***Li Yongwei, a Yulin resident in his 40s, said dog was the same as any other meat. “You shouldn’t force people to make choices they don’t want to make, the way you wouldn’t force someone to be a Christian or a Buddhist or a Muslim,” he said.***
Li, a budding Lockean seems not to notice that the People’s Republic Of China has no qualms about forbidding Christianity other than under the auspices of the Party-sanctioned Church.
Only a people brainwashed that they have no national culture would defend dog meat as no different than say pork . All Cultures Are Equally Arbitrary is the motto of our “multicultural youth”.
Multiculturalism cannot exist within an individual, other than in multiple personality disorders. (And even then, I wonder if there has ever been a case of such?)
Pigs are supposedly intelligent. But pigs have not evolved like dogs. Dogs have evolved extreme sensitivity to humans’ emotional cues. And their facial muscles (especially Goldens) very much express their thoughts and feelings.
So, the “west eats pork and therefore cannot protest East Asian dog-eating” is not valid.
But what if it were valid. Does the fact that cultures are comprised of arbitrary symbols, signs and ethics mean they are equally as good? “Oh”, the intilecktchuel responds “‘good’ and ‘bad’ themselves are *mere* arbitrary constructions.”
And so is language. But intilecktchuels blather on endlessly spewing syllables like birdsong never perceiving that their every utterance is *merely* an arbitrary sound, or group of squiggles on a page!
WHY DO WE ALLOW CHINESE PRODUCTS TO POUR INTO AMERICA? The Miseans (neo-confederates) argue that Free Trade is based on libertarian principles. Clearly, these are principles the Framers of the Constitution knew not. Congress is given the authority to develop trade policies viz. foreign nations.
The Free Traders then try Utilitarian argument: that if each country specializes in producing that which it does well and efficiently and trades with other countries all will benefit.
But this breaks down completely when some nations keep their workers’ wages to a bare minimum. It allows the production of nearly everything to be offered for less money.
“The choice is in our hands” i.e. we can choose to not purchase Chinese products. This is not a valid argument. The Tea in the ships at the Boston wharves were taxed minisculey. The British East India Company had created a tea glut. The taxed British tea was less expensive than the smuggled product. Human nature being what it is, and not what it’s not, will only rarely forgo immediate self interest in the interests of a better future or out of morality.
The Sons of Liberty unlike the future Sans Coulottes of the French Revolution and then the Reds of the Russian Revolution did not claim the right to “remold the world closer to the heart’s desire”. The American Revolution did not attempt to change human nature.
Taxed Tea was intolerable. Even if it were cheaper than smuggled untaxed tea. Human nature was not going to be changed by the Sons, but the temptation of the tea would be removed.
Same with claiming that Americans vote for cheap Chinese imports with their dollars. Perhaps so. But we have no qualms about outlawing various drugs because they are addictive. The product of coolie labor is addictive.
Boycott it, yes. But that is not sufficient. Destroy it at the docks is the Sons of Liberty’s way. The American way!
The NY Times today (July 17, 2016) ran an Op-Ed by a certain Peter Wehner, who presumes to be a long-suffering GOP apologist. His was a voice of rebuttal to the constant chorus of libels and lies promoted by the mainstream media. And of course the NY Times is at the head of any list of leftist propaganda organs. So it is with high irony that they chose to publish this Sunday Op-Ed.
Wehner July 17, 2016 NY Times Reptile’s Op-Ed
In fact this staunch defender of the GOP has so often appeared in the Times Op-Eds that they should hire him as the Official House Republican. Despite the title he would still be referred by the J-school geniuses around the Perrier water cooler as the the “GOPher”.
His opening paragraph says it all:
FOR my entire adult life I have listened to the invective leveled against the Republican Party by liberals: It is a party sustained by racist appeals, composed of haters and conspiracy nuts, indifferent to the plight of the poor and the weak, anti-woman.
Now, I do know the feeling he is expressing. I am a Jew who defended Mel Gibson when his film The Passion evoked charges of anti-Semitism. No, no, I insisted, the film cast the entire Jerusalem establishment as culpable in its rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. So when old Mel was picked up DWI and was videoed giving a drunk exhortation that demonstrated his Jew-hatred, I felt the fool. But this is not that.
Unlike the Gibson rant, nothing that Mr. Wehner rebutted is the case with Donald Trump!
