Been watching Social Media and the universal seems to be that Representative Steve King (R-IA) is a horrific racist – the offense comes from this tweet:
Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.
There was no reference to what particular ethnic group of babies were desired, but it is taken as a given – by plenty on the right as well as nearly all the left – that he meant “white babies”. Because, what else could he have meant?
That is our Rorschach on this, right? Given that we all know (know – meaning, we all agree to the Progressive Narrative, even if we’re Conservative, because one thing a Conservative can’t ever do is stray from the rules provided by the Progressives) that Trump appeals to racists (in his greedy quest for power, wealth and selling the United States to Putin for an option to build a casino in Sochi), any statement by him or his supporters which isn’t explicitly inclusive of all races must be a racist statement. King, you see, should have tweeted out, “We can’t restore our civilization without having our own black, Latino, Native American, Asian, Jewish and Muslim babies”. Hey, Mark – some of you ask – why didn’t you include white babies in there? Because if you do that, you’re racist. In fact, might have been better if he tweeted out, “We can’t restore our civilization without all sorts of babies, except white babies”. But even that probably wouldn’t have been good enough. It would really have to go, “Our civilization is a horrible, lousy thing built on racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, war and greed and anyone who wants to restore it is racist”. That might have passed muster.
King’s statement is wrong in that the genius of American civilization (presumptively, what he wishes to restore) is that it can take Non-Americans and turn them into Americans. Whether or not he meant it in a purely racist sense is beyond my reckoning, given that I’m not clairvoyant and thus lack the ability to read his mind. That aside, in a very real sense, the son of a Vietnamese refugee has ancestors who fought at Bunker Hill. As long as he adopts the ideal of America, it doesn’t matter that his ancestor got here 200 years after the battle. Meanwhile, someone who rejects the ideal of America, even if he had an actual blood relative at the battle, isn’t American. America, you see, isn’t a place – it is an idea. Sure, we have our physical territory, but America is built on a Creed as much as, say, the Catholic Church is. The Church used to directly rule a fair portion of Europe – now it directly rules only a few acres inside the city of Rome…but it is no less Catholic than it was when it ruled a large, temporal estate because the Church isn’t based on land, but on an idea. If we Americans who have generations in this nation cease to have children but we continue to transmit our ideal to the most recent arrival, then America continues.
This is a bit different from every other nation on Earth – Japan being a rather extreme example of a nation being a specific people in a specific place, but even in places like Germany and Spain, it is difficult for a foreigner to become fully integrated into the society, at least for many generations. The only other nations which approximate what we do are the United Kingdom and former parts of Britain’s Empire like Australia and Canada. Because they, too, have a bit of an ideal which transcends ethnicity and place. It isn’t quite like ours – ours is written in the Declaration of Independence (it is also in the Constitution, but that can be altered or abolished…nothing can ever be done to alter the Declaration). One close friend I grew up with was the son of parents who were born outside the United States…but there was no fundamental difference between those of us who had family for centuries in this land and him. It is that quick – when the ideal of America is imparted.
And it is in the task of transmitting the idea of America that we are failing – and failing very badly. The primary cause for this failure rests on the left. It is the left which is determined to break us up into warring tribes which keep to themselves and never absorb the American ideal. It is a divide and rule tactic; a tactic as old as the first Ruling Class to ever emerge, I imagine. But this failure is seconded by many on the right. The way this is done is to presume that only certain types of people can be American and transmit the American ideal. The worst part of this group are the out and out racists – people imbued with a species of warmed-over blood and soil neo-Nazi drivel. But even outside of that, we have a problem. If our worry is that only people of Western Civilization can become American, then I hate to break it to you, but Mexicans are as much a part of Western Civilization as we are. They are a mixed lot, but so are we – and they still get their Civilization from a Judeo-Christian, European base just as we do. Try to point this out to some on the right and you’ll get an earful…flip it around and try to explain to supposedly Latino-loving Progressives that Cortez was a heroic person and you’ll get another earful. Both sides have taken up positions which are simply not true – the left that America is so bad that it needs to change into something else, the right that you have to be of a certain type to be American. But let’s be sensible – a Mexican can easily become an American, if he wants to and if we insist upon it as the price for entry. So, too, can a Chinese, a Pakistani, a Nigerian…anyone. All it takes is a desire to be American, and then learning the ropes, as it were, of being an American.
