Follow by Email

Friday, February 27, 2015

A Historical Framework for Ending Islamic Chauvinism

I realize the title of this post is a bit verbose, but it's really the most precise heading for what I want to say. I've spent a lot of time, years actually, pondering the parallels I'm about to describe here. After the events that have occurred since September 11, 2001, I don't see much of an alternative to the course of action I am about to lay out here. I don't relish the thought of these actions. They involve the deaths of millions. They would result in the demise of a culture and a major world religion. And yet, to preserve all that is noble and true, I fear no other end is possible.

You see, Islamic chauvinism is becoming dangerous to the continued existence of the West. Those of you self-loathing liberals out there might see this as a good thing, yet consider what would replace us. Indeed, the very culture that permits you to question its superiority and express those doubts is the one that will die if it does not defend its existence. Western culture is unique in this way. Precisely the attributes that make it superior also make it difficult for us to admit its superiority. Western culture is unique in its open-mindedness. It is unique in the quality that allows for critical self-evaluation. The culture of the Muslim world does not permit criticism of its tenets. The Communist cultures of the world, China, Cuba, et al, punish through legal sanction criticism of a Statist value system. Those nations that permit and even encourage self-criticism do so inasmuch as they have absorbed the ideas and values of the West.

I introduce the topic in this way because we will never take the steps necessary to defend our liberties, our way of life, unless we recognize that it is worthy of drastic steps to defend it. We once recognized this, and were committed enough to destroy entire cities and terminate an entire religion to protect ourselves. We need such determination again.

Peace is never achieved without total victory. Such a victory is not merely political or the result of a treaty. It is psychological. It is the breaking of the will of the enemy, total and absolute domination of one society by another. It is achieved by the vanquishing of one party by the other. Only then will the conquered people be malleable enough to submit themselves to the will of the conqueror. For the self-doubting West, such a result is borderline anathema. Yet history demonstrates, over and over, that such is the case.

Let us use the defeat of Japan as an example. I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine, Hiroyuki Okano. He explained to me that the overwhelming defeat of Japan in World War II had the additional consequence of disproving the religion of Japan. Under Shinto beliefs, the emperor was a god. He was literally divine, a descendant of the sun god. As such, he was considered all-powerful. The Japanese, in this sense, worshiped Japan itself, personified in the emperor. After the decimation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the promise that Tokyo was next, the emperor was forced to submit himself to the will of the United States. By so doing, he admitted his fallibility, which proved that he was not all-powerful, that he was a mere mortal instead of a divine being. That tenet of the Shinto religion was destroyed. Shinto survives in cultural celebrations and traditions, but it is no longer chauvinistic. Nobody in Japan believes that the emperor is infallible. That aspect of their culture and religion was destroyed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Islamic world has a very similar perspective to what Japan had at the onset of World War II. Foreign peoples were seen as filthy, inhuman enemies whose destiny was to be forcibly replaced by Japan. The same mindset exists in Islamic fundamentalism. It is all or nothing. Resistance to conquest is seen as the equivalent of violence against the religion. When the West resists invasion, it is portrayed as a new Crusade. Of course, such a perception ignores the very real geopolitical causes of the Crusades, which began with an Ottoman invasion of Byzantine territory. Even in that context, then, it was the West resisting conquest, even if the participants in the Crusades did commit some extremely vile atrocities against the residents of the lands they were ostensibly trying to free.

The only outcome I see that would result in a lasting peace and security for the West and our culture is massive destruction inflicted upon the Muslim world, a destruction never before seen. Nations that support or condone terrorism within their borders or as proxies for their political agendas will have to be virtually obliterated. We must force the Islamic world to sue for peace under any conditions necessary. We must demonstrate irrevocably that God is not on their side, that He does not accept the notion that Islam should be used as a weapon. ISIS-infested lands must be incinerated; pinpoint strikes via drones are not having a significant effect. The Muslim world must be crushed, its spirit and will broken. Yes, I am speaking of nuclear weapons.

