Leftist Self-Righteousness Leads to Social Rift

I have read various news and op-ed stories from around the election detailing how leftists tend to cut off or disown friends and relatives that supported Donald Trump.  The outcome of the election does not seem to have changed that.   I recently overhead one of my college-age co-workers talking with her superior about how she didn’t want to go home for the holidays because she would have to be with her family, all of whom were Trump supporters.  I overheard another colleague bemoaning the election, with his head in his hands.  He commiserated with another colleague that all the “intelligent people” gravitate to the coasts and that Ohio is full of idiots.

In my own experience, the wife of a friend (who was herself a Facebook friend) had made a post that I disagreed with.   It accused Steve Bannon, editor of Breitbart and Trump’s pick for chief of staff, of being an anti-Semite.  I had already read an article by David Horowitz debunking that claim and very politely commented “Please consider this alternative viewpoint” with a link to the article.  I did not hear any response and promptly forgot about it.  About a month later, I was talking to my friend on the phone, when he brought up “Remember the Facebook thing?”  It took me a moment to remember what he was talking about.  He said that she was quite upset about the comment because she had “some experiences with it as a teenager.”  He didn’t go into any further detail and I figured that it wasn’t a big issue at this point.  I told him that I had already decided that FB was not an ideal forum for political commentary anyway so we moved on to a different topic.  Later, I looked back on FB and saw why I had not heard anything from my friend’s wife.  She had “unfriended” me.  So I was a victim of the same leftist ostracism and estrangement that others had complained about.  It also left me wondering where I stand in my friendship with who I thought was my best friend.  Time will tell but it’s definitely disappointing.

If it were simply a matter of intense rivalry between two equals then I would not expect such derision and animosity towards people with a differing political opinion.  I think that the problem stems from the way in which leftists disagree with their political opponents.  The labeling seems to fall into two types: low intelligence/sophistication and irrational hatefulness towards what is good.  If the topic is race, then someone disagreeing is a “racist.”  If it’s feminism then they’re “sexist.”  If it’s social welfare, then they’re “the 1%” or greedy.  The other group is of low-intelligence.  Thus, we hear the media emphasizing that Trump did best with white voters of low-intelligence (not that Clinton did better with people that underwent brainwashing in leftist universities (i.e. all colleges)).

In social studies classes, schoolchildren learn how the backwards, unenlightened whites, especially in the South, learned that blacks should have equal political and economic rights.  Acceding to the Left’s demands ever increasing wealth and power redistribution along the lines of race, sex, sexual orientation, or any other special interest group is equated with being “progressive”, forward-thinking and enlightened.  If only the hicks would get with the program!

We can see in countless articles how Trump supporters are racist, ignorant, poorly-educated, living in the back woods, etc.  My question is this?  Is it perhaps their lack of indoctrination into the leading Leftist philosophy that has been facilitated by their greater isolation from educational institutions?  I shudder when I think of my children being exposed to the vitriolic, nasty, self-hateful messages that are rampant on our college campuses.  This is where the battle must start.  By the time it’s on Facebook, it’s a lost cause.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/27/berkeley-activists-block-white-people-using-campus-entrance-protest-racism/

Taking a Position in Support of Trump-Pence in the 2016 Presidential Election

trump penceDonald Trump has caused quite a stir in the presidential election race.  He has energized voters but also antagonized those for whom his message does not resonate.  His pick of Mike Pence yesterday solidified his presumptive candidacy vs. the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton.

Here are what I think are Donald Trump’s strengths:

