It all depends...

On this day in 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared their independence from the Netherlands. What's this got to do with America or Americans? Not a great deal, on the face of it, but it does touch on a few issues we discuss here.

I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:

'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''

So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.

I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:

'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.

Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''

There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.

Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.

This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.

But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.

But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.

The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.

And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.

Davy Crockett, born August 17, 1786

Davy Crockett was born on this day in 1786. We all know of him as one of the heroes of the Alamo, and those who are old enough will remember the Walt Disney TV series based on Crockett's life. The media image of him, even in his day, was based on a great deal of exaggeration and what we would call 'hype' today.

The image above is that of Crockett's Almanack, a book of tall tales which was published in the 1830s into the 1850s, purportedly written by Crockett although this website indicates he did not write the material nor have control over what was written. The Crockett of the Almanacks was a wild man, something of a mythical figure like Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, or other such larger-than-life heroes. (By the way, do the younger generations even know Paul Bunyan?)

If you are interested in the real life Davy Crockett's life, you might navigate around the website linked, though beware of the political correctness.

Another biography of Crockett is here.

A new SWPL 'disorder'

This may fall under the SWPL (Stuff White People Like) category, but according to The Guardian, the latest 'eating disorder' is orthrexia:

The condition, orthorexia nervosa, affects equal numbers of men and women, but sufferers tend to be aged over 30, middle-class and well-educated.

The condition was named by a Californian doctor, Steven Bratman, in 1997, and is described as a "fixation on righteous eating". Until a few years ago, there were so few sufferers that doctors usually included them under the catch-all label of "Ednos" – eating disorders not otherwise recognised. Now, experts say, orthorexics take up such a significant proportion of the Ednos group that they should be treated separately.

"I am definitely seeing significantly more orthorexics than just a few years ago," said Ursula Philpot, chair of the British Dietetic Association's mental health group. "Other eating disorders focus on quantity of food but orthorexics can be overweight or look normal. They are solely concerned with the quality of the food they put in their bodies, refining and restricting their diets according to their personal understanding of which foods are truly 'pure'."

Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.

The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished. Their dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their "virtuous" behaviour even if it means that eating becomes so stressful their personal relationships can come under pressure and they become socially isolated.''

Well, I am reluctant to designate every problem or quirk people have as a ''disorder'' requiring mental health treatment, and most of us would say that eating healthy is a good and desirable thing, but it is a fact that there can be too much of a good thing. Moderation, even in concern for one's health, is appropriate. But it seems some people go overboard with whatever they do, making it the focus of an excessive interest, or a source of fear.

And I definitely know, and have known, people who would fall into this category. Most often it is seen among women and adolescent girls, although I am sure there are some men who become 'orthrexics' too.

This trend is one that has been present in our society for several decades, although it seemed to really take off during the 1960s and 70s, with the counterculture. Those who were part of that movement tended to dabble in Eastern religions, which often prescribe vegetarianism as not only healthier, but as being spiritually advanced. 'Meat is murder' as the vegetarians like to say, and eating meat is barbaric. So the Guardian article is not far off , in describing foods as being seen as ''good'' and ''bad'' or that some kinds of dietary habits are virtuous. These 'orthorexics' may not believe in God, or may believe in countless small-g 'gods'. They are often scoffers at Puritanical concerns with sexual morality, but the orthorexic morality centers largely on food and/or fitness. Not every 'orthorexic' is especially fit, but oftentimes they are exercise fanatics as well as food fanatics.

One of the books of the counterculture era that had a part in this trend was a book called Sugar Blues, by William Duffy, which appeared in 1975. After that, most young people and many older people became convinced that sugar was the most evil substance one could ingest. I heard many believers say that 'sugar is more addictive than cocaine.' Sugar was blamed for all manner of physical, emotional, and behavioral problems, most notably 'hyperactivity' in children. Many parents to this day insist that sugar is to blame for their children's rowdiness or restlessness. However studies done in reputable institutions debunked that idea, though it's useless to tell believing parents that. They will insist, loudly, that their children do misbehave after eating sugar.

'The latest group to join the debate is the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which recently released a report charging that the government, professional agencies and the food industry have been ignoring evidence that diet affects behavior. However, the majority of studies so far haven't found a connection, and most in the medical industry maintain there is no known link between sugar and hyperactivity.

