A Very Nice Comment

The commenter Populist (I hope that doesn't come across as being too impersonal, to call him "commenter") has left a very nice comment to my entry "On the assimilability factor," which I thought deserved a post to itself...

Populist writes:

In response to my own comment, about labels and humanity, I would like to attempt to be a little more specific as to what I meant. For the record, I have no problem calling a spade a spade and I have no trouble whatsoever espousing the truth. However, I do believe that we have to be careful as to our use and frequency of labeling individuals. To be sure, being a Christian or liberal etc... is part and parcel of what/who you are. However, it is but one part (in my opinion) of that equation. My political or religious beliefs do not say everything about who I am. In as much, I do not want to be referred to by someone as the "liberal" or "Christian" etc.. I say that, not because I am ashamed of my beliefs, but because I am a father, a son, a brother, a man and a Longhorn fan and I want all of my parts to be seen (I do not consider myself a liberal by the way.. that is only an example). Labels are really what you make of them, however, all too often it seems that they are used as a means of degrading someone.

Enough about my hang-up with labels already!

Thank you, for taking the time to bring this wealth of information to one location. I for one, am to lazy to seek out all that can be found on Webster's. Anyone can throw down a few comments, but the articles that you provide, as well as your own observations, really require one to think before responding and that is a good thing.

TM replies:

First, I want to thank Populist for his recognition of the work we've done here at Webster's. A great deal of effort has indeed gone into gathering this information to this location. Of sifting through it, and of organizing it, and so on and so forth. One always appreciates that kind of recognition because stuff like that generally goes relatively unnoticed. And by the way, I doubt you're too lazy. I would venture a guess that it's more like a combination of factors such as, you didn't know where to look, and a lack of that oh-so-precious commodity, time.

Second, where Populist says that the articles I provide and my own observations require one to think before responding, I can only say that I certainly hope that is the case more often than not. This is most certainly what I'm striving to achieve here. Populist is indeed on the mark where he asserts that when one is required to think before responding, this is a good thing. And it goes both ways.

Third, I've written many times that "Worldview is everything," and I'm certainly no less convinced of that now than I ever was. Populist points out that a person's liberalism or conservatism, as it may be, is only a part of who he is. While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I will say that one's ideological underpinnings, that which defines his liberalism/conservatism, governs virtually everything he/she does in whatever capacity he finds himself; the way he approaches every part of his being, whether it be his marriage, his duties as a father, his civic duties, his job ... everything.

I myself am somewhat hesitant to attach the "liberal" label to people because it has come to have such negative connotations. Extreme liberalism (leftism) is synonymous with the term unAmericanism, in my view. The problem with liberalism, as I think Auster has pointed out, is that as with the religion of Mohammed where there is no "moderate" Islam, so there is no "moderate" liberalism. And this is what we have to come to realize about the danger inherent to allowing liberalism to continue to dominate American politics.

My fellow AFBers and I have discussed the ways in which to isolate liberalism, and to relegate it to small spheres of operation wherein it can be exposed for what it is and does, and where the proper kinds and levels of corrective actions can be effectually taken against its influence. We call this, "Balanced Government."

But I want to point out to Populist that liberalism is such a dominating force in America at this time in history that none of us, including myself, my fellow AFBers, not even Auster himself have managed to completely escape its clutches. In other words, we all have liberal tendencies which were already developed before we came along, and passed down to us when we made our entry into this world. But a few thinkers such as Mr. Auster have come to realize this about themselves, and are attempting to take the proper corrective steps to ridding themselves/ourselves of the disease.

If liberalism is such a destructive ideology as those of us in the Traditionalist Conservative camp claim it to be, then we have no choice but to expose it. And since liberlism is nothing without human beings to carry its destructiveness into effect, then we have to expose it in individuals, particularly extreme manifestations thereof.

Sorry that your Longhorns lost ... not! ;)

Read More

Fortifying Christendom Against the Hostility of Islam

(Note: I may not get around to adding the excerpts I promised to this entry until in the morning.)

The European Mindset 1492: The Crescent or the Cross?

That's the title of chapter three of a book I have in my possession, which I purchased around the year 1994 I think. The book is written by John Eidsmoe, and is entitled Columbus and Cortez, Conquerors for Christ...

