase "as quoted in this article?" You're not trying to leave yourself a little wiggle room just in case it turns out that your boy truly is what he truly is, are you? Never mind.

The good Pastor continues:

Leaders who are unable to embrace our nation's pluralism are out of touch and risk establishing a theocracy.

Tripper, you wouldn't, perchance, be Dr. Charles Stanley would you, In Touch pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in America as you are and whatnot? Well, anyway, I think you've coined a new phrase soon to be as popular in America as the oft repeated "our democracy" -- "our nation's pluralism." Congratulations. But I'm confused, how is it again that our out-of-touch founders rejected the notion of "our nation's pluralism" and yet avoided, in the very midst of a comparatively non-pluralistic society, establishing a theocracy? Wait, you said this is a "risk", albeit one directly connected to a rejection of pluralism, not necessarily an absolute surety. You're good; you are good! What other pearls of wisdom have you for us poor ignorant biblically and historically illiterate laymen?:

Pluralism is much more of a strength to celebrate rather than a liability to fear.

Wow! Pluralism, excuse me, "our nation's pluralism" is not merely more of a strength to celebrate, but much more of a strength, ummm, much more to be celebrated. Nice touch. Now as the verse of the song in the hymnal says (page 101): "let's all celebrate and have a good time." But before we start, we need you to drop us another pearl'r two:

Christians can/should be completely faithful without legislating morality or theology.

Oh, I see. According to our in touch pastor, there's some sort of mystic power in Christianity which enables us believers to divorce our religious persuasions (or the lack thereof) from our political beliefs. And in addition, Christians, ummm, I mean "in touch" Christians, can and should do the impossible, i.e., avoid legislating their peculiar brand of morality. Do I need to demonstrate for the gazillionth time that all laws are based on morality, someone's morality? Even Obama, as idiotic and self-destructive as his statements which inspired the good pastor's approving statements are, was not so foolish, at least in this particular case, as to assert that the impossible is possible, even for Christians.

Let me say it again for the benefit of those who missed it the other gazillion times I've stated it: ALL laws are founded in a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. Which is to say that all laws are created on the basis that a thing is right or it is wrong, that it is good or it is evil; that it is moral or immoral. To demonstrate this, I've used the example of abortion before. Yes; laws that favor abortion are founded on a moral perspective. If you doubt me, ask someone who favors abortion laws why they favor abortion laws. Invariably you're going to get an answer based in their particular idea of morality; generally they favor abortion because they think it is wrong (i.e., immoral) to deny a woman the "right to choose" over her own body, and that it is right (i.e., moral) to grant her this "inalienable" right. I don't care how you look at it, that is a moral perspective, and any law which has its basis in such a perspective is a moral law. And as I said, all laws have their bases in this kind of moral reasoning. Therefore, it is literally impossible to not "legislate morality," someone's morality. Question is, for the gazillionth time, whose morality are we going legislate? The great champion of diverse cultural and moral clarity, the benevolent leader for change Augustus Obama provides us the answer. Mr. Obama:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

In other words, whatever we once were (a Christian nation, for those who missed it), we are now an admixture of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, non-believers and etc., and whatever collective morality this odd collection produces, that is the morality that will be legislated. But with the "increasing diversity of America's population," says Augustus Obama, "the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater." One could rightly conclude from this statement that as diversity continues to increase in this country, so too will the dangers of sectarianism continue to increase, and that therefore, as the dangers of sectarianism, which are a direct result of increases in diversity, increase even beyond what they are now with further increases in diversity, it is our increasing diversity which spells our ultimate doom. And yet, according to our trippin' pastor, who sees nothing wrong with Obama's statements and in fact applauds them by the way, this diversity, religious and otherwise, is more, much more to be celebrated than to be feared. Which begs the question: what kind of junk is Pastor Tripper tripping on?

Read More

Conservative MEGO?

For those of you who don't know, or who may have forgotten, MEGO is the acronym for "My Eyes are Glazing Over." I'm sure most of you have dealt with this phenomenon at one time or another, in one way or another, during the course of your lifetimes.

I once had an employee who had a severe case of MEGO (fact is I've had several employees over the years who exhibited signs of having MEGO, but only one whose case was this severe), and it negatively affected everything he did at work, and thus me and my business. I'd be in the middle of explaining something to him, and I'd notice that his eyes would begin to glaze over; literally you could see his mind begin to wander off into never never land. I can't say I'm 100% certain about the root cause of his particularly extreme condition, though I have my suspicions, but one day when I'd had all I could take of his eyes glazing over and his mind wandering off into space as I was giving him vital instructions which required his full attention, I managed to temporarily recapture his attention and focus by threatening to fire him on spot. Even so, once I'd regained his undivided attention and began retracing steps I'd already covered, MEGO began to set in once again. Though I did not fire him on spot as I had threatened, I was forced to follow through a few days later when it was determined that his condition was simply too advanced and too much outside my control for there to be any hope of a reversal.