We have foolishly robbed ourselves of the neutron bomb, which was a very merciful alternative to conventional nuclear weapons. A neutron bomb kills everything it touches, but leaves little radioactive residue to affect survivors. It decimates military targets within a limited area, much less than a conventional warhead, meaning that it could be used to destroy political and military targets within a 2.5 mile radius while leaving surrounding areas unscathed. Such a weapon would be ideal in the fight against militant Islam. ISIS troops and leaders could be vaporized while those under their oppression could be spared. Such a path would be both sufficiently forceful and the most moral alternative.

I do not wish to suggest that I see atomic warfare as a good thing. War is never good, but a sometimes necessary evil. However, it is vastly superior to having Western civilization replaced with a barbaric Ninth Century culture that sees women as chattel and enforces its religious zealotry with a death penalty. These are rapidly becoming our only realistic alternatives, as much as we may wish otherwise. I, for one, appreciate the value of our culture sufficiently to defend it no matter what the cost. Those who would criticize this post do not, period. I suppose that is their right and, ironically, a side-effect of the superiority of our culture.

Before you lambaste this post, please take the time to think unemotionally and realistically about its actual content. What I suggest is indeed horrifying. It is also necessary. Sadly, if history has taught us anything, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Monday, January 5, 2015

What the Media Have Done to America

This is a photo from Moscow, where shopkeepers are putting out our flag as doormats and enterprising businesses are selling toilet paper with our flag on it for a dollar a roll. While it is an insulting sight, to be sure, it is at least comprehensible. After all, to the Russians, it is the flag of a foreign power that they feel is destroying the national economy.

If this same doormat were placed outside a Marxist bookstore, the ACLU would be the first in line to defend it. Collegiate liberals would wipe their feet as a gesture of solidarity. Michael Moore would show up and shake hands with the shopkeepers. This in spite of the fact that America's president is, at present, a communist African-American Democrat.

We can see evidence of this disdain in the media's treatment of the cases in Ferguson and New York City. Especially in the Ferguson case, the media chose to broadcast inflammatory and false information without regard for how it would affect either the community in which the events were unfolding or the nation as a whole. While this behavior is fairly typical of the media these days, in this case it is displaying more than a simple desire to create news for the sake of gaining viewers or selling newspapers.

The media, especially the left-wing outlets, have been almost ecstatic in their reporting of the still-extant racial divide in the country. After declaring Barack Obama to be the post-racial president, the media have been hard-pressed to contend, as they are wont to do, that America is still a racist nation. As I like to say, the Race Card officially expired on January 20, 2009. However, the left-wing media template is to portray the nation as a bastion of racism, a throwback to darker, less-Progressive times.

They equate disparities in outcome to bias based on race as opposed to other factors. One study pointed out that resumes with equal qualifications but with names that sounded "white" rather than "black" garnered more interview requests under the "white" name. However, this ignores the influence of culture, which in this day and age is far more important than race. An African-American named Ronald or James will not be discriminated against because of his name. Why? His name indicates being raised in a middle-class culture. In fact, nearly any employer would hire an African-American of middle-class behavior and mannerisms over a white candidate with lower-class behavior and attitudes. This makes perfect sense, since the middle-class tends to be more cooperative and polite in its dealings with people of authority.

It is, in its way, extremely racist to equate race and culture as if the two were one and the same. This implies that race determines things such as behavior, work ethic, and the likelihood of criminality. This is, in fact, a form of racial profiling that is much more damaging than any performed by law enforcement. Let's face it--two white teenagers who are wearing hoodies, sagging their pants and walking like they're angry with the world are much more likely to be stopped and checked by the police than two black teenagers in properly-fitting slacks and a shirt and tie who are smiling pleasantly as the police drive by. In fact, I personally dare any university sociology department to run an experiment using precisely those parameters and prove me wrong.