Incidentally, years ago I was given a number of tracts which my great grandfather, whom dad and I were both named after, had developed as apologetic materials for the local Christian church he had founded. While I won't delve into the content of these tracts generally, there was one in particular which I found then to be quite interesting, and quite illuminating. This particular tract (and if I can locate a copy of it I will add the contents to this post) dealt with the discovery of the New World by Columbus, up through the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. In other words, it recognized the hand of Providence in America's founding, tracing back in the chain of events, Columbus's discovery of the New World, and beyond. This used to be a common theme in educational circles, The Chain of Christianity Moving Westward.

The reason I mention this tract is because at the time I was given a copy by one of my relatives, the tract itself had already been removed from the body of tracts offered by the church in question to its members, and its visitors. In fact, I was in my early twenties when I first realized that such a tract existed, authored by my Great Grandfather, and I was raised in this church. So, if the tract was offered while I grew up in the church, I never knew anything of it. I suspect it was not.

And here is the point of this post. Like the church I was raised in, the national memory of the actual historical events which surrounded Columbus's discovery of a route to the West Indies has been all but erased. And this is a sad, as well as a dangerous fact. In Eidsmoe's book, chapter three, he lays out the threat that Christian nations were facing at the time of Columbus's voyage, the threat of Islam. Most traditionalists are knowledgable of this imminent danger, I'm sure, but I would still like to post excerpts from chapter three of the book below this initial entry later on...

Update:

I note that in the second paragraph, I make the statement that "this used to be a common theme in educational circles..." I'm mindful that this may be somewhat confusing for some of you, given that it is written in the context of a religious tract formerly offered by the church of my youth, especially those of you who are unfamiliar with my understanding of what an "educational institution" is. Therefore, I want to clarify the meaning of this statement by defining educational institutions as I mean it.

By educational institutions, I understand that there are three primary institutions tasked with educating, or sharing knowledge, with those under their care or supervision, the home, the church, and the formal schools. By this understanding of education, and the institutions tasked with providing it, one is more equipped to determine, for instance, what has gone wrong (or right) with one or the other group of people, whether you divide them as states, or local communities, or by race, or whatever. An example of this would be something like what is the cause of the disparity between group A's high divorce rate, and group B's comparative low divorce rate. If you look at the three primary educational institutions from whence both groups invariably, and to one degree or the other, derive the bulk of their educations, you will find, again invariably, that in the case of the one, one or more aspects of his/her education has a more positive/negative influence than it/they do for his counterpart. If the three primary educational institutions all tend to agree in some particular, or in some general way for one group, as opposed to, on the other hand, a noticable disagreement between them for the other group, then this serves to explain many of the differences that we see between the two groups. Also, this will account for certain trends that we notice where the gap between the two groups seems to be closing in favor of group A's or group B's philosophy. This is what I mean in paragraph two by "educational circles." There are three of them, and they're always in operation whether, for instance, one attends church on a regular basis or not, and etc.

The excerpts I promised are coming, but there's a further delay which I won't get into here. My apologies.

Read More

Amending to do away with the threat of Islam

Go check out VFR's suggestion for what we should do about the Islamic plan to take over America, uncovered by the Justice Department.

I've said before, and I'll say again that fundamentally the threat of Islam on these shores comes down to a problem with our form of Government. The fact that our form of Government was fundamentally changed by the incorporation doctrine, where all power must ultimately reside in the central authority, is what gave rise to leftist liberalism, which in turn gave rise to the Islamic presence in this country...

However, short of an immediate "return to constitutional government," which is impractical, the United States is left vulnerable by the lawful presence of Islam in this country, due to its subversive doctrines and practices, and something has to be done about it.

Auster has offered an interesting solution to amend away the threat posed by this presence. If we could push such an amendment through, we may thereby be afforded an opportunity to concentrate our efforts on returning to constitutional, or, balanced government, soberly, reflectively, and free of the fear and subversive influence of Islam.

If the practice of the religion of Islam continues to be treated as a protected religion by the first amendment, meaning that it is equally protected with the religion of Christ, then the internal threat from Islam will continue to grow, and we will be left to fight both it, and the political doctrine most responsible for giving rise to it as itself a viable and growing political force in this country. The battle against leftist liberalism is itself difficult enough without our having to fight both it, and this political holy jihad subversively waged against us by adherents to the religion of Mohammed.