Point by point
• A party sustained by racist appeals. Not so. The “racist appeals” is a phrase of rhetoric. This is the so-called dog-whistle, a common accusation of the Left. It is a presumption of telepathy! If one supports a principle, the actualization of which might have a negative effect on some element of a “targeted” minority ipso facto the idea is Racist. An example of this rhetorical ploy is in regard to the “racist criminal justice system”. If more of a particular minority are convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison that somehow proves “Racism” is at work. Therefore calls for Law and Order are secret code for “If elected I will work towards imprisoning even more of said minority!”
Same with the simple truth that we cannot afford the social welfare programs we now fund, let alone any new ones. With your Lefty-Lu secret decoder ring you can read “I support starving and denying health care to said minority group”.
So …that’s it with a party sustained by racist appeals. Sorry Wehner.
• A party of “haters”: Again an example of Leftist telepathy. If it is my principle that governments at every level lack a legitimate role in the transactions between rational adults, then “I hate” transgendered folks because I will not use government power to coerce private businesses to accommodate their peculiar needs. Again only psychic Leftists can perceive that ultra-sonic dog-whistle that is allegedly used to encode “If elected I will make it illegal to be a transgendered person!” Why? Because “Like you, my fellow Americans I hate queers!” Oh Wehner!
• “Conspiracy Nuts” two words “twenty-eight pages”. The deliberate cover up of Saudi involvement in 9/11 has been kept from us these fifteen years. The “vast right-wing conspiracy’s” persecution of the Clinton Crime Family is hardly a lunatic’s ravings. And the actual facts surrounding Obama’s birth may never be determined. His social security number is in a series of numbers used for births in CT at that time. Not Hawaii! Who funded the young slacker Barry Sotero?
• Indifferent to the plight (does anyone other than Leftist rhetoricians use that word?) of the poor and the weak. Uh oh, still another presumption of the clairvoyant SJW. (No, not “single Jewish woman” as I had first guessed, but “Social Justice Warrior”!). If one understands the theory of the Social Contract it is self-evident that we create government in order to protect our private property, our lives and our liberty. The Left claims some share of ones private property is somehow “owed” to those who are in some official plight. The illusion of legitimacy iscreated by legally defining some arbitrary income level as a “plight”. It is made to appear legal and official as private property is taken away by a third party. And it is their beneficence (the third party’s of course) to donate the “surplus” to alleviate “official plights”. A more honest system would do away with the middle-woman (are there any men left in the middle management of Public Welfare bureaucracies?) and have anyone who feels “plighted” assess how much of the “donor’s” wealth is required to remove said plight. And of course he would be “entitled” to it. But if one states that “a need is not a claim” she is instantly charged and convicted of bigotry! Merely speaking truth to self-righteousness is a Hate Crime. Charity is a virtue. Theft is not. Charity is a choice. Other than those physically incapable of providing for themselves, no one is owed anything. Standing for Private Property does not make one uncaring. Most people will be more generous to those who do not come with a gun making demands based on their “plight”!
• Anti-Woman is what those who believe fetuses are private property call those who do not. It is amusing in a sick way that those with the least sense of other’s private property are rabid about this one particular item. That which ought be private property is not. That which ought not be, is! This perhaps is corollary to a major principle of Post-Modernism: That which was a matter of morality is a matter of taste. And that which was a matter of taste is now one of morality.
How in the world does Mr. Wehner accuse Donald Trump of these “thought-crimes”, “thought-crimes” that are defined by the Left? No, the question is how can he parrot Leftist talking points without acting the fool? Answer: he cannot.
The selection of Trump by the primary voters has made Wehner repent of his defense of the GOP? Lead follow or get out of the way! The American (and British) people have had a belly full of elitists spinning intilekchuel rationales for irrational national suicide.
The fact that the Times could print such crap as:
But it is fair to say that there existed in the Republican Party repulsive elements, people who were attracted to racial and ethnic politics and moved by resentment and intolerance rather than a vision of the good. This group was larger than I ever imagined, and at important moments the Republican Party either overlooked them or played to them. Some may have been hoping to appeal to these elements while also containing and moderating them, to sand off the rough edges, to keep them within the coalition but not allow them to become dominant. But the opposite happened. The party guests took over the party.…
as the above, without one example in support of such vile claims is par for them. What dripping elitism! We are merely “party guests” who, took over the party?
