Progressivsim, the destroyer of natural rights

In 1776, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.”

Thus the founders expressed natural laws, natural rights, as the foundation for American Governance.

in the early 1900s the progressives chucked out natural rights for “Scientific” government.

mind you that “science” in the late 19th century was nothing of the sort. Some guy who might or might not have actually studied something made declarations with fancy sounding words and people assumed it was science. Such things were used to justify segregation, attacks on Asians and Indians, deportment of illegals, and subjugation to the state.

If the progressives wrote the declaration of independence they would write:

“We hold these facts to be scientifically proven by the best minds of the era that not all men are equal. Some men are better suited to lead and thus by that situation are required to direct all others toward more efficient and harmonious living…”

Acceptable Americans over time

In 1607 some English guys showed up on the James river and built a town in a swamp. Most died.  in 1620 some more English guys showed up, this time on Massachusetts bay and built a city, many died. In 1630 even more English guys showed up, further north and built a city, a few died.

These men, and women, were White English Protestants, either Anglican or Calvinists. And over a few generations their children identified themselves as “American”. There were many people here already, the Powhattan, the Wamanoag, the Iroquois, the Algonquin, the Lennapee, and hundreds of others on the east coast area. They did not see themselves as American but as members of smaller units.

As prosperity came to the English colonies, and the English conquered the Dutch in 1665 non Anglican, non Calvinist, non English people began to show up in the colonies. Germans, Irish, Dutch, French, etc. Were they truly American or would they ever assimilate?

Ben Franklin in the 1760s and 1770s wondered about all the Germans living in western Pennsylvania and if their Lutheran style and non English ways would ever assimilate. He did not believe they would.

Over time immigration from Europe increased. The Irish brought a major cultural problem because they were Roman Catholic, or “Papist”. They had strange ways about them, they were Gaelic and not Nordic.  Being Nordic tied the Germans and English together and opened the ways for the Dutch, and Scandinavian peoples. Who could be White increased.

There were also many Blacks in the country, primarily in the south, and primarily slaves, but they were still there. They created a contrast to the peoples who were not black. Their Americaness was debated hotly in the antebellum period.

In 1848 The United states conquered and bought the South West from Mexico. We Absorbed 75,000 Latinos, nearly all of whom were Catholic and not very white. In 1865 the South was defeated and Emancipation was enforced upon them by the 13th Amendment. 4 Million Black men and women were given nearly equal status (only for a short period)  and the backlash against this massive upheaveal was felt for the next hundred years under the phrase Jim Crow.

By this time the Germans were fully American and the Irish were nearly American. Out west the Irish were far more accepted than they were back east where their numbers were concentrated in the cities.

Then came the Gilded age and a substantial shift in Immigration. Eastern and Southern Europeans began pouring in as did Chinese and Japanese. These people were not protestants, they were Catholics, Orthodox, and Buddhist. They were most certainly not white (Slavic people were considered more Mongolian than white in the 19th century) and they would never assimilate to American culture.  I wonder how such 19th century nativists would react to 2007’s Speaker of the house Nancy Peloci. (Italian name for those who don’t get it), or more sharply 1961’s president John Kennedy, Irish Catholic.

The nature of what it meant to be American was redefined in the Gilded age. To be an American meant to be “A man” strong, vigorous, willing to fight and test ones self. It allowed, in the more ideal sense, non whites to prove themselves and rise up. Some did, most were not afforded this Ideal.

By the 1900s There had been a radical change in Ideology. Progressive reformers looking to fix the problems wrought by industrialization expanded to seek social reform. Women and Blacks fought for more recognition. The World Wars brought demand for their labor and resources which both empowered them to demand respect in return and emboldened them to believe they should be respected.  The rhetoric used to justify the war on Hitler and the following cold war was turned around on the old school leadership that a new generation of ethnic minorities, going to college for the first time en mass, began to demand their political and cultural equality.

Women and Blacks moved first, followed by Latinos, Asians, gays, and everyone else. Is Marco Rubio an American? What about Al Sharpton? Joe Biden? Nikki Haley?  All of these people would not be included in the past because of Faith or Genetics. Now they are.

The woman who just won Miss America was called “unamerican” because of the color of her skin. She was called Arab by some idiots, and other idiots trumpeted that stupidity across the internet. But are we really surprised?

the US state department sent Arab translators to Afghanistan where Arab is only used for reading the Koran. The US government is so poorly educated as to how the world works, and this is reflected in our general public. The education of the world in this country is so lacking because such education is based on learning a mountain of facts, an act that Liberal Education opposes. Why learn facts when we can explore feelings.