  • He recognizes that in order to have security and freedom, it is necessary to know who your enemies are and to call them out.   That is why he does not want to accept refugees from muslim countries. He understands that appeasement only emboldens the enemy (as in Iran, which has had sanctions dropped and is vigorously pursuing ballistic missile capability with nary a word from Obama).
  • He recognizes that Islamism is the enemy.  Unlike Obama, who deceitfully labels Islam a “religion of peace” (he must have learned newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984) Trump understands that Islam is the enemy.  It doesn’t mean that all muslims are bad, it just means that a lot of them are.  One need only look at all the recent mass killing attacks: Charlie Hebdo, Paris, San Bernadino, Ft. Lauderdale, Nice, and that’s just the major ones.  It’s just like nazism and communism.  They were our enemies and the liberal democracies of the West were ideologically opposed to them, but no one ever believed that ALL citizens of those countries were evil.  By today’s standards, you would be called “racist” for disliking nazism or communism.  Islam is just another belief system and I don’t see why it should get special protection from censure.
  • Trump knows who our friends are.  A friend is someone who you are loyal to through thick and thin.  You forgive them their minor failings because you share common values, background and ideals.  That is why the US and England should stick together.  It is also why the US should stick with Israel.  Israel will always look out for America’s interests when possible.  Can the same be said of any other country in the middle east?  They are the origin of most of the evil attacks in this world.  Likewise, rather than kowtowing to crazed demagogues like former Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Evo Morales of Bolivia we should stand with the administrations that are on our side.
  • On trade, again, Trump understands that we will be beggared and ruined if we do not take some measures to protect our industrial base.  You can talk free trade all day but in reality, the countries with which we trade most are all using unfair tactics to their advantage.  China manipulates its currency and has completely different labor and environmental laws.  Mexico is the same, minus the currency.  China also steals intellectual property and imposes rapacious deals on foreign companies that do business there in order to appropriate know-how and long-term control.  It’s time for someone to stand up for America.
  • On domestic economic policy, Trump may not be a free marketeering libertarian, but he is certainly not the socialist that Hillary is.  The Democrats as a whole have a problem with some people having more than others and they want to do something about it.  They basically believe that it is best to steal from one person who worked harder or smarter to get what they had so that another person who didn’t do that could have more.  If you believe that stealing is ok, then you should definitely put the Clinton criminals in office (*sarcasm*).
  • On immigration, I agree with Trump.  The purpose of immigration is not for some kind of world-welfare program.  Our country exists for its citizens, not for those of any other.  This is at odds with what the internationalists at the UN would tell you.  The ultimate dream of the one-worldists is to eliminate all borders so that the surplus wealth, land, resources and people of the developed world could be spread all around to the poorest people so that everyone would have everything,  In so doing there would soon be nothing everywhere.  No.  The purpose of immigration is solely to enhance America.  If we decide that we only want the most intelligent or the most healthy or the most wealthy immigrants, then so be it.  If we decide that muslim immigrants are too dangerous to admit then so be it.  It’s our decision and no one else’s.  The Democrats use immigration to bring in extra people that will vote Democrat.  They prefer poorer, uneducated, uncivilized people from parts of the world that are least related to the majority of Americans.
  • Finally, on law enforcement, Trump has made clear that he supports the police and not Black Lives Matter.  The movement is nothing more than thuggery demanding special treatment and threats of violent riots whenever a black person is killed by police.  Never mind the fact that 60-70% of violent crime is committed by blacks in the US, nor that white cops are less likely to shoot blacks than are black or latino cops.  See  http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime.   Here’s an excerpt:  A revised “The Color of Crime” report was released in 2016. Major stated findings included:[4]
    • There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
    • In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
    • In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
    • If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent. In an all­-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

    Trump understands that BLM is nothing more than a power grab for the sake of thuggery.

There are many more issues that I cannot touch upon here.  However, it is clear that if you believe in survival and promotion of greatness, you should not vote for any Democrats.  Since Trump holds closest to these values, you should vote Trump Pence in 2016!

Vote for Brexit Puts Nationalism Above Globalism

brexit vote a good thing

On June 23, 2016, by a small majority, Britons voted in favor of exiting from the European union.  The complaints against the European Union were many.  Britons felt that their sovereignty and democracy were subverted to the will of the non-elected European Commission.  Protectionist EU-wide agricultural policies were responsible for the high price of food products in the United Kingdom, as well as in other EU countries.  Finally, the dissolution of borders between member states of the EU with the utter lack of border controls against the surge of illegal immigrants from Africa and the Middle East was perhaps the most damning aspect of belonging to the EU.

Politicians and pundits in favor of “Remain” gave various doomsday predictions.  The economy would crash, Britain would not be able to trade, the British pound would lose value, and Scotland and Northern Ireland would exit the UK.  While it is true that the banking sector may be rattled, stocks may be volatile, and trade agreements may need to be renegotiated, it is unlikely that the apocalypse will come because of the UK seceding from the EU.