The media in this country desire to perpetuate the impression that America is anything but the land of opportunity and justice for all. By so doing, they are desecrating the symbolism of America in a fashion that is much more disgraceful than wiping their feet on an image of the flag. It is less overt, certainly, but the intent to disparage America and all it stands for is the same. At least for the Russian shopkeepers, the action is not treasonous.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Timing and Bill Cosby: A Case for Suspicion

He said/she said disputes are always nerve-wracking for me, especially when they involve someone I admire personally. As a youngster, I loved Michael Jackson's Thriller album; I played the cassette so much it became warped and stopped playing. When the accusations came out, I was disappointed. However, when the plaintiffs settled out of court and won the litigation lottery, I felt vindicated in my belief in Jackson's innocence. After all, as a parent, I would have gone directly for criminal charges.

Now Bill Cosby is under the gun. He is accused of being a serial rapist. While I am not suggesting the man has a flawless record of personal behavior, my instinct in this case is that he is most likely innocent. I intend here to make my case; let me know what you think. My reasons are as follow:

1. Gloria Allred is involved. This individual is a camera-hogging ambulance chaser of the worst sort. She takes cases generally for the publicity and celebrity she may garnish. Though she presents herself as a champion for women's rights, she displays her true colors as a champion of the almighty dollar with every case she takes. I wonder if she is going to make public what her cut might be of any settlement in this case?

 2. The statute of limitations has run out on at least two of the cases. This makes me wonder, "Why now?" Why would you wait so long to address the issue, and then do so in such a public way? If an undeserved shame kept you from speaking out, one would assume that you'd stay away from the spotlight as much as possible. Since this is not happening, I suspect that another motive is at work here. As for the woman who claims to have been assaulted as a minor, if she is telling the truth she deserves both justice and sympathy; moreover, her case will not be affected by a statute of limitations. However, Gloria Allred is doing her a disservice by bringing all three cases up at the same time. This implies that her motives are the same as the other claimants--in other words, economic.

3. Bill Cosby is well-known as one of the few socially conservative voices among African-American celebrities. He often speaks out on issues of personal responsibility, the negative impact of "gangsta" culture on Blacks everywhere, and other things that make the Left cringe. Given the current crop of events in Ferguson and New York City, America desperately needs someone of Bill Cosby's notoriety to talk some sense into people. With these accusations, he has been effectively silenced. Indeed, due to the nature of these accusations his reputation will be forever tarnished. Those who would profit, both economically and politically, from his silence are well-served by this turn of events.

Why are these accusations happening right now? I suggest they have been timed precisely to silence one of "ghetto" culture's most ardent critics. Bill Cosby has always portrayed African-American life as one full of possibility. He portrays upper-middle-class homes of responsible parents and professionals. He does not glorify "ghetto" culture or behavior, and he does so in a way that is both charming and entertaining. His stories counter the dogma that the authentic African-American culture is that of vulgarity and crime.

 Well, you have silenced a great voice of common sense in America, Ms. Allred. Congratulations.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Teachers need the benefit of the doubt!

This subject is one of my pet peeves. You see, as a teacher I have sometimes been interpreted as making inappropriate comments. Much of it comes from the subject matter; the course standards for Spanish include a good amount of cultural analysis and comparison. This can lead to discussions of complex topics about which some people are quite sensitive.

As any reader may attest, I don't consider someone's race a very important factor in who that person is. Having lived in South America for years, my perspective on questions of nationality is similar.  Moreover, I find it useful sometimes to "illustrate absurdity by being absurd;" that is, point out cultural stereotypes in order to display their inaccuracy. Sometimes the only part of the discussion that makes its way home is the stereotype rather than the fact that it was subsequently analyzed and disproved. This is a shame. How am I to defeat cultural misconceptions if I must fear misrepresentation and reprisals for doing so?

Perhaps I should just ignore these issues. I should simply state, "Let's not talk about that" and allow the teachable moment to slide by. Certainly my life would be easier if I took that avenue, but that's not why I decided to be a teacher. Analyzing complex topics is what breeds human intelligence, and I went into this business to do just that.