I say to the left – cease your attempts at dividing us. I say to the right – cease your adherence to nonsensical ideas about who can be what. Our job, as Conservatives, is to conserve our civilization – and that means transmitting it to both American babies, and foreigners who wish to become American. It really isn’t a difficult task. The sons of Germans became Americans and fought Germans with gusto in World War Two. The sons of Japanese, become Americans, would have fought the Japanese with equal gusto, had we let them (instead, we sent them off to kill Germans – and a fine job they did of it).
I’m descended from a wide variety of ancestors – my surname comes from Ireland, but I haven’t the least feeling for Ireland, as such. Just another foreign country. Imagine, though, if my family had kept up the Irish feeling with intensity – and if my fellow Americans had kept up their intense feeling that an Irishman couldn’t be a proper American…you know, what with being a member of a despised, violent race which was also Catholic and thus owed allegiance to the Pope? I’d likely be locked into an impoverished, Irish ghetto and be mindlessly mouthing hatred of Protestants in general, and Britain in particular…while also taking great exception to the United States as a nation of fine words, but bad actions. But, it wasn’t like that – my great-great-grandfather became American, and by the time his son was an adult, the family was so American that great-grandpa became a wheelhorse of Democrat politics in New Jersey…and his daughter became a Hollywood star.
It is past time we left off this fight over differently wrong ideas. E pluribus unum really is a worthwhile thing. All it takes is a desire that it should be so. I fear we are losing that desire and if we do, then very bad things will follow.
I don’t see how any intellectually honest, patriotic person could disagree with your position.
One of the lies the Left uses is that to become an American means to abandon one’s heritage. No matter how many examples there are of Americans celebrating their heritage, this still has a lot of impact when it is used to convince people that they should not consider themselves Americans first.
We see millions of Americans of Irish heritage celebrating Saint Patrick’s day (and please PLEASE don’t call it “Saint Patty’s Day”—“Patty” is an American nickname for Patricia, and the Irish nickname for Patrick is “Paddy”) without thinking this is a betrayal of their American identity. My grandmother spoke Czech with her Czech friends her whole life, and cooked Czech food, but was an American through and through and spoke perfect English.
If our worry is that only people of Western Civilization can become American, then I hate to break it to you, but Mexicans are as much a part of Western Civilization as we are. I once read an article saying that Mexico and Central and South America could be the saviors of Western Civilization, in a cultural war that boils down to Western values vs Islam. Most Americans have much more in common with Latinos, culturally and religiously, than they do with secular Europe.
Both sides have taken up positions which are simply not true – the left that America is so bad that it needs to change into something else, the right that you have to be of a certain type to be American.
I guess I missed this: the right that you have to be of a certain type to be American. Along with But this failure is seconded by many on the right. The way this is done is to presume that only certain types of people can be American and transmit the American ideal this is not something I have ever heard from any conservative, unless when you say “of a certain type” you mean someone who is willing to respect the nation and its laws and become an American. It is “the right” which is encouraging people to stop dividing themselves into tribes but to think of themselves as Americans.
I wonder if, when you wrote these two things, you were thinking of Muslims as being a “type” many “on the right” don’t think “can be American and transmit the American ideal”. And you are probably right, if by “Muslim” you mean people who cannot, due to their religion, acknowledge the rule of American law over Islamic law. Because this is at the heart of any idea that Muslims might be not able to be true Americans—-it is THEIR teachings, not prejudice, that leads to this concern.
That is it, or at least the view of it I was trying to describe. To be sure, people who come from outside the Judeo-Christian West will have a harder task adapting to American life than someone who comes from within the overall civilization. Think of the difficulties that Japanese and Chinese had when they first arrived here – even some of the basic things about “good manners” are just different between Western Civilization and, say, Japanese Civilization. But the trick can be managed by anyone, if they want to do it – and will be managed by those who come here if we insist upon it.