The ignorance that Liberalism professes to hate is caused by the actions liberal education takes. Not using intelligence, data collection and study, but instead exploring feelings.

People feel dark skin = arab, so they say it. Liberals usually say “what ever you feel is good” unless you say things they don’t like then they call you a gay slur.

Primary Sources

Im a few dozen pages into Teddy Roosevelt’s “The rough riders” and it was written about 114 years ago after the Spanish-American war.

The fascinating thing is how much Teddy tells us, frankly, about how he sees the world and how things should be.

The chapter where he trains the Rough Riders discusses how men should comport themselves. with Honor, hard work, diligence, and not asking for favors but earning positions.

the phrase “native American” was used which i found fascinating.

comments about drunkenness which reflect his previous actions trying to dry out New York City are slipped in.

The justification and mindset of the war, a short victorious war, good for american blood and spirit, these are talked about too. War was seen as a good thing, a testing ground.

Red line? WTF Obama

So… Syria is falling apart and for some reason Obama wants to go in there and bomb stuff. There is al qaeda in there. There is Bashar Al-Assad who is a jerk. There are Syrian local rebels who don’t like or support either. It’s a three way war. And Obama wants to start bombing, why

Lesson learned from the war in Iraq is that the USA needs better methods if finding out who is members of terrorist networks. Have we made developments in this area? Are we not going to learn from the Iraq war?

I supported the Iraq war and still do. It was needed. the thousands of dead terrorists were well worth the cost in men and money. The liberation of the 30 million Iraqis was worth the cost, even though the birth pangs of Arab democracy are still going on. (It took the USA 200 years to figure out democracy starting in the very early 1600s with the house of Burgesses in Virginia and the General Court in Massachusetts.) The people in Iraq are learning all that in ten years, all the fighting other countries went through to develop modern democracy is accelerated in Iraq. It’s going to be bloody, and if it lasts for another decade, it will probably survive.

Are we going to invest another 800 billion over 10 years into Syria, sacrifice another 4000 soldiers? I don’t think it will come that cheaply. Mistakes from the current fronts int he War on Terror are that we don’t let our combat troops engage in real combat. We force them to endure all kinds of handicaps. The focus from DC isn’t victory, but making Arabs and Central Asians like us. We should not worry about being liked and worry more about being respected.

Unfortunately the people who run the State Department seem to be xenophobic and ethnocentric. This can be exampled by Hillary Clinton’s “reset” button to Russia that didn’t have the word “reset” on it, but some other word. You’d think the State Department would have people who know Russian, our major world wide rival and number 1 diplomatic point of communication…

Many people have compared Iraq to Vietnam in order to justify an excuse to protest the war. They were absolutely wrong as tactics and methods go. But they were right as far as government operational mindset was concerned. Seeing what I just posted, the Idiots in DC have decided not to fight for victory, but for social goals. Social goals in a war. Social goals in economics, in education, in business, in legislation, in everything. The government of the USA cares too much about social alteration than management of their duties.

And all of this is connected to Obama denying that he set a “red line” on Syria. The link i posted has both videos. The Setting and the Denial. Obama is so arrogant, so protected by the media, that he believes he can just deny he did something and the public will support him. He can get away with murder because the media will deny the victim ever existed.

And he might be right…

Why Butter is not civilized

So, I am sitting here eating a late supper, eggs and buttered toast. Damn that butter makes the toast taste good.

Toast is civilized food, that is food that comes from an urban environment, again that is food from a settled population who have time to invest not only in grain farms, but ovens to bake bread. 

Butter, as some of you might know, comes from milk, usually cattle milk, and people who domesticated great beasts like cattle, camels, horses, goats, pigs, sheep, were nomadic, ie not civilized, again that is to say, did not live in cities.  It is hard to raise cattle in a city, very little for them to graze upon and the manure piles up quickly.

Dairy products were first developed by the semi nomadic pastoral peoples of the world. True many eventually settled down and adopted urban ways. Arabs are a great example, but so are Turks, Mongols (some), Huns, and others.

One story i have heard is that dairy products happened when nomadic horsemen stored milk in a leather bladder attached to the horse and as they galloped around in the heat, the milk churned into some kind of butter or yogurt. It was good, so they played around with it.  They now had an extra thing to trade with city people. Leather, meat, and now butter.

Butter is barbarian food because good “Civilized” people don’t have time to futz around touching non human boobs to extract milk….  and then churn it into butter. Well, they eventually learned. Once states expanded beyond the small hinterlands of a single city there became room for ranches. the Pastoral and Agrarian side of life was united in a new civilization type….