Nevertheless, I am sometimes called upon to defend my honor, so to speak, as the result of concerns expressed directly to an administrator rather than to me. I cannot emphasize enough that all teachers hate this! We expect to be given at least the opportunity to clarify or explain the true circumstances in any given misunderstanding before having to explain ourselves before an administrator. Children are not exactly the best message-carriers. If you don't believe me, try having one of your children deliver a message for you after only hearing it once and waiting a few hours before repeating it. I rest my case.

Parents, please talk to the teacher before contacting anyone else! Nothing eats away at a good relationship between parents and teachers more than distrust, and so much of that could be very easily resolved through a simple phone call or email to the teacher. Nothing so annoys a good teacher than to be misrepresented negatively in front of the administration.

Let's think logically. What incentive does the teacher have to be purposefully offensive, to punish your child for no reason, or to otherwise create conflict? I have news for you--the teacher has none. Logic would therefore dictate that most second-hand information that seems to be questionable might be related in an inaccurate way. At the very least, let the teacher have the opportunity to defend himself. (I'll use the generic masculine here, which some might find offensive in and of itself. Oh well!)

Saturday, August 9, 2014

False Equivalency

I have noted that the news media, especially left-wing outlets. like to make comparisons that don't quite fit. For a long time, I've lamented the fact that the media equate the Gay Rights movement to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Race and sexual proclivity have nothing in common.

Race is an innate quality, and to discriminate against someone based solely on that criterion is illogical. In the modern era, most Americans cannot claim descent from solely one race, so such a bias is increasingly ridiculous. I am a blend of mostly European stock and a smaller percentage of Cherokee blood. Three of my children are 3/4 Mexican and 1/4 Pomo Indian, and the Mexican side is an unknown concentration of Amerindian, Spanish, and possibly African blood. Most Black Americans are, in fact, of mixed African and European descent. However, all of these lineages have one thing in common--they are inherent characteristics that came with birth.

Sexual preference is not. Period. All reputable studies confirm that homosexuality emerges as the result of key life experiences, often traumatic ones. Three studies have been used by proponents of garriage (my term for the contradiction in terms "gay marriage") to suggest that homosexuality is innate, however all three fail to pass the rigors of proper science. The most famous of these was done by Simon LeVay, who suggested that a certain area in the brain was larger for gay men and females in cadavers he had studied. However, the size range for both groups was equal, with some individuals in all groups having similar brain sizes in this area,  and it is unknown how he confirmed which cadavers were and were not homosexual. Moreover, the study was not blind, and the groups studied were not large enough to be statistically sound. In addition, no researcher has been able to reproduce his findings.

Science also confirms that there is a difference between the relationship that comprises a marriage and the relationship between a gay couple. For starters, biology itself has dictated that men and women are to procreate. It is the means of procreation for not only our species, but also most other complex animal species. The benefits of such an arrangement are myriad, but all lead to the production of hardier individuals and the survival of the species. Marriage simply formalizes what biology has already determined. Indeed, government did not create the concept of marriage, but simply recognizes it and authorizes people to perform recognized ceremonies.

However, the news and entertainment media insist that both relationships are the same, while simple logic and human anatomy would make the opposite case. Proponents make an argumentum ad ignorantiam, basically saying, "Why not?" However, this logical fallacy is neither unanswerable nor sufficient to make sweeping changes in the way we legislate.

Aside from that issue, we also see the media asserting a false equivalency between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is a terrorist group that attacks specifically non-military targets. Moreover, it fires its missiles from crowded residential areas to maximize civilian casualties when retaliatory strikes occur. It has dishonored truce after truce, and will accept nothing less than the utter annihilation of the Israeli state. It victimizes its own people purposefully, murdering in cold blood any Palestinian who voices dissent or refuses to cooperate.

Israel, meanwhile, uses its missiles to target the areas from which Hamas has fired its rockets. It takes extraordinary measures to minimize civilian casualties, even making phone calls to the places it intends to strike to warn civilians to clear out. It has negotiated truce after truce, and would stop its military actions the moment Hamas actually honored its bargains. Israel fires missiles away from its civilian population. Some have argued that Hamas cannot do so because all of Gaza consists of crowded urban sprawl, but a quick look at Google Maps will confirm that such is not the case.