On the other hand, as in all organizations, the smaller, more nimble, more responsive break-off group may do much better than the larger behemoth that is paralyzed by internal dissension and bureaucracy.  Apple was the underdog vs. Microsoft for a very long time and was at risk of failure, but no one would argue now that it should have given up the PC wars.  Furthermore, various economic policies of the EU impede economic growth in Britain.  The higher prices paid for food products has already been mentioned.  Lack of control of taxes and industrial development are another sore point.  By being in the EU, Britain must pay the taxes to the EU that it demands.  It also cannot favor industries with subsidies or favorable tax rates that would stimulate them and give them advantages over other EU nations.

The bottom line for the Britons that voted in favor of Brexit was that national interest trumps vague promises of globalization.  It is much easier to feel comfortable and secure by knowing that you are in charge of your own ship, no matter how small it may be.  The EU is not a homogenous group of countries differing from each other only in geography.  The histories, language, culture and political interests vary tremendously among the member states.   As such, they were corralled like a herd of cats under the arbitrary power of the European Commission that thinks it knows what is best for all of them.  The loss of control that being beholden to such an organization has given British citizens the sense that they are gradually losing their nation.  Loss of democratic power, loss of culture, loss of border sovereignty and loss of economic control were the result of belonging to the EU.  The temporary economic instability of Brexit is a small price to pay to reverse such insidious and disabling influences.

Let’s hope that the wisdom shown by the majority of British voters will influence a majority of American voters to cast off the oppression of the Democratic party political elites that would subserve American national interests to those of illegal immigrants, the third world and global  intervention that doesn’t serve American national interests.

#Brexit  #Brexitgood

The Allegiance of Soldiers in a Pluralist Society

There is a difference between the mindset of soldier in a homogenous, tightly knit society versus that of a soldier fighting on behalf of an empire or a pluralistic society.  This has profound implications for the behavior of the military and long-term stability of self-government in pluralistic societies.  Let’s look at some examples.

First, consider historical examples: William Wallace of the Scottish resistance to English conquest, the Maccabees in Jewish resistance to Greek Seleucid oppression, and Greek resistance against the Persians in the Battle of Thermopylae.  In all these, there were leaders arising from the people, identifying themselves as one of the the group (Scottish, Jewish or Greek) and fighting against a foreign enemy.  They considered their acts as fighting to defend their own families, their lands and their way of life.  Although outnumbered and facing professional forces, these cobbled-together armies were able to succeed.  Accounts of their exploits describe their zeal, their fight for their very survival and the population’s complete support and identification with these soldiers as their own.  In certain cases, even God is seen to be on the side of the natives, such as with the Maccabees.

The soldiers fighting for “their people” are seen as one with the people.  They are treated with respect and awe.  Likewise, the soldiers automatically treat the people with respect.  There is no psychological divide between the army and the people.  Allegiance to the army equates to allegiance to the people.

Now, let’s examine the state of soldiers in a pluralistic or imperial society.  In such, the purposes of the military differ.  Rather than fighting off invaders, the military is used to expand the borders and conquer new peoples, to put down internal rebellions and secessions by the various disparate groups that make up the country, as well as to protect the people against external attack. Such large countries require a standing professional army.  The army’s allegiance cannot be to a particular ethnic group, since there are various such groups within the empire.  It must be to the monarch or to a republican central government.  When the soldiers fight, they usually are not defending their wives and children. Rather, they fight for more abstract principles: chain of command, upholding the rule of law, maintaining the peace, carrying out the will of the senate, etc.

Such soldiers will not necessarily carry the hearts and minds of the people.  As seen in such conflicts as the Vietnam War, the common citizens may protest against the military and its soldiers when faced with the disparity between the desires of the people and the actions of the military.  Soldiers may be seen as a tool of a political class or a dominant ethnic group, as is often seen in African countries with large minority groups that are fighting in insurgencies against the central government.   Conversely, the soldiers will see themselves and their interests as distinct from those of the people they defend.

The Roman Legion is probably the best example of the disconnect between the hearts of the people and those of the country’s soldiers.  The Legion was comprised of various nationalities from across the empire and mixed together within each regiment.  The loyalty of each soldier was to his commanding officer and fellow soldiers.  Soldiers were well-rewarded in successful campaigns and often spent most of their lives in the service of the military.  So what was a Roman soldier’s personal connection to the people of Rome and their squabbles? The relationship was probably not a trusting one, as it was treason to lead a Legion across the Rubicon River into Italy.  The Legion represented external power but also a threat to self-government for the people of Rome.  In fact, the Roman legions participated in a number of coups and internal conflicts within the empire.   The soldiers see themselves as “professionals” with a loyalty primarily to each other as an elite class with its own ethics and rules.  Class and ethnic differences tend to be submerged within the amalgamating culture of the military.