Why are we so despised? I can understand his position without castigating his morality. But as with the Left, here is an inability to fundamentally disagree with someone without attacking their motives.
I suspect that under most of Wehner’s hate speech is an idealistic belief in Free Trade. If he supports that, fine, I do not. I am not more moral than him because of that. I presume he is not in favor of the furthering of the Rust Belt, or the marginalization of English-speaking American-Americans. He has his ideologic reasons for Free Trade corporate globalism. Although I suppose it is possible that he is selfishly fixated on the rising value of his stock portfolio. But I am not clairvoyant.
The ideologues claim Free Trade is corollary to liberty. Yet, the Constitution gives Congress the power to set trade policies with foreign countries. So, if he believes that national borders are irredeemably illiberal and that goods and labor must pass freely it is he who is a radical. The Party of Lincoln was the Party of Trade Protection ! So who is the guest of whom?
Free Trade has caused the destruction of the middle-sized industrial cities of America. And with them went the well-paying jobs that allowed the average man to own a home, support a family and save for retirement. A man today without college education in the arts of rhetoric which is what most of a post HS education consists of has little chance of a “middle class life”. The full time commitment and ambition of the professional is not for everyone. Some folks would rather have a life.
Those cities are now abandoned rusting ruins rotting in the center of suburban sprawl that itself is under attack. (Climate, you know. Wink.)
The Black underclass has paid the price. So an idea, the actualization of which will have an adverse effect on a targeted minority might well be said to be Free Trade. But of all the arguments against Free Trade I have yet to hear anyone claim it to be based in racism! Why the hell not?
“Woman’s issues” is only your side’s dog-whistle. It is all about abortion. Actually Trump is not a Bible-thumping pro-lifer, not an absolutist, from fertilization to birth. Would you have been equally appalled by every other GOP candidate? They all had to kiss the pro-life ring. But which candidate would Wehner have supported? It is crass hypocrisy to spread the Democrat lie that Trump is anti-woman! If Jeb! was running and he made strong statements against abortion would Wehner have called him “anti-Woman”?
Intolerance. Too much is said of tolerance as a virtue. In immunology a state of tolerance means no recognition of what is non-self. AIDS is a state of tolerance. Why should Americans tolerate that which NO NATION IN HISTORY has tolerated? I can think of no nation that has voluntarily allowed a migration of demographic proportion. In history, nations were displaced by invaders after they no longer could hold them off. Have we lost some war at our borders?
Why must we tolerate America becoming Latinized?
Latinos have a pre-modern culture. Catholic majority nations are often poorly governed, and impoverished. Most American Catholics are descended from Catholics who might just as easily have migrated to Latin Argentina or Chile. But they recognized that it was America that held a future for their children. Why? So too in Muslim majority nations, when given a chance the people will emigrate to a Western nation. And within the West it is the Protestant areas in northwestern Europe they truly seek. With Britain the golden isle, the ultimate destination no wonder BREXIT. This is not to say that the modern religiosity is relevant. This is not to say Americans are all Protestant! I am not. We are not. But, the Middle Class culture of the Anglo-American world is where we began. Our culture is steeped in Reformed Protestant ethics. We are as fish in its water.
Why should we have immigrants foreign to the main thrust of our history and culture come here in numbers that will render us minorities in the lands our fathers carved out of the wilderness. Oh but we cannot say that without some caveats to the Indians. Let it be understood once and for all, European diseases destroyed Native American societies. We had no superiority over them. The force that allowed the timing of plagues and peoples laid out a highway into this New World. But what makes anyone think that we earned the ease and wealth we take for grante. If not for the “just-in-time” coincidences there’d be no America. Too many take it all for granted.
The Don asks “Do we have a country or not?” He means “a nation”: are we a Nation or not? If so, there is an American culture. There is an American historical narrative. There is an American literature. A rule-of-thumb: when “American” is placed in quotes beware the Post-Modern elitist.
Post-War Europe has been doing its best to quell nationalistic expression. In the wake of Hitler and Mussolini (and Stalin, but he gets the PC pass) Europe was traumatized by the effects of pathologic patriotism. Hoping to avoid future European wars the EU project was started. The dream was to create a generic “European” loyalty shared by all the States of Europe. It is as if the differences between say Denmark and Greece were no more than those between Massachusetts and Mississippi. As much as our two states differ from one another their citizens share a language, literature, sense of history, and culture still echoing that of the Protestant Enlightenment. Not so Denmark and Greece.