Still, many concerned parents feel certain they've seen a cause-and-effect relationship between sweets and rowdiness. Admittedly, more research would be needed to completely rule out the possibility of a link, but there are many plausible reasons other than sugar why a child may be bouncing off the walls.''

That last phrase 'bouncing off the walls' is one that parents invariably use when describing the behavior of their children following an ingestion of sugar.

Other evidence continues to discredit this idea but it does not convince parents or adults who believe that they themselves are also made 'hyper' by sugar.

The notion of a connection was first promulgated by an allergist named Benjamin Feingold back in the 70s, but by the time I was in a well-regarded graduate program in Education back in the 80s, we were taught that the Feingold Diet, which purported to treat hyperactivity by diet, was discredited and considered of no value. But it still lives on.

The latest trend in food faddism seems to be that people are diagnosed as having 'gluten intolerance', which requires a very restricted diet. I am wary of this, as it suddenly seems to be something of an 'epidemic.' Googling the subject brings up a lot of hits which seem to be to what I would term 'food faddist' websites, with idiosyncratic ideas about nutrition and health. But one wonders how many people are being diagnosed with this condition now, and how real this seeming 'epidemic' is.

Personally I have learned to take all these food scare stories with a huge grain of salt (and yes, I know salt is supposed to be bad for us.) Please notice that every day on the ''news'' or in your dead tree media, there will be the usual nagging stories about the harm done by this food or that food, and scolding articles about what we must eat in order to live longer and lose weight and slow down aging and 'feel better about ourselves.'' These are all the health equivalent of the Christian 'what must I do to be saved?' pieces. These sermons, however, promise only to extend our natural life for a few years, though occasionally there is the crackpot article about how in the future we will all be immortal, if we eat and exercise properly, and if all-knowing ''science'' finds a way to halt aging altogether. This is, I think, what many of the orthorexics are thinking of: the issue of human mortality. Many of the fussy eaters I know are obsessed with not getting old and dying. They are looking for the fountain of youth and hoping 'science' will grant them immortality.

However, for many women and girls, it isn't anything as profound as that; most just want to get thinner and stay thin. Getting fat is the fate worse than death.

I know of anorexic or bulimic young women for whom eating and food occupy their every thought. This is sad, and it's simply a distortion of the 'orthorexic' lifestyle.

As for all the food nags in the government and media, I notice they often cancel each other out, as a study reported one week will be contradicted by another study announced the next week. How can anyone know which to believe?

It seems that "all things in moderation -- including moderation", is the best motto in life.

As I noted at the beginning of this piece, the concern or even obsession with healthy eating, or fitness in general, is very much a SWPL thing. According to the official SWPL list, 'hummus' and 'whole foods and grocery co-ops' are among the Stuff White People like.

Earlier in life, I was a vegetarian and shopped at health food stores. Yes, I suppose I might have been an 'orthorexic' at one point, but I grew out of it. But never did I see 'people of color' in the health food stores. The idea of eating organic and avoiding the unhealthy foods is not something that seems important to nonwhites. I can't say why that is, but I think it's pretty generally true. I have known a couple of black women who might have been vegetarians but they were exceptions. It's a White thing to worry about whether one's food is healthy.

That being said, it's a habit that does get carried too far, with some SWPL types seeming to use strict diets to flagellate themselves in a way, as medieval penitents did. I've eaten plenty of 'organic' foods, and some of them are the culinary equivalent of a hair shirt. Much of the healthy food is not at all tasty or satisfying; I am convinced that the people who eat it are ascetics of a sort, who no longer really taste their food, but consume it only because they have to eat something to sustain themselves.

Maybe the people who eat recklessly, who eat all the unhealthy foods with no regard for their well-being or fitness, are people who are simply prone to risk-taking, the gambler types. The orthorexics are people who have somehow substituted dietary fussiness as a kind of self-denying religious discipline.

Sir Walter Scott, born August 15, 1771

Sir Walter Scott's most-often quoted words may be these:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!'

He also wrote:

Teach your children poetry; it opens the mind, lends grace to wisdom and makes the heroic virtues hereditary.''

I think those are true words.

Sir Walter Scott, novelist and poet, had a wide-ranging influence as may be gathered from the links gathered on this site.