I sometimes have to wonder whether MEGO is that which afflicts many conservatives as regards Islam or the immigration problem, or a host of other issues? Modern conservatives definately seem to exhibit the symptoms (and at least the early stages) of MEGO -- short attention spans, inability to focus, lack of rationality, short-term memory lapses, inability to connect the dots, and etc. -- and as with my former employee, it negatively affects everything they do, and thus our country and its future. But unlike my situation with my former employee, we can't ultimately control the effects of MEGO by cutting MEGO afflicted conservatives loose, can we?; his, as I said, was an extreme case which required extreme measures. What then is the solution to this problem? If we manage to recapture conservatives' attention by being forceful and loud and threatening, only to lose it again to the condition of MEGO, what are we to do?

As regards my employee, I strongly suspect (I'm only about 99.9 percent certain) that he was taking drugs while on the job, and that this was the underlying cause of his inability to focus and to perform his job according to any acceptable standards. It wasn't that he didn't work hard, but that he didn't work smart and couldn't follow simple steps from a to z in a constructive, orderly fashion. In other words, in order to permanently stop the effects of MEGO that this person carries with him everywhere he goes, you'd have to end his drug use, which I have no ability to do. With regard to conservatives who show all the signs of having MEGO as well, I suspect that they're also working under the influence of the mind-altering hallucinogenic liberal drug known as multiculturalism which produces in the minds of its users hallucinations as to the ability of cultural incompatibles to assimilate in our culture while we, at the same time, acculturate to theirs and its increasingly problematic presence here. In other words, in order to deal with the effects of conservative MEGO permanently and effectively, we'd have to radically purge modern conservatism of the cause -- the use and abuse of the mind-altering addictive drug of liberalism. But how exactly can we do this?

Read More

Non-discrimination IS Discrimination

Why are liberal multicultist non-discriminationists irrational? Because just as with all liberal doctrines, non-discriminationism is self-defeating, and therefore illogical. And anyone who clings to illogical self-defeating policies and arguments favoring those policies may rightly be denominated irrational.

How is the idea of non-discrimination self-defeating you ask? Any idea forced to support itself with arguments that defeat it is by definition "self-defeating." The idea of non-discrimination actually implies discrimination, because it cannot tolerate discrimination of any sort. Thus it must discriminate against any form of discrimination, which is the only form of discrimination it can tolerate, while claiming not to tolerate any form of discrimination.

Have I managed to thoroughly confuse you yet? ;)

Read More

On the assimilability factor

Recently I've put up numerous entries which either directly or indirectly relate to assimilability of cultural disparate immigrants to this country. I recognize very well that this can be a very touchy subject for some; that it can even be a deal-breaker for certain individuals...

First, with respect to the latter group -- those who are offended by the expression of the notion that some folks simply cannot assimilate in America or to Western culture to the point that they find it intolerable and therefore will not return -- I can only say that I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is probably not the place for you anyhow.

The purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for the propagation and advancement of the ideas of balanced government. And if it happens to be that balanced government is inseparable from Western culture, and that Western culture is under attack from, and would be destroyed by liberalism, Islamism, and mass immigrationism, then it stands to reason that neither can a return to governmental balance be effected, nor could such a return, were it somehow effected, long be sustained under the existing dominant order.

It is therefore part and parcel of the purpose of this blog to expose the natural enemies of balanced government for what they are in reality and the dangers that they pose, not for what we would wish them to be, which is liberalism. I will say to you here and now that my design is for there to be no truthophobia here. And if there ever is, this blog will cease to be what it was intended to be from the outset, at which point it should cease to exist. I equate our survival as a nation and as a distinct culture with balanced constitutional government, just as I equate the survival of this blog with a rational and ever present fear of what untruth would bring it; just as I equate the happiness of my family with the spiritual sustenance needed to make that happiness full.

To the former group, I have to say that I have yet to see a good argument in favor of modern liberalism, mass immigrationism, or for the assimilability of Muslims. If you're uncomfortable with my announcing that Muslims are unassimilable in America, yet not offended by it to the extent that it becomes a deal-breaker for you; and if your offense to these claims is founded on something you might consider a reasonable position, I would certainly encourage you to articulate it in a comment here. As I said before, there's no phobia here concerning truth. Therefore, I'm open to all arguments in favor, or in refutation of my own.

I'll make you a deal. I won't be offended by your challenging me if you won't be offended by my challenging you, ok? Good.

One final note. The commenter, Populist, who has been commenting here frequently lately, has said that he prefers to look on people as humans rather than as ideologies. The implication being that it sort of deprives one of his/her humanity to associate him/her with a given ideological bent. I answered this in my reply to his comment. However, I would go further and assert that I don't mind at all, nor will I ever be offended by, nor will I ever consider it a privation on my humanity, for someone, anyone to associate me with the ideology of Traditionalist Conservatism. The shoe fits, and I wear it proudly!

Thanks to all for your interest in Webster's. And as always, I'll continue to strive to improve upon what we've done so far.

Read More

Is it immoral not to talk about race?