Or Germany and Italy etc.
The ideal of European Union becoming a “United States of Europe” demanded the destruction of nationalism and its underlying patriotism. It was to be replaced by some vague generic “Euro” identity. Only Utopians succumb to the platonic error of believing categories are actual objects to be manipulated. Reality exists ONLY in the Particular!
It is hard for humans to take pride in a category. Once, people took pride in their own country. But that was pride in their particular country, its cuisine, its smells, its local holidays and festivals and so on. Even the merely nominal identification with a particular sect of Christianity added to the sense of belonging to “A People”; not “The People”! Men will not fight for that which they do not feel passionate. Who stands against the Muslim invaders? No “European” will stand. But, an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German will be more likely to exclaim no, non, nein to Muslim invaders. (And for how many seconds must one wait before the well-indoctucated remind me that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Britons, French and Germans? When we hear of a Briton accused of beheading someone, do we think he’s Kentish, or perhaps Saxon, or maybe a Scotsman? Yes, I’m sure when we hear of a Briton accused of beheading anyone we envisage kilts, bagpipes and a very long dirk.)
For instance the various denominations of Euros are adorned with generic historic-looking bridges and other generic landmarks. From the Euro website they “depict the architectural styles from seven periods of Europe’s cultural history: Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo, the Age of Iron and Glass, and modern 20th century architecture. All notes depict typical elements of these periods, such as windows, gateways and bridges.” TYPICAL as opposed to ACTUAL! Is this not the great platonic lie that underlies all utopian totalitarians?
History like nature abhors a vacuum. The deliberate re-molding of European youths to attain a worldview both anti-Patriotic anti-Nationalist has created a society that has zero sense of superiority over any other culture. The de-Construction of Christian Europe was part and parcel of this War On Particulars. Thus we see the descendants of White Christian Europeans unable to recognize aliens from self. This inability to differentiate and protect self from non-self is the sine qua non of AIDS. An entire continent has been trained to NOT SEE. Full circle:
Europe has deliberately given itself a lobotomy and AIDS!
This deliberate demand to NOT SEE particularities will prevent Europe from seeing her fate: Not See its fate. The full circle from Nazi ideology to NOT SEE ideology will destroy the new Europe.
Is Europe fated to be either Nazi or to Not See?
If only the exact and parallel analogy between the USA and our Latino threat and that of the State of Israel and their Arab threat were made clear the rising numbers of Americans proudly criticizing Israel might STFU.
There are two nations under sustained attack by an alliance of Pre-Modernists and Post-Modernists. In other words, PRE-moderns and POST-moderns are out to destroy two nations, the USA and the State of Israel.
Let us define the Modern Age before we look at its enemies. The Modern Age accounts for a tiny sliver of world history. One of the few new things under the sun is the Middle Class. The Middle Class is not merely defined by income levels. In reality it is not the middle rank between the Wealthy and the Poor. We here in America are prone to make this error.
Americans are all Middle Class!
Because we lack a history of feudalism we no more notice this fact than a fish notices the water. To understand the Middle Class we must recognize its exceptional nature.
Before the early fifteenth century (an instant ago in the long view) there were only Princes, Priests and Peasants.
The Princes were the descendents of the chiefs of the last barbarian migration into a given area. They owned almost all the tillable land. Agriculture was by far the predominant means of wealth production. Peasants or serfs worked the landlords’ lands and in return were allowed to work a certain area for themselves.
At the time the Church was the second largest landholder in Europe. The Priests acted in the same manner as the Princes in regard to their lands.
Priests and Princes also taxed the Peasants. The Prince not only made use of the Serf’s free labor he taxed his produce. He taxed his movement of his surplus to market. However there were rarely surpluses to sell or trade.
The Priests were given their tithes, and their fees for the sacraments, and of course the labor of their serfs.
The lack of significant surpluses caused the stagnation of Europe called now, “The Dark Age”.