Another thing often left off the whole debate is not just where the immigrants are coming from, but what subset of the foreign population we’re taking in. I think we can all agree that an Indian or Nigerian doctor is a splendid addition to the American tapestry and is, of course, pretty much immediately able to contribute greatly to society. On the other hand, a subsistence farmer from Oaxaca who might not even speak Spanish is not so easily woven into the fabric of America. That can, indeed, be done, but let’s not kid ourselves that we’re going to turn such into a high-level, contributing member of American society right after they get here.
This is really all in Sowell’s books, anyways – good to understand things such as 19th century Polish immigrants…those who immigrated from German-controlled Polish territory were much more advanced in education and skills than those who immigrated from Russian-controlled Polish territory (Poland, at the time, not being an independent nation). They were all Poles, of course – spoke the same language, had many shared ideas and were also all part of Western Civilization…but, still, differences abounded between the two different varieties and the lower-skilled, less-educated Poles tended to gravitate to the bottom of the economic ladder…and it took them longer to assimilate into the American mainstream than the more-skilled, better-educated Poles. If we were a choosy nation back then, we would have blocked Polish immigration from the Russian Empire and opened the flood gates to Polish immigration from the German Empire. It wasn’t so much of an issue back then because our population was much lower and our economic growth was much higher.
But now, maybe, it is time to be a bit selective. Even if we don’t want to shut off the more non-Western (or, perhaps, non-advanced) parts of the world, we can still be a bit picky…at least to insisting upon literacy and a command of the English language? This is all debatable – and we’re not even debating it because we’re at the Progressive level on things: anything which remotely speaks to control of immigration is “racist”.
Brandon Smith has a slightly different, although I think compatible take on this topic. I honestly think that this is an issue that needs to be widely discussed, and the more Americans that are exposed to the competing aspects of it the better. I would bet that the vast majority of people who have a knee jerk disagreement with your position couldn’t give you a rational explanation of why they disagree.
I was very confused by this article. This made sense to me: The fact of the matter is, tribalism revolves around sets of principles; meaning, some people hold principles that are completely incompatible with other people principles.
Then he started to lose me: Some principles simply cannot be reconciled with other principles, and they cannot coexist. Groups tend to form around principles, and thus, certain groups cannot live in close proximity with other groups. When they do live in close proximity, one will invariably absorb the other or destroy the other. I don’t agree with this. I can think of too many groups based on specific principles which co-exist with other groups with equally strong, specific but different principles. Catholic and Jew are two examples, but you can pick any two (or more religions). The statement is only true if one of the religions demands total submission or eradication, so I would not say assimilation or destruction are “invariably” the only two possible outcomes.
I agree with him when he says You cannot have two or more diametrically opposed cultures within the same society — one of them has to take precedence over all the others but that is not the same as capitulation or destruction. I also don’t equate a “culture” with a “tribe”.
The existence of tribalism might lead to conflicts if opposing cultures are deliberately mashed together, but it also makes the formation of a single overarching tyranny very difficult. Globalists seek to irritate existing divisions and trigger chaos between groups because ultimately, they want to demonize the very concept of tribalism and make way for a one world ideal that fits their agenda.
I don’t see the efforts of the Left to constantly create new “tribes” and then pit tribes against each other as having the end goal of making tribalism so distasteful people will opt for tyranny because it is unifying. I see it merely as a strategy to keep people from bonding in spite of superficial differences, in a “divide and conquer” strategy.
The tactics of the Left are always long-range and sequential. I think we are in the “divide and conquer” stage of the overtaking of America, and only when that has thoroughly destabilized the country will the next stage be implemented, one which does not tolerate divisions at all. They will have to deal with the fact that this stage and that stage are totally at odds with each other, but their base is not very discerning and has a short memory.
I guess my problem with the article is the way the author uses the words “tribal” and “tribalism” because it is so different from my own perception that I kind of stub my toe on the words whenever he uses them.