Tool use, random connection

So I read today that tool using monkeys some where in Asia stopped making and using tools but instead survived off the largess of tourists and locals. This quickly brought to mind the plight of native Americans who were trading with the Dutch, English, and French. The Indians were stone age people, that is they lacked the metal working ability. For some Indians this worked out well enough due to Obsidian which is sharper than Iron and easily worked. They had no desire to work metal, their needs were met.

On the east coast the Obsidian was harder to get so European steel, not to mention guns and household tools, were much preferred. After about a century of trade many native peoples stopped making their own stuff and instead traded pelts and military service for European goods. They became a hunter/warrior people and discarded their productive skills because they were inferior. Like the Monkeys, they had adapted to a superior and more easily acquired supply of support.  Unfortunately many native tribes were caught in European power struggles and were subordinated and many were dispersed.

The way this connects to the future is what if aliens show up, and they don’t wish to conquer, but they wish to trade. Mineral resources should be pretty consistent through out the universe, but Biological and Cultural resources would be unique planet to planet. So let’s say that aliens show up and want to buy our books. (I am over simplifying this, see my previous entry on aliens in Hollywood not being alien enough).  They would trade their super duper, handy dandy tools for our books. Eventually, if we follow the Huron and Algonquin, we would only go around making artistic things and stop making tools, weapons, clothing, etc. John Deere would be destroyed by Blargarxt Hover Tractors. Then when more aliens show up to get our books they will play us against each other and we will be left without the ability to make our own tools.

Lesson to learn is this: Adapt to alien methods, don’t rely on alien sources.

Ladies, ladies, ladies

Read this list of female governors.  The reason I put it up Is while reading last night, I came across the name Ma Ferguson.  She was elected Governor in 1924 of Texas. I don’t recall this being covered in my Women’s History class. But I found it Amazing. Digging Deeper, in  Nellie Ross of Wyoming was also elected in 1924 and managed to be the First woman elected. Both Ross and Ferguson were widows of previous governors which helps explain how they got elected so long ago.

Looking at the List it seems that as we get closer to modern times, female governors become more and more common. The list says 5 women currently hold seats as Governor. 5 out of 50 ain’t bad.

This list also helps to destroy some stereotypes about the Republican Party. Nikki Haley and Susan Martinez are both women of color and are both currently sitting Republican elected officials from southern states.  (unless New Mexico isn’t southern enough for you, then One is southern, one is western.)

I found this rather nifty.

Observations on American Political Parties

ImageThe two party system is a function of our election system. Single member districts and winner take all elections allow for two dominant parties and from time to time local parties that crop up. I have studied the various political parties of the United States, but not in great detail. The major ones are easy enough to Identify. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists under the Washington Administration. The Anti-Federalists morphed into the Republicans under Thomas Jefferson (Historians call them Democratic-Republicans to distinguish them from the 1854 Republicans). These two parties fought each other back and forth until the war of 1812 happened and the Federalists began to disintegrate. Under James Monroe there really was only the Republican party and it began to absorb some of the national goals of the old Federalists.  As I have discussed in previous posts the nature of politics changed around this time and the National Republicans split into 2 parties. Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren set up the Democratic party in the 1820s after the fiasco election of 1824. John Quincy Adams lost the popular and electoral college vote, but since none of the four men who ran got a majority, the congress picked the winner. Jackson started a new party to protest. The rump Republicans re-branded themselves the Whigs and lasted until the 1850s.

The first observation I point to is how Van Buren organized the new Democratic party. He created a very loyal machine like system. Party bosses, spoil systems, The machine was key. I do not yet have enough information to know how the Whigs themselves were organized but famous organizations like Tammany Hall in New York City are what I look to when I say Machines. They ran social programs to help the poor, and get out the vote. By get out the vote, they would beg, borrow, or steal voters and get them to as many polling places as possible.

Ultimately Slavery would split the country and destroy the Whigs. Between the 1830s and 1860 the conflicting forces of “Slavery is a good thing” and “Slavery is an abomination” would work to replace and erase the idea of “Slavery is a horrible thing but we have no other way of doing business”. Radical southerners who embraced slavery as a glorious thing following the likes of John C Calhoun would fight to the death to defend their Peculiar Institution. William Lloyd Garrison and Fredrick Douglas would spear head abolition activities in the north. (From what I have gathered Garrison was far more radical about his abolition than Douglas who had actually endured slavery and survived his escape attempt.) These two forces would split the country and because there was no major anti slavery or pro slave containment party, the electorate found the two choices nearly indistinguishable.

By the 1850s several groups of Free labor (that is not against slavery, just against slave labor competing with them), Free soil, and abolitionist parties formed the Republican Party. They picked up a lot of northern Whigs and Some anti slavery democrats and in 1854 nominated John C Frémont for president. Buchanan won the job (side note, first known gay president).  By 1860 the party had grown stronger and Abe Lincoln ran. Because the northern and Southern democrats each ran their own man, they split the ticket and Lincoln was able to pick up the win.  Thus came the civil war and subject for a different post.