Such a soldier vs. country scenario would be unthinkable or at least horrifying in the first set of examples of a small homogenous country defending itself from foreign aggressors.  The soldiers in such a scenario see themselves as a part of the people and loyalty to each other is automatic.  In the second scenario, where there is not automatic loyalty between the two groups, the soldiery sees itself as a separate group from the people with its own aims.  As such, it is not trusted by the common people.   When push comes to shove, the military will do what it feels is necessary according to its own ideals and purposes.  The result of this is military coups and renegade armies.   Examples abound: Chile, Brazil, Thailand, Congo, Egypt.

The US military is just like Roman legion scenario.  There is no immediate aggressor on our border.  There is no feeling of loyalty through mutual cultural/ethnic ties against a foreign invader.  The country is made up of disparate ethnic and religious groups precluding a feeling of allegiance on the basis of a common origin.  Allegiance is therefore within the military command structure and to the central government.  As such, certain political circumstances will allow the potential of a military coup, as in Rome, Africa, Southeast Asia and many other examples throughout history.

What is the Source of Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is the quest to bring equality of conditions to all people.  This is known by various names, including Socialism, which emphasizes the economic aspects of egalitarianism.  Democracy also can have aspects of egalitarianism from a political standpoint.  In the US, it is believed that each adult person, no matter what their intellectual, social or moral contribution, should have an equal vote.  Even ex-convicts are being re-enfranchised in various states in the country in this belief.

In this essay, I will not debate too much the pros and cons of egalitarianism except in passing.  I would rather like to delve into the motivations that lead to pursuing egalitarianism as an ideology.

The problem that egalitarianism seeks to address is the inequality of material goods, political power, social status, and intellectual achievement.   Murray Rothbard’s famous essay on egalitarianism states that nature is inherently unequal.  All beings are born different and remain different.  Thus egalitarianism is a revolt against reality itself.  So what provokes this quest in some people?

I think that there are three points of view from which this belief arises.  Let’s go through each of these:

I. Religious teaching.

Various sayings of Jesus Christ are thought to be critical of material wealth.  Jesus emphasizes charity and compassion over industry and power.  Pope Francis’ humbling himself by washing the feet of muslim migrants is typical of this type of belief.  So if one subscribes to egalitarianism solely on religious interpretation of the Bible, then it can only be disputed on theological grounds.  This can be done, as other passages in the Bible emphasize survival, industry, power and greatness, so it should not be allowed to rule unopposed.

II. Envy

This is straightforward.  If one feels himself to be a “have not” relative to others they may believe that they have not gotten their fair share.  They may think that “the system” is set up in such a way that a lucky group will always have more than his group and that it is unfair.  He is jealous of the comforts, pleasures and privileges that the lucky group enjoys.  This is the basis for many grassroots movements through history.  Socialism inspired the industrial working class to rise up in revolution against capitalism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The Black Power movement is similar in a first political and then economic perspective.  The recent complaining over “#Oscarssowhite” is a reaction to intellectual and artistic inequalities of outcomes.  “He got a trophy, how come I didn’t?”  This kind of jealousy is why all little league players now get trophies at the end of the season regardless of how their team placed.

III. Fear and Cowardice

The first two origins of egalitarianism are easy to understand.  However, I think that the last is the most significant.  It is highly variable according to what is currently a popular belief and sways strongly in response to I and II.  If one is already in the “lucky group” as in II, what would make them espouse egalitarianism?  This is not obvious and I have not encountered writings on this subject.

I think that fear of others’ disapproval and guilt is the main motivator.  Why are there so many billionaires these days (George Soros, Tom Steyer) that support the left?  Sometimes it is because they support a separate issue, such as environmentalism, which the left more often (but not necessarily) espouses.  More often, it is because they support redistribution of wealth, status and power in all forms.  They are a self-contradiction.  They have achieved what they seek to prevent.  They must fear that the rabble will come for them in their mansions and overwhelm their security detail and so try to champion the rabble’s cause themselves.