Since this is the first official full day of Webster's Immigration Awareness Period, let me start it out by pointing you in the direction of a discussion (perhaps still ongoing) over at VFR where Lawrence Auster asks, Is it wrong for me to talk about race?...

I should say at the outset that my purpose during this open-ended period is not to fixate on the immigration question, but to take special notice of it in the days leading up to and immediately following the events scheduled for October 1st on the steps of my State Capitol, and which I intend to be in attendance.

Second, you have undoubtedly noted that I already have this VFR entry referenced under Webster's Recommended (Immigration Related) Blogposts. But I wanted to put together a few thoughts on the discussion as I see it in a separate entry of my own. I have indeed been paying close attention to the discussion as it has progressed.

From my view, and as I said in my comments to the entry, I think the correspondent who raised the initial question about Auster's supposed "fixation" on race, is reasoning from effect to cause, or, a better way of putting it might be that he reasons bassackwards, which is pretty common these days. Also, it should be noted that whenever people engage in this kind of bassackwards, effect to cause, reasoning, they generally tend to adhere to an equally bassackwards - external to internal - approach which has people being more shaped by their environment, than their environment being shaped by people. And once more, consistent with the general reasoning process of such folks, it also involves a part to whole, rather than a whole to part methodology.

In other words, a person's, or a group's internal character doesn't matter any more than race matters to this correspondent, though I'm sure he'd argue otherwise. What he seems to be arguing, in a roundabout sort of way, is that a people such as the Mexicans only display uniquely Mexican characteristics because of their Mexican environment; they do not shape their environment, their environment shapes them. Put them in a more favorable environment and they will automatically throw off their former tendencies, shaped as they were by the poor environment they found themselves in formerly, and will adopt in their place the superior qualities of Western culture, shaped as they are by their environment. Our environment will not be reshaped by their large presence among us because, as this correspondent reasons, people don't shape their environment, their environment shapes people.

But no matter how he tries to defend himself against this view, his words have already revealed his true attitude, which is internal. His attitude is basically spelled out this way, that ten million Mexicans can come to the United States all in one shot, and in the absence of multiculturalism, they are already well equipped to adopt the American way of life, our culture, and so on, and to become, in the place of whites, and as we pass the torch to them, the new traditionalist conservatives who will carry on Western culture as we become displaced by them.

Once again, this is bassackwards thinking. If these Mexican migrants were already equipped to do this, they would have already done so in their own country. There would be no reason for them, existence of multiculturalism or not, to bring their culture with them if they held no attachment to it. Yes, there are always going to be a few; a relatively insignificant percentage of foreigners, Mexicans or whomever, who possess the internal characteristics needed to adopt Western culture. But as Auster rightly notes, large numbers of them are going to carry with them their own cultural identity in preference to Western culture, by the aid of multiculturalism, not because of it.

Now, we should not fail to recognize, no matter how uncomfortable it is for us, that things have deteriorated progressively and steadily as we've allowed more and more immigrants into this country. In other words, as the white majority in America has been steadily eroding, so too has the moral and cultural underpinnings of this nation been eroding. Like I said, it may not be comfortable to speak of it in those terms, but it is what it is. These occurances have not happened in isolation of one-another.

Furthermore, whenever someone engages in the process of part to whole methodology, as this correspondent does, the whole picture is distorted to the point that it is very unclear to the mind's eye. And as bad as I hate to be the bearer of bad news to this individual, it is Westerners, predominately whites, who have discovered, realized and developed whole to part methodology.

Whole to Part methodology, simply stated, teaches this: That you start with a whole view (not to be confused with a complete view) before you begin breaking it down to its individual parts; that the individual parts only have meaning and are understandable as they fit into the whole picture, not the other way around. For instance, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Africa, one of the continents of nature, unless he understands the design of the whole earth and what its purpose is. Likewise, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Europe, one of the continents of history, and its peculiar structure, extensive coastline, and so on and so forth, unless he first has a good idea of the whole picture of the earth and its purpose. But I digress.

The point I'm trying to make here is that whole groups of people have specific and identifiable racial and cultural qualities unique to themselves. If they did not we would not have ways of discerning these peculiarities and identifying them as qualities unique to Mexicans, or to the Chinese, or to whomever. Individuals are to be, and can only be understood properly as they form a part of the overall racial and cultural makeup of the race and people to which they belong. To take an individual of a given race and to define the race by that individual is, as I said, bassackwards. Though there are exceptions, the general rule is this, an individual is to be defined by his race and his culture. And if his race and culture are found to be incompatible with our own, then what service are we doing him or his culture in inviting him here where the conflicting worldviews must at some point clash?

The question seems to be this, does multiculturalism have the power to resolve the conflicts that naturally arise between different racial and cultural groups? Or is multiculturalism, aiding and abetting the invasion of Western nations as it is, simply going to, at length, intensify them to the point of a global and racial conflict of epic proportions? The question, moreover, is is it wrong for Auster not to talk about race?

Read More