He was especially revered in the American South, as Carl N. Degler in Out of Our Past tells us:

Where the ideas of the nineteenth century were congenial to southern antebellum values, they spread extravagantly. Though the novels of a romantic like Sir Walter Scott were popular in North and South alike, it was in the latter that he became a literary idol. Upon his death, Richmond newspapers were edged in black. Only in the South were knightly joustings held in full pseudo-mediaeval armor and regalia. It was from Scott's books that Southerners lifted the word ''southron,'' which they self-consciously applied to themselves. The romantic picture of the organic, status society of the Middle Ages, which Scott dwelt on in several of his novels, seemed to shore up southern and conservative ideas on society and slavery. Hence, south of the Ohio, Scott found a welcome place denied to contemporaries like Dickens and Shelley, who mixed their romanticism with urban, humanitarian, and irreligious beliefs largely foreign to the South."

This is interesting; I had not been aware of the extent to which Scott was revered in the old South, nor that he was not as highly regarded in the North.

As to the word 'southron', I am not convinced that Scott was THE source for this term nor the use thereof in the South. It is an archaic term for Southern, used mainly in Scotland as I understand, and it was used by J.R.R. Tolkien in his writings. I suppose Tolkien may have picked it up likewise from Scott, but he was not the ultimate originator of it. I use the word, as do others, because it specifically refers to the people, history, and way of life of the American South, unlike the general word 'Southern'which simply designates a direction or a geographical region.

The Walter Scott Digital Archive contains a treasure trove of information about him, and links to his works.


Update: Please see the wonderful tribute to Scott at Cambria Will Not Yield.

Not all discrimination is equal

Over at Iron Ink, there are several good entries on the health care proposal, in particular this one, Nietzsche's Little Shop of Horrors.

Here is the problem folks.

America is broke and it needs to find ways to cut budgetary corners.

The answer, in part to that, is to allow Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped to die as opposed to giving them treatment. The solution is right out of Nietzsche’s playbook. The Christian values of gentleness, forgiveness, and mercy are going to be thrown out in order that a Nietzschean ubermensch (Supermen) can survive. Obama is invoking the “will to power,” in his plan to make Senior Citizens, the infirm, and the handicapped be the ones who help America out of its bankrupt condition.''

I agree with that assessment of the problem.
But the paradox is that the Left, the ones who are hell-bent on having this plan become law, position themselves as the champions of the weak, the downtrodden, and the politically 'disenfranchised.' But here they are taking a blatantly Nietzschean perspective. Can they continue to do this and still maintain any credibility as the party of 'caring and compassion'?

And how can the same people who arrogantly pronounce that we have to throw the 'non-contributing' individuals overboard in order to achieve health-care justice at the same time continue flooding our country with costly newcomers, many of them with exotic Third-world diseases and generally neglected health? The fact of many bankrupt hospitals in border states is but one illustration of how devastating to our health care system is the influx of illegal (and legal) immigrants.

Yet the powers that be, and their media flunkeys, (including the Wall Street Journal) continue to studiously ignore and deny the costs of mass immigration and the health problems which the newcomers bring with them.

But here, even the open-borders WSJ acknowledges the problem:

VALLEJO, Calif. -- A health clinic in this blue-collar city north of Oakland, partly funded by the county, is saving local hospitals thousands of dollars in emergency-room visits by treating uninsured patients who suffer only non-urgent ailments.

A watchdog group is now calling on county officials to cut funding for clinic patients who can't prove they are in the U.S. legally, a debate certain to surface in the national health-care overhaul.

With congressional proposals already stirring raw emotions, few supporters are eager to add the incendiary issue of illegal immigration. A provision in the House's health-care-overhaul bill rules out federal funding for illegal immigrants.

But in many ways, illegal immigration is at the nexus of two key health issues: the uninsured and ballooning costs.

Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.

The role illegal immigrants play in U.S. health-care costs is "one hot button that no one wants to touch," says Stephen Zuckerman, an economist at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.''