Add to that the false equivalencies of the Occupy protests and the Tea Party, social conservatives and Nazis (who were anything but), et al ad infinitum. Those who fail to pay close attention fall victim to these tactics. They were used often by Goebbels, who made false equivalencies between Jews, communists and anarchists. The concept of the Big Lie is nothing new. It is shameful how readily we fall prey to it as Americans who should know better.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Boko Haram Obama

Okay, I realize that the title of this piece may be a tad inflammatory, unless you're a Low Information Voter, in which case you're scratching your armpits and wondering how you found this website when you were searching for cat videos.

For those of you who pay attention to world events, the people of Nigeria are quite upset at an Islamofascist terrorist group by the name of Boko Haram. This group kidnapped over 250 girls from the Chibok school, forcing some to marry their captors. Many of the girls are ill and suffering from other forms of abuse. A worldwide Twitter campaign has tried to draw attention to the situation, but nothing tangible and effective has been done. (You can Twitter in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets full first.)

We face a similar situation in this country, but from the reverse perspective. We have engaged in policy-making that resulted in busload after busload of unaccompanied children streaming into our country. Our government ought to be making efforts to reunify these children with their families in their native lands. Instead, they are being relocated across the country with strangers.

It is not mercy to steal a generation of children from impoverished nations. Yes, many of the countries from which these children come are terrible places to live. Many are nations in which there is an ever-present danger of violence. As many have commented before me, we have such areas in our own country. There are neighborhoods in Chicago with the same dangers.

The parents of these children are lacking the same commitment and attachment to their offspring that the parents in Nigeria have. To send a child off all alone with known criminals is a crime of the deepest neglect. Every American feels instant empathy for these children, but to keep them here is abduction. The president, in approving the dispersal across the country of these children, is making the statement that he intends the separation to be permanent.

While this may seem to the less family-oriented out there as the right thing to do, we must always judge an idea or policy by the results it gets and not by the intentions of those who came up with it. That's called living in reality, something liberals don't do very often. So, what is the reality of our policy towards these children?

Children are living in cramped quarters, housed in close proximity to children sent because of disease and contagious illness. Can anyone honestly say that this is a better life than the one they left behind?

I recommend a few simple policy changes to help these (and future) children while simultaneously stemming the tide of illegal immigration into the country. Here is my plan:

1. The children who have already arrived will be treated, fed, and sent home with new shoes and clean clothing.

2. The immigration loophole the parents are abusing will be closed.

3. The U.S. Border Patrol will be granted the status it deserves as a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. After all, its function closely parallels that of the Coast Guard.

4. A twenty-foot wall will be built along the border in every area in which it is geologically feasible. I'm tired of people saying this can't be done; we've got thousands of miles of this along our freeways just so people can sleep without hearing traffic noise. A stronger wall using a similar construction style could be built within a few months if multiple contracts were awarded at intervals along the border.

5. Congress will pass a law clarifying the Constitution to make it clear that only children of citizens acquire automatic citizenship by birth. This law will contain a clause exempting it from the jurisdiction of any of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. (Congress has the authority to define the limits of the federal courts' jurisdiction.)

6. An law will be passed stating that only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens will be granted immigration preferences. Siblings, parents, adult children, and extended family will no longer receive exceptions.

7. A law will be passed mandating every employer to use the E-Verify system to ensure that they are hiring workers legally. This will remove much of the incentive for illegal entry into the U.S.

8. Economic advisors will be sent to these children's home countries to guide them with regard to economic policy. These advisors will be chosen from the business schools of U.S. universities.

Will this be kindness? Yes, if we take the long view of things. Too often we seek only immediate relief and forget that leaving the illness untreated is worse than momentary pain. For too long our nation's borders have served as a pressure-release valve for the corrupt and despotic, a way to rid themselves of those who would otherwise seek reform. We are doing the people of these nations no favor by obliging.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Hitler-Hamas Connection

The Palestinians launch terror attacks on Israel. Israel retaliates. Terrorists hide behind their women and children. A few women and children die in the retaliation. The world condemns Israel. World leaders urge both sides to “come to terms,” which involves Israel giving up land for peace. Land is given. Peace lasts a few months to a year. Palestinians commit acts of terror and hide behind their women and children. Rinse and repeat.