After Lincoln, no democrat would be elected until 1884, and after cleveland who was also elected in 1892 (only non contiguous 2 term presidental office holder) no democrat would be elected until 1912 (when the republicans this time split the ticket).

What I noticed about men like Grant and TR, is that they are huge facemen, they are character people, they are leaders. People flocked to their ideas and words. I noticed that very few Democrats were like that, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama (Which suggests a strong shift in the later 20th century.)

The democrat party as of late has been about the Machine. Hillary ran in 2008 and the politicals said “it was her turn” yet Obama upset her and annexed the machine to his own ends. What I mean by Machine is this: In the republican primaries as of late (the last 20 years) a bunch of people run and tear each other apart by airing all the dirty laundry and who ever wins faces a democrat opponent (who did the same thing) but the main stream media never repeats the democrat dirty laundry list, yet will say smugly that the republican cant possibly win if they had that much problem with their own primary. Clinton and Obama fought a long and savage race in 2008, and after Obama climbed to victory, bloody, beaten, and bruised it was never spoken of again. The democrats aligned lock step behind him, even feminists and radical anti male democrats.

The republicans never recovered from their 2008 or 2012 primary seasons. All kinds of gaffes were recorded and expounded over and over again by not only their democrat party foes but by their republican party members.

This leads me to conclude that democrats care more about the success of their party and republicans care more about the success of their ideas.  The greatest example would be in 2012 when many republican voters failed to vote for Romney.  The republicans took the house in 2012 showing a geographic majority, yet Obama won the white house, showing that the geographic majority didn’t like Romney enough to vote for him.  The party lost the president because the partisans in the party couldn’t look past Romney’s liberalism. They couldn’t hold their nose and vote for him, like the democrats could for Obama.

This is the key difference between the two parties as far as their base goes.


Racism today

Racism today in America, I think, is in its death throws. Why? Isn’t it worse than ever? No! of course not! Let’s remember the Klu Klux Klan marching in the 1950s and 1930s. They had a lot more power than they had now. In 1915 President Wilson hailed “Birth of a Nation” as a great thing. The south was segregated by law, the north by defacto. There were lynchings, race riots, all kinds of horrible things. Now? now there are just a few assholes going around saying racist things and being jerks.

But there is a race bating industry going around whose whole existence requires racism. This serves a good thing, I think, in that they are squeezing out the last corners of racism and pulling them out into the light so they can be exposed and dealt with. While Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are string up a lot of trouble, blackmailing people, they do serve some positive purpose among all that toxicity.

What got me thinking about this is the now infamous George Zimmerman trial. Spending time in chatrooms I’ve seen racism about this case, about Obama, about justice Thomas, about Condalisa Rice. I have seen racism on both sides and found an interesting pattern. Leftist racism is based on the idea that minorities are inferior and unable to care for themselves, and thus need to be guided (dominated) and lead into proper behavior and correct thinking. While the racism on the right is based around stereotypes. A bunch of minority X does something stupid so the racists who lean right will assume that all of minority X are that way and thus treat them all the same. This division isn’t absolute. Ive seen stereotyping on the left and Ive seen claims of inferiority from the right but I found the observation fascinating.

The Zimmerman trial shows that race is still important. Zimmerman is Hispanic, yet the leftstream media insists on calling him white? Why? some of them refuse to admit their mistakes in initial reporting. Some (Fewer i hope) really wish to incite race wars.  Trayvon is black, even Obama pointed this out when he practically adopted him, and sent his Darth Vader (Eric Holder) to his Palpatine to incite riots in defense of Trayvon.

Why all this racism? Why does it remain? well, it’s just a long tradition. First developed in the 1500s by the Spanish and eagerly adopted by the xenophobic and ethnocentric English in the 1600s, it served as a tool for Christians to justify slavery. Once slavery was gone, in the 19th century, it served to maintain existing social orders which were being radically changed by Industrialization.

In the 1960s civil rights movement, Dr King and his fellows tried to remove it from the equation, but their progress was not enough for younger and angrier members of the movement who embraced militantism and racism to get their own things done. By embracing racism and hate, they justified the counterpush by white racists. This caused many flareups in the 1960s and 1970s. It died out in the 1980s-2008 but now we have a large economic downturn which causes people to look for people to blame. so they blame Minority group “notme”

This rant exists for me to vent this discussion on racism and hate and perhaps hope that as more time passes and as economic conditions improve, things will end up resolving. I hope…