Well, Mr. Zuckerman, why do you suppose it is a 'hot button that no one wants to touch'? Obviously, it's because as I said yesterday, race is involved. If we had tens of millions of White Canadians thronging across our Northern border to 'seek a better life', nobody would be afraid to complain about it. Of course our Canadian cousins are generally too well-behaved and self-sufficient to violate our borders en masse, and they have created themselves a livable country, so the notion of their becoming border-jumpers should strike us as laughable. But alas, our borders are being violated by people of a protected race, so we must not notice the crisis their trespassing is causing, lest we be 'racists.' So no, Mr. Zuckerman, nobody wants to touch that hot button, which has been made a hot button on purpose, to keep us quiet about what is happening. But back to the article:

Residents have since complained to a 19-member county-appointed watchdog group about taxpayer money La Clínica going to health care for people living in the U.S. illegally. Neither the clinic nor the Sutter emergency room ask people their immigration status.

"All we can ask them is their name, date of birth and chief complaint," says Ms. Hammons, the Sutter emergency-department manager. "Heavens, we don't deny anybody treatment. You are required to see anyone who shows up at the emergency department.''

Yes; I think this is official policy in many places. They can't be asked for proof of citizenship, so a blind eye is turned, in 'don't ask, don't tell' fashion. I often tell people this is happening, and they are incredulous, because many people naively assume that ''it's against the law for illegals to get services'', not only medical care, but welfare and other social programs. But then I have to remind the doubters that ''it's against the law to cross the borders without proper permission, too" -- but that hasn't stopped millions from doing so, has it?

VDare has more on health care for immigrants:

A Colorado Ph.D says Mexicans with AIDS drain California of millions every year

and this piece by Brenda Walker about organ transplants for illegals.

There is no question that foreigners illegally enter the country to get million-dollar transplants not available at home, e.g. Ana Puente and Jessica Santillan, who received at least seven organs between them. The Chicago Tribune recently reported, “Liliana Cruz, 16, and her family came to the U.S. illegally in 2005, trying to get a kidney transplant for her.” She hasn’t gotten a transplant and complains about receiving free-to-her dialysis provided by taxpayers. So inconvenient.''

Many of these immigrants come here to get extremely costly treatment which they could not get in their home countries. Some Americans are reluctant to object to this, thinking it un-Christian or uncharitable -- but we have to remember there are many of our own people on waiting lists for transplants or dialysis. Should we not put our own first, as most countries do? None of us, not even "rich" old Uncle Sam (who is actually a pauper now) can care for everybody. We have to prioritize.

But as I asked on the Iron Ink piece, will these HIV-positive immigrants and others with costly medical conditions be turned away or denied care under the proposed system? I can hardly imagine that happening, because these people are the protected victims, the 'special' ones who are prioritized under the left's system. They will not be denied treatment.

The idea inherent in this plan is that health care should be guided by the left's notion of 'social justice', and doled out to those deemed ''underserved'' or underprivileged, while those who have ''had their day'' will be expected to step aside in favor of the younger people, most particularly those of the protected 'victim' groups.

[Emanuel] explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).''

If costs are indeed the deciding factor, and old or chronically ill people are just a burden on the rest, how can the government still open our borders and our treasury to millions more immigrants, who have proven to be very costly to the system?

The leftists, of course, are not troubled by glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. Everything is ultimately ideological and political to them, including human life.

And young people, who think this is strictly about those old folks for whom you have little sympathy, remember that you, too, could become disabled via accident or chronic illness. And your life, too, will be considered too costly to sustain -- unless, of course, you are a member of a politically favored group.

This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of age.

Les Paul, 1915-2009, RIP

Les Paul, who was not only a gifted guitarist but also an innovator and pioneer who developed one of the first solid-body electric guitars, died on August 13 at the age of 94.

He was at the peak of popularity in his recording career when I was a child, but his influence extended into the rock 'n roll era and down to the present time; he was something of an icon to later generations of guitarists.

The video is part one of a documentary about him, and it gives a brief overview of how his career began.

Blogroll additions

I've added some new links to my blogroll in the sidebar.

First is Songlight For Dawn, which is Fellist's blog, then the Shieldline blog, which I mentioned in an earlier post.
Also, The Truth Shall Set You Free.
And last but not least, Ehudwould's Blog.

I encourage you to take a look at these blogs if you are not already familiar with them.

Everything is...

It's been asserted, usually by those on the left end of the spectrum, that 'everything is political.' Well, since the beginning of this present administration, everything is certainly racial, at least in the eyes of the administration's minions and defenders.

Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''

Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.

But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.

Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.

Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.

Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.

So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.

Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.

So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.

But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?

Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.

During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?

My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?

I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.

However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.

So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.

The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.

We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.

Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.

Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.

It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.

Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.

And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.

We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.

There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.

And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.

A political solution?

A recent discussion on this blog addressed the question of potential scenarios for a breakup of the United States. What about the possibility of a political solution to our pressing problems? Is it plausible? Can it be done by political means, presumably by means of working within the existing system?

I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.

The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.

Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'

I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.

However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?

So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?

Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.

Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.

Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?

Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?

Another book find

I happened across a book called Out of Our Past, by Carl N. Degler, for which I paid all of 50 cents.
It's dated 1959, and it is subtitled The Forces That Shaped Modern America.

Apparently it's available now for purchase, though I found my copy in a second-hand store. It promises to be an interesting read, though I've only skimmed various passages so far. It seems as though he devotes considerable attention to issues that happen to be front and center now: national identity, immigration, the role of government throughout our history, and the intractable race problem.

Given that the book was first published in 1959, it seems to have been written in a kind of transitional time between old America and the America of today, especially where ideas about national identity and the role of government are concerned. Within those limitations, it seems to be fairly even-handed, compared to the PC extremes of today.

I've looked at the chapters regarding the War Between the States and it appears as though he treats the concerns of the South with somewhat more respect than today's historians and writers deign to.

There are obvious examples of proto-PC attitudes in the book, but in the 1950s as now, academics were more liberal than the general population, so I make allowances for that. I hope to blog about some of the subjects he deals with in this book, because as the subtitle says, certain 'forces' or ideas that brought us to our present state are a consequence of past events and developments.

If any of you know this book, or have any opinions or thoughts about it, please comment.

Not so trivial

It might have been worth watching this fake townhall event if only to see this foot-in-mouth moment -- or was it a Freudian slip? See the video.

However, I missed it -- well, OK, I avoided watching it. I figured it would be staged and scripted and the attendees would all be plants and cult followers.

Yet Obama encountered a friendly, cheering crowd, as if at a campaign stop. While there were crowds of protesters outside, few seemed to make it inside.

He spoke for almost 20 minutes before questions. After several friendly questions, he urged people with tougher ones to step up.

"I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants" in the audience, Obama said. After two more mildly skeptical questions, Obama ended the town hall. He took nine questions in total.

A little girl who asked him a rather precocious-sounding question, may have been a plant, reportedly.

According to the IBD article, the Resident implicitly reiterated the new talking point: that those with concerns about euthanasia or 'death panels' are crazy.

Obama ridiculed the notion that this plan would create "death panels" to decide end-of-life care.

He said the bill provides for panels of experts "who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations. . . . These aren't going to be forced on people but they will help guide how the delivery system works so you get better quality care."

My opinion of New Hampshire went down a little after seeing some clips of the audience there; is this the 'Live Free or Die' State?

And is this president the one with the off-the-chart IQ? Why is it that Democrat presidents are always said to be geniuses? Bill Clinton was another mediocrity who was touted as a high-IQ prodigy. Where's the evidence?

I notice that with the president's faux pas or whatever you would call it, the IBD op-ed reports it with a straight face, either missing the irony or intentionally spinning his statement as an 'I meant to say that' moment.

I was talking to a nurse friend yesterday and she is very much opposed to this proposal (which the Democrats say does not exist: ''There is no health bill!" they insist), though the Democrat talking points say that the AMA and the American Nurses' Association are on board with this. My nurse friend says that many of the people she is hearing from are very upset about the prospect of government-run health care. I don't hear much favorable comment about it myself -- in fact, I've heard none, in real life. Only the shills on TV speak in favor of it.

I've read some internet comment from right-wing bloggers criticizing the townhall protesters, on the grounds that it makes us look bad, or that it amounts to using the left's rabble-rousing tactics and crudeness. I don't think there is any kind of 'astroturfing' on a wide scale going on. I don't know any sheeplike Republicans who would attend a protest and shout at their representatives just because the RNC or anyone else told them to. I believe the anger is genuine and spontaneous; it certainly is on my part.