The leftist rich, especially the ones born into wealth, are also so far removed from the daily struggles for survival and achievement that usually characterized the origin of their wealth, that they no longer appreciate the benefit of that struggle.  They learn concepts of egalitarianism in higher education and in political writing that are divorced from reality.  Seeking to be liked despite being the “fat cats” in political diatribes spurs the liberal rich to prostrate themselves on the alter of compassion.

Definition of “Nation” Shows Inherent Modern Conflict

The definitions of the word “nation” show the inherent conflicts in how we think about top-level government.

Wikipedia has an in-depth discussion:

Nation (from Latin: natio, “people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock”) is a social concept with no uncontroversial definition,[1] but that is most commonly used to designate larger groups or collectives of people with common characteristics attributed to them—including language, traditions, customs (mores), habits(habitus), and ethnicity. A nation, by comparison, is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[2]

Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that “a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;” “a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”; “a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation”; and, in its entirety: “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” [3]

The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an “imagined community[4] and by Paul James as an “abstract community”.[5] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections. It is an abstract community in the sense that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences him or herself as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will never likely meet.[6] Hence the phrase, “a nation of strangers” used by such writers as Vance Packard.

The etymology of nation comes from the latin root for “birth”.  Thus, as above, the nation is a construct based on shared culture, geography, kinship by birth, language and traditions.

On the other hand, the definition I believe most people think of when they hear the word, is to be found in Webster’s first listing:

“a large area of land that is controlled by its own government”

Clearly, the first definition is the original concept.  That one could even be part of a “nation” yet not share in the group language, culture and kinship only became possible as migration between countries became commonplace in recent history.

This shows the dichotomy – is it a community of people with shared features as in the first definition or is it simply a place with borders and its own government?

If the answer is the latter, then nations are entities that have no connection to a particular community of people.   The government of such a nation cares nothing about a newcomer’s social, kinship or cultural bonds with the other community members.  “Membership” is based on satisfying purely legal requirements, such as the US immigration application.  States that base their “nationhood” definition on the former concept, however, do not grant equal “membership” rights to all peoples.  Preference is given to those that are already deemed to belong to the “nation” and not to others.  Examples of these include Japan, Korea, Israel, American Indian “nations” on tribal reservation land and numerous others.

Which definition you consider of higher precedence will drive your thinking of the duties of government.  Does the government owe its allegiance to the land first or to the people that gave rise to it?  Do all newcomers to the state have equal membership eligibility?  Either way of thinking can be justified.  If you choose the former definition, it is logically consistent to have preferences in granting entry to foreigners.  Similarly, what language, religion and culture are promoted will also have a state preference.  This is not immoral, it is simply a different way to define the basis for the existence of a state.

What is the Purpose of the “State”?

The reason I enclosed “State” in quotations is that we take our national governments as a given part of life. Most of us do not question “why is this here?” or “what is the purpose of this institution?”  The alternative is thought to be chaos and so all thinking of root moral justification for states and thus their derived purpose and function goes out the window.

However, I would like to raise these questions, much in the way that John Locke did about 300 years ago.  At that time, monarchies were simply a given.  Hardly anyone questioned how life could be lived differently than having a King to tell you what is the law.  It was Locke who successfully challenged the notion that monarchs govern because they have an absolute, God-given right to do so.  Locke took us back to the “state of nature” where free people would choose a government for themselves so that they could live in a state of greater peace and prosperity by not being constantly at war with their neighbor, albeit with a lower degree of freedom.

I would like to take the thought experiment further back than Locke did.  Who are these “free people” in the “state of nature” that Locke was talking about?  Let’s look at history.  All cohesive groups that emerged as regional and global powers, starting about 3000 BCE shared certain characteristics.  They identified with each other via cultural, religious, and kinship bonds.  Who were the Akkadians?  They were Semites of the upper Euphrates valley that had such bonds.  Who were the Chinese?  They were ethnically similar peoples that shared cultural and artistic practices as well as ancestor worship.  Who were the Romans?  They were an Indo-European Italic peoples sharing a similar pantheon to other Indo-Europeans and an extensive culture and history that gave them an identity as “Romans”.

So far, the discussion is quite clear.  The state represents the aspirations of a homogenous group of people who share all aspects of civilization: language, culture, religion, and ethnicity.  What happens when other groups fall under the domination of the first group, though?  This is a question that is the root of most strife in this world to this day.  When a particular people excels, it spreads in power and influence.  It trades with neighboring groups and becomes richer.  It conquers other lands, bringing other peoples under its dominion.  It grows its military and technology at a faster pace than other groups.