It's an interesting approach that deserves to be taken seriously.

Read More

When will liberals shed their dhimmi masks?

Savage has an interesting entry up where he post's an excerpt from Zippy Catholic's recent entry over at What's Wrong With the World.

I commented on an assertion attributed to Zippy wherein he basically says that as long as liberal perceptions are that their acting submissive to Islam is producing net gains to their ideology, then they'll continue to act dhimmi, but not a moment longer...

In my comment to the post I was really just being facetious. I think that if what we have to rely on from liberals in joining the fight with us against Islam is their perceptions to convince them that liberalism is incurring net losses due to their feigned dhimmitude, which is more or less what Zippy is suggesting, then we may as well write them off right here, right now. With friends like leftists, who needs enemies?

Zippy may be right when he asserts that there's nothing inherent to liberalism which would have them allying themselves with Islam, but has he considered well the implications of his very thoughts on the matter, i.e., that liberals are willing to shed the specious mask of dhimmitude not a moment sooner than their perceptions inform them that they've made all the advances for liberalism that their donning of the dhimmi mask is capable of allowing.

In other words, we're to trust that liberals (who aren't particularly rational, by the way) are going to finally wake up and smell the coffee, realizing (or perceiving) at that moment that Islam is all of a sudden more of a danger to their ideology and all the advances they've made with it, than traditional conservative Americanism is. Comforting thought.

P.S. I see that Auster has posted a lengthy comment to Savage's entry at the bottom of which he provides a couple of links to VFR articles on the subject. I would also recommend this VFR entry from a few days ago where Auster explains at length two likely scenarios which relate to this topic.

Read More

The Dual Threat of Islam and Liberalism

I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet, and to move you in the right direction as I said what I needed to say in my entry to the AFB this morning.

But the core of the issue is this, we face a dual threat which comes in the forms of Islam, and liberalism. Both ideologies are extreme at the core. Both must be dealt with in a way that extinguishes the threat each of them pose us or we face the threat of being consumed by them, and are, in a word, dead.

In an attempt to find a way of dealing with the dual nature of this crisis, I put the question to Lawrence Auster of whether his separationist strategy for dealing with the threat of Islam might as well be capable of dealing with the threat of liberalism, which I see as just as much a threat to our safety and existence as is the extreme ideology of Islam. And here Mr. Auster answers me.

For a better understanding of where I'm coming from here, click on the link to the entry I put up this morning over at the AFB. And if you have any ideas about how to apply the principles of the separationist strategy to liberalism, do make them known to Mr. Auster.

Read More

The Case Against Torture

(Note: See my comments posted at VFR on this topic where I mention another aspect of that particular torture conversation which came to mind after I put up this entry. Thanks to Mr. Auster for posting them.)

With all the conversation going on over at VFR concerning a certain form of gnosticism emanating from a certain group espousing a pacifist sort of Christianity that would, among other things, allegedly prefer the allowance of a hijacked airliner, with innocent passengers on board, to crash into the Sears Tower, as an example, rather than downing the fateful aircraft thereby saving untold thousands, I've been reminded time and again of a similar conversation I was involved in some time back.

In my conversation the question about the use of torture to extract information from 'enemy combatants' was the central issue. My contention was that I supported the use of torture when it was necessary to save American lives. My opponent's position was that torture is immoral, and that he could never support the use of it under any circumstances. So I put this question to him:

Suppose your family is captured by terrorists. Suppose that you get information from a reliable source that someone in your neighborhood friendly to the captors has knowledge of your family's whereabouts. Would you, if necessary, use torture to extract information about your family's whereabouts in an attempt to save their lives. His answer, which may or may not surprise some of you, was: “No!, I would never use torture under any circumstances.” And that's putting it mildly.

Of course, I did not hesitate to tell this individual what a piece of scum I thought he was to prefer to protect his own sensibilities over the saving of the very lives of his family members. But when push came to shove, I wondered, is this truly the way he would react, in spite of all his self-righteous invectives?

I often wonder about that to this very day. I suppose some folks have lost all sense of a moral obligation to protect innocent lives even at the mere hazard of crushing their own sensibilities. But I wonder if part of my opponent's unwavoring adherence to this goofy notion of his was not really based in the knowledge that if he answered “yes; I would use torture in that case,” that his whole case against using torture, which he had very carefully laid out, would at once break down?