Two forces converged around this time in Europe that started a five hundred year boom. Not surprisingly, the first is rarely thought of as a positive. That was the Black Death. In its aftermath Europe had lost more than one third of its population. Suddenly as the survivors inherited the land that had formerly fed so many more that with little effort there were now food surpluses. With surpluses available, trade increased. A surplus of beans and wheat for instance might be swapped for the surplus of another region’s wine and cotton. Money quickly rose in importance to facilitate trade. Clever traders were able to gather information regarding differential in prices for differing commodities and could apply that knowledge to buy low and sell high. However this occupation required self-control. The temptation to consume one’s own inventory especially of luxury items like wine was a risk. The complex prices throughout the trader’s networks required the maintenance of records and bookkeeping.
The second force was the invention of movable type, i.e. the Gutenberg press. Reading, previously restricted to the Priestly and Princely classes expanded.
The knowledge base of many trades grew. Just as traders acquired greater and greater financial acumen and information, so too did blacksmiths, printers, lawyers and physicians. And like the traders, these shopkeepers or professionals depended upon a clientele that had options, or competition. Unlike Priests and Princes these folks needed to be very protective of their good name. The requirement to forgo consuming one’s inventory, seen clearly in merchants is also active in other occupations.
As printing became common and less expensive, literacy soared. It soared especially in these new men, and their families. These shop-keeps, merchants, bankers, doctors, lawyers, dyers, bakers, pharmacists, goldsmiths all were empowered by literacy. Their Bibles were translated into their vernacular languages. They no longer depended upon Priests to teach them what the Bible said. They did not depend upon agriculture to create their wealth; the Princes had no claim to their surpluses. These were the first Bourgeois. This word, spat out by revolutionaries “Bourgeois”, merely arises from the fact that the early Middle Class was a creature of the cities and towns. (It is derived from the same “Burg” that is a suffix in the name of many towns, it means “town”.)
The successful Middle Class entrepreneurs developed all the traits we identify with the “Protestant work ethic”. It is an unfortunate name, which would be better termed the Middle Class Ethic. The traits can be listed as: thrift, sobriety, seriousness, honesty and responsibility. It valued reading and education, and frowned upon the Princely excesses of horseracing, the hunt, gambling, drinking and sexual promiscuity.
The Nobility was disgusted to discover that some Middle Class men had more wealth than they. And even more furious were they to have to come hat-in-hand for loans to maintain their lifestyle and wars.
The Priests also felt anger against these upstarts. Reading the Bible their parishioners were struck by how overly complicated and corrupted the Churches had become.
The Protestant Reformation was both cause and effect of these trends. There developed simmering battle lines in Britain. There were two poles and many shades in between. For the sake of length the two poles were Cavalier and Roundhead. The former were the Old Guard. One may picture the England of jousts, fox hunts, horse races, Maypoles, Christmas revelry and much debauchery, i.e. Merry Old England. The “Roundheads” were the “nouveau riche”. They were the capitalists with the Middle Class Ethic described above.
Here is a key point. As British society was more and more polarized the peasants were co-opted to the Cavalier side. The High Church, with its “Smells & Bells” and retention of traditions derived from the folk paganism of the remote past, kept the loyalty of the Peasantry. The Princes and Priests used the masses to attack the Middle Class.
This is important in the peopling of America. For the moment it should be considered that Jamestown was never a healthy growth center of America. The original Jamestown immigrants were far more connected to the late medieval period than to this budding new world. Their portraits and fashions seem more similar to Spanish Conquistadors. And their demographics were the same: namely second or third sons of noble families in search of gold and treasure. They hoped to return to Merry Old England with wealth. Also significant was the near absence of women, since there was zero interest in establishing a new life in this New World.
Therefore, though Jamestown has primacy of place, it is truly to Plymouth Rock that one looks for the true founding of America. Some Puritans decided that Merry Old England was beyond purifying. These became the Pilgrims. Everything the Jamestown settlers were, the Pilgrims were the opposite. These were families coming to the New World to establish a new life devoid of Princes, Priests and Peasants. They were highly literate. They were students of Hebrew and the Old Testament. They likened themselves concretely not even analogously to the Israelites coming into their Promised Land.
The British Civil War finally went hot. The upshot is that the Puritans/ Roundheads won. King Charles lost his head and for a brief period England was a Republic! It was then like a heart pumping out this time Cavaliers. Refugees of Merry Old England however now with their wives and children sought refuge in the New World. This second wave of immigration into Tidewater Virginia was a true migration and not a profit seeking enterprise. The ancestors of Washington, Madison, Jefferson etc were among its number. Their society developed to resemble Merry Old England rather than New England. Nevertheless once here in America, titles, or names meant nothing. Nature is always a meritocracy. So even if originally these Virginians were Cavalier, necessity molded them into a less aristocratic society than that from which they came.