Yet once the leading group has other peoples under its dominion, what is the proper relationship between the two.  Is the conquered people owed political equality with the leading group?  Does the state become an even blending of the two peoples so that there is no particular allegiance to the first group that had created the state in the first place?

Let’s look at it differently:  if the laws and incentives in a particular state are geared to the flourishing of a particular people that had created the state, does the influx of another group into the state by whatever means (conquest, immigration, unification) automatically change the allegiance of the state apparatus?  Example: France.  France was founded by Franks (Frankia).  If through immigration of Spaniards, let’s say, in the 12th century were to bring in a substantial foreign element into Frankia, would not the Franks appeal to their kings for aid to flush out the invaders?  Is the allegiance of Frankish kings to the Franks or to the land of the Franks? That is the critical question, isn’t it?

Does entering the land of the Franks, make one a Frank?  What makes one a Frank?  Is there a test you could take or class that would let you become a Frank?  Such distinctions may be arbitrary and nebulous, however, everyone who has read history understands that there was a certain contingent of Germanic peoples that entered what was previously known as Gaul under the Romans, and they were known as Franks.  They were culturally, ethnically, and religiously distinct from the people that they conquered.

The British took over India and many other parts of the world through aggressive trade policies and gunboat diplomacy.  However, it was never quite clear what the endgame for this was.  Were the conquered subjects on an equal footing with British citizens in England?  Could they all move there if they chose to?  Certainly, British citizens had complete freedom of movement within the empire, but it was not intended that all the African and Indian subjects conquered by England should move in and possibly displace British citizens in England.  So they were not on an equal footing.  The purpose of the empire was mainly to benefit the British themselves, let’s be honest about it.  Because the British had never quite thought it through, it lead to the gradual collapse of the empire to the state that represented the original ethnic/linguistic/religious group that had started it.  Although perhaps not stated overtly, the allegiance of the state remained with the original people that founded the state.

The case of the United States is the most complex.  There is no specific ethnocultural group that gave rise to the United States.  By default, the institutions and laws that arose in the US represented the ideas and culture of the majority group that first arrived to the land, the Protestant English and other Western Europeans, including Scandinavians, Central Europeans and Eastern Europeans.  The government was formulated in such a way that nowhere was there a stated allegiance to any group of people, not in law and not in name.  The only such reference would be the slavery laws that disenfranchised slaves.  Otherwise, all residents of the United States (a more generic name could not have been found) share equal political rights.  The government’s only allegiance is to the individual.  As a corollary to that, the government has taken the stance that any individual whose rights are infringed on due to belonging or not belonging to a particular group, should have its rights reasserted through intervention on the individual’s behalf by the government.

In subsequent essays, let’s explore the implications and effects of the government’s allegiance to individuals rather than groups and contrast with other nations where there is government allegiance to groups.

Hebdo Cartoonist Massacre in France Another Warning Against Plutocracy

Please see my “How the State is the Enemy of the People” Post from last year for further details on my thoughts on this issue.  France has a rising population of Muslims, who now outnumber ethnic French in schools (because the French are too selfish to have enough children and Muslims have 7 because they believe in takeover by any means possible).  The problem facing Western plutocratic democracies is that they are paralyzed about how to respond to the core issue.  That is because the government is unable to identify with a specific ethnic group or religion.  Since the Enlightenment, political rights have been distributed equally among all individuals (although it was presupposed at the time of the enlightenment that they were all part of the same society and not rival tribes).  Unless the government abandons the “treat everyone equally” mantra, it cannot respond to root out the Muslim threat.

And let’s be real.  Read the Koran.  Look up Koran quotes online.  There’s plenty of material there.  If you’re not Muslim, you’ve got a death warrant or slavery to look forward to either in this life or in the lives of your children.  It’s in the book.  “It’s a cookbook!”  I’m not going into a long discussion of the theological evils of Islam but they stand out like in no other religion, even Satanism is mild by comparison.  (Satanism preaches the dark lord’s coming, blah, blah. but nothing about killing everyone who’s not satanic).

To go forward then, the pluralistic government would have to be overthrown or suppressed, and a tribally-aligned government or military dictatorship take its place.  There is no way to guarantee equal freedoms to a group that is an avowed enemy of the other groups in that society and maintain peaceful coexistence.