And by the way, the RNC periodically begs me for donations, but they have not contacted me in any way to try to get me to protest or to demonstrate.

Somebody on a blog discussion said that it was ridiculous for people on the far-right to get worked up about health care when we have our dispossession to worry about. I don't see how that person could fail to notice that this thing is a not-so-veiled attack on us, a way to reduce our numbers even further and more quickly. This is a survival issue, and as such it's not trivial or irrelevant, not in the least.

Our dwindling families

At the Occidental Observer, there is a piece by Christopher Donovan which is about 'race-ending life paths of young Whites.' It's a discussion of several trends among young people which are an impediment to their following the traditional pattern of marrying young and having several children.

He notes that most White families show the same generational pattern, with the oldest generations having come from large families, and each generation having fewer and fewer children. I think this is true of most families now, at least most White families.

My father came from a very large family (12 children, or 13 if you count the relative who was brought up as one of the household.) All these siblings married and had children, with the exception of one. None of the brothers and sisters had more than 5 children, and though that sounds like a big family to most people today, it was not, in comparison with the previous generation. The next generation tended to have small families, in many cases, two children, with some having none at all. Some remained unmarried or formed unstable and short-lived relationships.

The children of that generation have had fewer children, with several refraining from marrying and reproducing. I know this pattern holds true in a lot of families, regardless of social status.

Donovan lists several factors, all of which seem to fit. He does not mention feminism, though I think most would name that as one contributor to the lower birth rate, but I suppose feminism might be subsumed under his 'careerism' category. However I think careerism among women would be the greater factor in explaining the 'birth dearth' among Whites, as many men in the past were career-obsessed, but yet fathered large families and managed to be adequate fathers. Career-minded women are more likely to have few or no children, obviously.

Interestingly, he mentions 'mental illness' as a factor in discouraging marriage and family life.

Every other young White, it seems, complains of a mental illness or problem: obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, autism or Asperger's, you name it. They have it, and it requires rafts of medication. Usually, it prevents relationships. My own circle may skew my view of the true frequency of this problem, but I have a lot of anecdotal evidence. What I believe to be the increased incidence of mental illness of Whites needs heavy study, but I am convinced that our racial dispossession plays an unspoken role.''

That makes sense; we touched on that in a recent discussion here about the heavy use of antidepressants among Americans. And one wonders, sometimes, if the recent 'epidemic' of mental illness represents a kind of hypochondria, based on excessive self-concern. Around this time, someone may take offense, as they have a relative who suffers from some disorder, or perhaps they themselves have been diagnosed. So if I've trodden on somebody's toes, no offense is intended, but I do know of people who excessively focus on themselves and their feelings, and who consequently make themselves to be invalids of a sort. I've also known people who obsessed over physical symptoms, and who imagined themselves to have every ailment they read about. For some people, 'mental illness' is the focus of their fear, and they hear and read these warnings from experts about how 'one in three Americans is mentally ill' or words to that effect.

Lo and behold, they begin to be sure they have a disorder. If they are meticulous and tidy, someone tells them they must have ''OCD.'' If they have moods that vary, someone says 'you must be bipolar.' A shy person must be afflicted with 'social anxiety disorder' and so on.

One external factor I can think of which discourages young White people from marriage and family formation is that most attend college (for more than four years, usually, unlike in the past) and graduate with huge student loan debts. Some that I know of graduated with $25-30,000 in student loans to repay, and I don't think that's unusual. Given the cost of living, few young people with that kind of debt are good candidates to marry and start a family soon. They just about have to pursue a lucrative career to start repaying their debts, before marriage is a possibility.

Donovan is right that most people are influenced by what their peers are doing, and that if larger families become the trendy thing to do, perhaps things will turn around. I would like to see, though, not just larger families, but stay-at-home mothers. Why have several children if the plan is to immediately return to the workplace and 'career' while the children are dropped into the laps of Third-World nannies (as is the case among many affluent couples)? I suppose a better situation would be if grandparents care for the child or children, but the optimum is for the mother to care for her own children.

In my community three (sometimes more) children are very much the norm, but I don't think this portends a new trend, necessarily; this town is populated by mostly conservative and Christian people with traditional ideas about family. But perhaps the trends will change in that direction, given the right circumstances.

Read all of Donovan's piece at the link, if you have not already done so.