America was founded by men without titles, without any pre-existing social order. These were all Middle Class.
The only exception to the pure Middle Class nature of America was in the antebellum South. It required a second Civil War between the middle class/capitalist north, and the aristocratic slave-labor exploiters of the south.
WE ARE OF THE MODERN AGE. Rule of law, formal Constitutions, liberty, property rights are the attributes of the Modern Age.
THEY HAVE NEVER FORGIVEN US OUR INDEPENDENCE. America the only nation created consciously by for and of the Middle Class has been a thorn in the side of the Old World since independence.
The Modern Age is under assault.
There is an alliance of Pre-Moderns and Post-Moderns.
Who are Pre-Moderns? In regard to America there are three Pre-Modern groups of concern.
1. There is a growing anti-Capitalist movement within the Tea Party that is populist. However this is tiny and unimportant compared to the Leftist anti-capitalist movement. (It is unimportant in regard to American politics, only. See below.) American Pre-modernism has regressed to the tribal-level of organization. These folks are the Jew-hating, “brave fighters” against the “Global Zionist-Conspiracy”.
2. The Hispanic Peasantry is being imported in order for the Elites to use them against the Middle Class. These folks are illiterate, used to corruption, ignorant of the rule of law and hungry. They will be used as shock troops and voters.
- Why are we allowing Muslims to immigrate here in their millions? I know I was not asked. Like the Latin culture, Muslim values are alien to America. We share no common philosophical, or cultural heritage with either of these groups. The oppression of women, their chronic state of war against all non-Muslims places them in a Pre-Modern turdworld.
These are the academic elite. They are politicized to the point of totalitarianism. They have taken on the role of the Priests and Princes of Europe’s middle ages. They correctly understand that the key to the Middle Class is our access to the ownership of our own means of production. They have moved in myriad ways but one goal is always discernable. Like guns only more so, they see allowing the production of wealth to be in the hands of private citizens as giving us too much power. They do not want to make the same mistake that the Princes and Priests made viz. the Middle Class. Recall, the Middle Class emerged by creating its own means of wealth production INDEPENDENT of the landowners. They mean to destroy those people who created this nation and who benefited it, and were benefitted by it. “Who are you to own the goose that lays golden eggs?” They do not even want the goose. They just don’t want anyone having golden eggs.
The Marxists, the Climate Thugs, the enablers of the Hispanic Migration, the people who seem to be deliberately destroying America, are indeed acting to destroy us! We ARE the Modern Age.
Parallels between the State of Israel and the USA:
Both nations are treated as enemies of the World Community. Only the US has the ability to return to a Fortress America and lack for nothing except perhaps excess luxury.
The lesson learned by the failure of the USSR is that no single nation can become Communist so long as large areas of private property exist. Capital like water cannot be stopped from finding its outlet to the sea. So long as America remains free, our economy alone can hold as much capital as escapes from a socialist world. The USA must cease being Free, or cease being independent. Both avenues are being pursued.
Both nations face restive pre-modern peoples at their borders and within their territory.
In both cases the primitives argue, “they did not cross the border, the border crossed them”.
Yes the USA conquered northern Mexico in the Mexican War.
Yes the Israelis conquered the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria in the Six Day War of 1967.
But what was the demographic reality at the time back in the time of Texas settlement by Americans, and of the region of the Middle East between the “river and the sea”?
In both cases the land was nearly empty. The Hispanic ideal has always been urban. The descendents of Conquistadors were satisfied with the wealth created by their serfs in the Central Valley. Ferocious Indians populated the north of the country. At this time the Indians had gained control of horses and these horse-warriors were able to stand up to most Mexican troops. The few Mexicans that settled in the north, in California, New Mexico and Arizona were atypical. Even today in northern Mexico the locals are considered fiercely independent. Just recently armed Mexican ranchers threw out all the criminal cartels operating in their region. These few hearty Mexicans ran isolated ranches in what is now the US Southwest. The Mexican Government forced all commerce to use only ports under more control of Mexico City: Vera Cruz, Tampico etc.