Aggressors Like to “Play the Victim”

The riots over Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri and Palestinian protests against Israel have much in common.  In both cases, you have claims of state oppression, racism and a violent element that was put down.  So let’s examine the cases to see if there are similarities.

What we know as of this date, having seen evidence released after the grand jury’s decision to not charge officer Wilson, is that Brown had just strong-arm robbed a liquor store for a box of cigars.  He was walking down the middle of the street and apparently acted belligerently towards Wilson. Without the officer even being able to get out of the car, he was reaching in and punching him through the window, reaching for his gun.  Wilson then shot him and he ran away.  However, he turned around and ran back at him.  There were contradictions among witnesses, many of whom turned out to have been lying when questioned.  The evidence points to Brown facing Wilson when he was shot, so he was not shot in the back. The coroner agreed with this.

Immediately, race baiters like Al Sharpton, and others who view and death from a white against a black as evidence of a lynching, collected their own lynch mobs to try to hang Wilson.

Racism and Xenophobia – Evil or Necessary for Survival?

Until about 70 years ago, most societies were hostile to others of a different religion, ethnicity or race, and political persuasion.  Mobs of agitated citizens would frequently agitate to evict or murder nearby residents that were foreign and sufficiently different to seem threatening. Various subpopulations of immigrants would live in ghettos under constant threat of persecution and restricted in their occupations and activities.

Starting with democratization and a move to constitutional government during the Enlightenment, residents of states began to be thought of as having “natural rights.”  Without regard to ethnicity or religion, people started to be considered politically equal.   The civil rights movements and upheavals in the 50’s to 70’s further pushed the ideals of political and economic equality.  It was no longer enough to have equality under the law.  Even speech and thought that was considered “racist” was no longer acceptable.

On the one hand, such strides in our way of thinking are laudable. Every member of a society would like to think that he or she has equal protection under the law and will not be singled out for unfair persecution.  We know that the police will be on the side of the victim if a lynch mob shows up at their house.

However, what are the downsides to this change in practice and attitude?  For instance, what does nationalistic fury do to the capacity of a country to wage war and fight off foreign invaders? What does religious intolerance do to resist invasion of a conquering jihadist force bent on converting the entire country to Islam, as happened in Albania and other places conquered by the Turks in the Balkans?  How does Europe’s inability to reject a massive influx of Muslim immigrants threaten its identity as a Christian continent dominated by Caucasians?

Until relatively recently, suspicion and hatred of outsiders was one of the bulwarks against conquest and assimilation.  This is why the Christian Central European countries of Poland, Bavaria and Hapsburg Austria were able to band together to fight off the Turks during the siege of Vienna in 1683.  Vienna was seen as the last stand in Europe against the Turks which had been expanding their domains in Europe for some time and were seen as un-stoppable.  Had it not been for the Europeans’ belief that Christianity was superior to Islam and that conversion to Islam was unacceptable, such a vigorous defense of Europe’s crown jewel would not have been as likely.  In fact, the European’s continued their re-conquest of Central and Eastern Europe after centuries of persecution and enslavement by marauding Muslim Tatars and encroaching Turks.  During the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, the Ottoman empire was in a precipitous decline, leading to independence movements in the Balkans and Greece and reconquest of Crimea by the Russian tsars.  Likewise, Charles the Hammer’s fierce opposition to jihadist forces of the Umayyad Caliphate at the Battle of Tours was the high water mark in the Muslim advance into Western Europe that eventually culminated in the Reconquista of Spain in 1492 with the fall of Granada.

In contrast, let’s look at cultures that were indifferent to religious and cultural differences.  The Mongols were fierce and agile fighters.  They swept across Central Asia and into Eastern Europe during the late Middle Ages.  Mongols practiced an animistic belief system and felt no compulsion to proselytize to others.  They also had no political zeal but simply wanted to manage their empire as best as they could.  Conquering Mongol forces, though initially brutal to the conquered, would then adopt the customs and religion of the native population.  Thus they would assimilate into the local population, becoming virtually indistinguishable.  This, as well as other developments, such as the Black Plague, led to the disintegration of the Mongols as an empire.  However, individual parts, such as the Crimean Khanate, continued to function until a much later period. What is the legacy of the Mongols now?  Although the Mongol Empire was the largest state that has ever existed, today, outside of Mongolia, there is little left to remember them by .