-DW

Read More

Time to take a Head Count

VA has a couple of entries up this morning that are very interesting, both having to do with the immigration situation in this country and in the wider west. In VA's top post, The Prospects for the West, Part II, she opens the entry with the most basic question that any conservative, any 'traditionalist,' any American oughta be asking himself/herself on a daily basis: “How many illegal aliens are in our country?” It's a great question, and one that we need to somehow, some way, get a more accurate 'guesstimate' of in the very near future...

VA goes on to elaborate on why the question is such an important one to Americans, and why we need to get a handle on it quick, fast, and in a hurry:

We hear the figure '12 million' bandied about a lot, but there is no solid basis for believing that figure to be accurate; it is repeated although no one can cite a source for it, or provide evidence to back it up.

But in discussing the issue of the future of the West, and whether the United States or Europe is in greater demographic danger, it would be helpful to have a real idea of how many illegals are here now, and how many are entering over the course of a year.

I have searched for authoritative information, but found little that is clear and straightforward. We should also keep in mind that NO ONE KNOWS how many illegals are here, or how many come in each day or each year. It's all speculation and guesswork.

The federal government and our politicians seem to like that implausibly low figure of 12 million, but it's in their interests to keep the figure modest; if they confessed that they have no idea how many illegals are here, or if they gave an inkling of the suspected numbers, there would likely be an uproar, especially now that so many Americans have been mobilized against amnesty for those unknown millions of trespassing illegals.

So we are probably safe in assuming the 12 million figure is lowballed.

I agree. Some say 12 million is the most reliable figure, or they at least imply that is the most reliable estimate available by their constantly citing it. I've heard some estimates ranging from 12 to 20 million, others from 12 to 30 million. The only figure that it seems everyone can agree on is the 12 million figure as a low end estimate. I think the 30 million 'high end' estimate by some to be suspect too, and think that it may well be itself a 'lowballed' figure. But how can we know for sure? Better yet, can we know for sure? Can we at least get this number of illegal aliens in this country narrowed down to a figure that is reliable enough that we can estimate more accurately what kind of an impact they're having on our society, whether negative or positive? I think we can, I think we should, and I think the reality is that we must at some point in the very near future.

And I think the best, and probably the only way of doing it with any real hope of obtaining accurate numbers is for the States and the local governments to do the counting themselves. I mean, if we can all assume with a high degree of confidence that the numbers of votes collected at the local level, transmitted to that of the state, and those numbers to the central authority from the various States with regard to our Presidential elections is at all within the ballpark, then surely the local and the state governments may be safely entrusted with collecting and transmitting data as pertains to the numbers of illegals residing within their own borders, can't they? If the answer that comes to mind is “no,” then I can hardly see how we can place any confidence at all in the results of the presidential elections, or any other national election numbers, for that matter.

The state and local governments have themselves a vested interest in obtaining some degree of accurate numbers in this regard. And even if they have a soft spot in their hearts for immigrants, particularly of the illegal variety in this case, an accurate assessment of the numbers of them residing in their particular locals would still be advantageous to the respective governments for any number of reasons I can think of off hand.

Certainly there would be some 'cooking of the books' going on in certain locations, but I'll reiterate, this reality doesn't cause us to throw out our whole elections process even though we know without a doubt that we have pets voting in increasing numbers in our elections, as well as dead people and the whole works.

And seriously, folks, as VA has said before, it isn't like these immigrants are hiding from anyone. No; they are fearlessly traipsing about all over this great land of ours. And if they're going to walk around in the open air with no evident fear of their being shipped back to their country of origin anytime soon, then there's no time like the present for us to start counting them up. Irregardless of what the figure ultimately ends up being, we need to know what it is within a reasonable degree of accuracy. We also need a reliable way of estimating how many are continuing to come in illegally on an annual basis.

Here's something for our illustrious Congress to start to work on - put together an immigration bill, “in pursuance thereof,” that has the state and local governments complying with a 'uniform' census project intended to get an accurate estimate of how many illegal immigrants actually reside in these United States at the moment it is taken, with an additional provision stipulating this be done on at least a 'semi-regular' basis so that we'll also have some reliable indication of how many are coming in yearly. Seems to me like a pretty good plan, how about you?...

-DW

Read More