Is everyone in the community of nations brain-dead? Now we see Vladimir Putin using the same tactics to seize the Crimean region and, if he gets his way, Ukraine. Yet Putin is being condemned. One has to wonder why. After all, he is funding separatists, just as Iran funds Hamas within Israel, for ostensibly the same reason--to supplant the nation in which they reside and seize power. Why are the Russian separatists seen as bad guys, and the Palestinians portrayed as the good guys?

 Let’s indulge in a brief history lesson. Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti (religious authority) in Palestine in the early Twentieth Century, was a zealous Jew hater. You can see him in the top photo, advising Hitler on how to handle the Jews. He fanned the flames of Anti-Semitism and recommended what became known as the Final Solution.

Having gained favor with Hitler, al-Husayni is exiled from Palestine for inciting a rebellion from the British. He flees to Bosnia, where he encourages a union with Hitler. 100,000 Bosnian Muslims join with the Nazis. They also begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing, killing 200,000 Christian Serbs, 22,000 Jewish Bosnians, and over 40,000 Gypsies.
Flag of the Bosnian Muslim division of the Third Reich Army

 The Grand Mufti’s anti-Western, anti-Jewish philosophy remains intact after his death through a group of his acolytes known as the Muslim Brotherhood. They carried over his desire to kill the Jews and carry out a Jihad on the West. They also subscribe to essentially the same perspective as Adolf Hitler, that all the world’s troubles can be traced to Jewish influence. The Muslim Brotherhood inspires other groups, including Al Qaida, Hamas, Fatah, and others. All of these groups carry Hitler’s torch of Anti-Judaism.
It is therefore highly ironic to hear the spokesmen for Hamas compare Israelis to Nazis. The Jews learned from the Holocaust. Their motto: “Never again.” And yet President Obama and the rest of the world’s leaders encourage Israel to bargain away territory for peace, suffering death by a thousand cuts. Gaza becomes a staging area for missiles targeting Israeli civilians, and we have the audacity to ask Israel for more concessions.

There is but one path to peace, a path the gutless leaders of the Western world would deny to Israel just as they refuse to follow it themselves. No lasting peace has been achieved without an unconditional surrender by one party in a war, which follows a victory so decisive as to make a treaty a mere formality. Treaties that come without decisive victory may as well be written on toilet paper. Israel has signed treaty after treaty and granted concession after concession, all to no avail. Why? We have held them on a tight leash and kept them from achieving a decisive victory.
Hamas rules the Palestinian Authority right now. Israel knows where the leadership meets. One well-placed missile and a sudden surge would be enough to put Hamas on the defensive. Eject them and any sympathizers from Israeli territory, including any gained after the Six Day War. Retake all concessions; the terms were never honored, so Israel has no obligation to honor its part in the bargain either. Let those who supposedly sympathize with and support the Palestinians host them as refugees. This will let the world know just how much sympathy they really have. (Jordan kicked them out for rabble-rousing soon after the Six Day War.)

It is my hope that our leaders here in the U.S. would have the testicular fortitude to defend us against attack without worrying about world opinion. I would expect them to seek a decisive and unquestionable victory, and demand an unconditional surrender and end to the conflict. And, I would expect them to greet any breach of that agreement with extreme prejudice. I expect no less from Israel. We are hypocrites to require of them what we would never accept ourselves.
For a more detailed history of the link between modern anti-Israeli terrorism and the Nazis, view the video on the following link: Hitler's Mufti

If you’ve been brainwashed by a selective interpretation of history, being taught only what anti-Israeli Liberals want you to know, much of this may seem shocking to you. However, it is all factual. We will never be able to improve reality until we know what it actually is.