As Americans began entering Tejas, the Mexican central government was glad to have a new tax base. But as they increased in numbers they were less willing to be ruled from distant Mexico City. There began an independence movement of Anglos AND Mexicans of El Norte. There were several Mexicans killed in the Alamo! The Mexican People of El Norte were far more similar to Anglos than they were to ruling class in their Distrito Federal.
After the Mexican War the several states carved out of the Mexican north began to attract Anglos. Modern agricultural techniques brought more settlers. Dam projects created verdant valleys of irrigated orchards fruits vegetables of all kinds. This economic boom attracted impoverished Mexicans from the south. These were NOT the descendents of the original Mexican population of El Norte.
The advent of electricity and air conditioning allowed for the massive surge in population of cities like LA, San Diego, Tucson, Phoenix, San Antonia etc etc. This again attracted uneducated labor from Mexico. So many that today many make the La Raza claim that “we did not cross the border, the border crossed us”. That is a lie.
Compare this to Israel and the Arabs. There is an exact analogy between that situation and America’s!
Mark Twain wrote of the dusty backwater of the Ottoman Empire that was Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Jews from Europe began to trickle back in the 19th century equipped with modern farming techniques, and the middle class work ethic. Where a few impoverished Jews and Arabs stagnated for a millennium, a modern wealthy nation was built. They created drainage systems to create cropland in former swamps. They dug irrigation systems to make green the formerly brown desert. They created an economy that attracted Arab laborers, much as the development of the American Southwest attracted Hispanics. No, the Arabs did not build it. No, the border did not cross them: they crossed it.
American patriots who criticize Israeli policies should reflect on the deep similarities between our modern national histories.
The NY Times “explains” the Midterm results. “The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?”
In the manner of all “clever” rhetoricians they are expert at asserting their conclusion as a “given” in formulating their “question”. But wait a minute Mr. Trendy Times man, hold your horses.
Why is it presumed that the influence of money in politics is something we ought work towards reducing?
Federalist # 10 addresses this. *…[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors and those who are debtors fall
under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. . . .
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. *
YET the NY Times presumes that a “Common Good” is thwarted by the influence of INTERESTS. How is The Common Good established? IS IT IN VAIN to await the ENLIGHTENED Statesman? YES!
So without a recognized Enlightened Statesman to weigh the various interests what are we to do? The various “special interests” are… VARIOUS. (Duh!)
To use an idea from Physics: each interest can be considered a VECTOR. (A Vector is a direction and a magnitude.) Each special interest seeks government to help them in specific ways. In Representative Republics the various myriad vectors are summated. How? By forming alliances with those interests that share some of the same legislative goals and which do not have any strongly opposing goals. IT IS THE FINAGLING among interested representatives that succeeds in producing the best approximation of the common good.
In addition, MONEY is necessary for the magnitude component of the vectors.
In other words, all the legislative ends desired by an interest group are not held in equal strength. Money signals the importance that is given each particular interest.
If interests are symbolized by ABC… and abc indicating interests of major importance and minor importance and + and – equals pro or con the interest then one interest group whose vector contains A++ b- C— might be amenable to compromising with a different interest whose vector contains A+, b+, c+. Both share a strong desire for pro-A, they disagree on b and c but these are not as strong as the shared desire for A.
Campaign contributions precisely reflect the perceived magnitude of the vectors of each interest.
“Oh but what about the unconnected citizen?” asks the Glib Lib. To the degree that a particular citizen is concerned about AB or C then he will support the candidate closest to his perceived interests. AND DESPITE ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD the Politician MUST still get a majority of votes! Indeed people are easily manipulated by cynical marketers. But only to the degree that a person is not interested in the issues might he be swayed. But one need not be a rocket scientist to perceive one’s immediate interests and vote accordingly.
Finally there is the Constitution. The less the Government has power to impose or forbid activities the less it offers to lobbyists. Lobbyists and Money are directly related to Government Power. IF ONE WISHES LESS MONEY IN POLITICS, WEAKEN AND CONTAIN THE GOVERNMENT!
Back to Federalist #10: “There are . . . two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. “
Here the author has remarkably foreseen Fascism, Communism and Totalitarianism. The choice is between true representational republicanism and one of the flavors of Totalitarianism.
Money in Politics is merely the obverse of Politics in Money. “Politics in money” is the intrusion of majoritarian government into the private economic affairs of otherwise free people.