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.