I do think he made a good point, one which has been made here, which is that most on the Left lack actual principles upon which they base their political and societal allegiances. But the main thing I took away from the article is the need to define terms in a way that makes a word mean the same thing to different people.
For example, gender has never been “tribal” but thanks to the efforts of the Left it now is. Now to many women their gender is not merely a biological fact but the foundation for what they think of as a set of firm principles, many of not most of them pitting them against many other people. No one ever argued against women so to create a “tribe” of women it was necessary to invent a set of “principles” some women could use to define themselves and therefore set themselves up as separate and often in conflict with others. Take color. It used to be just a matter of ethnic and/or geographic backgrounds, with awareness of cultural differences. Now, thanks to the Left, it has become a matter of different tribes. as so many black people now believe their blackness is part of a set of principles that include distrust of and hatred of white people. Now there are “principles” associated with color.
Go down the list. Now gay people are not just people who are attracted to people of the same sex, they are a tribe, with a set of principles and a name (LGTBXwhatever) and not only that, their set of principles puts them in conflict with most of the country.
So I see “tribalism” as a construct and tool of the Left, as part of its destabilization strategy. They may hurl the word at people who are politically in opposition to them, but in reality the Left needs and depends on tribalism, and works very hard to create it wherever it can.
It is an interesting take on it, but I’m still not entirely sure where he wanted to go with it – when I say, “tribalism” I mean holding to the smaller group as opposed to any dealings with the larger. I would be tribalist if I only got on with fellow Catholics, or fellow people of Irish descent. To me, that can’t be what America is about – if we are to be tribalist, then it has to be in favor of the American tribe, as it were.
To me, the problem exposed but the sudden, massive immigration of Muslims to Europe is only partially about the Muslims…if Europe was populated by people who still believed in anything other than having a good time, then the number of Muslims who have come in wouldn’t be an issue…and there would be little risk of a Muslim takeover because a vigorous Europe which still held to it’s Judeo-Christian roots would be rapidly converting the immigrant Muslims to their views.
The European Ruling Class figured that they needed cheap labor to make up for the fact that birth control and abortion have done their work…people in Europe aren’t having kids. So, import new people – but I can see the curl of contempt on the lips of Muslim youth as they stroll around Europe. I can understand why they act like they are masters – because they soon will be, and not by becoming 50%+1 of the population. They will become masters because the weak-willed Europeans clearly don’t want to fight to defend themselves…or, at least not enough of them do. Wilders went down to defeat today, and I expect LePen will in France shortly (not that I’ve any real admiration for LePen on policy…but at least she does represent a bit of fighting spirit in France). Why wouldn’t Muslim youth have a swagger in such a situation? If they were confronted by men and women willing to fight to defend what they have, it would be a different story…but all the Europeans seem to want is to make sure the welfare checks keep coming.
This ought to cause blood to shoot our of Liberals’s eyes.
And guess who bought into the progressive narrative and said that he hoped Rep. King didn’t mean what he said. That would be Paul Ryan.
America is a creed. A creed of self governance, independence, liberty, and personal accountability and those charters are an anathema to the progressive agenda. The left must destroy the very ideal of America in order to advance their agenda and power and they were well on their way after 8 years of Obama with plans to put the finishing touches on it with election of Hillary Clinton. Thank GOD, red blooded Americans in fly over country stopped that.
By the way, I love the Hispanic culture and you are right, we have much more in common with our friends to south than we do our comrades “across the pond”.
I still cut Ryan a lot of slack – he is a smart man and, within his lights, is trying to do the right thing. But he is still a product of an older version of the GOP where everyone agreed to the Progressive Narrative. I think he was clearly delighted and astonished by the victory last November and has absorbed many lessons from it…but it is too much, perhaps, to expect a 180 on his attitude.
I like Paul too and his intentions are good but he does need to stiffen his spine a little.
I am thinking about going back to college:
‘A transgender woman is just as much of a woman as I am’: Sorority makes history after president announces that it will open its doors to trans pledges nationwide
I always wanted to live at a Sorority
Now that you don’t have to have surgery or hormone therapy or even dress like a woman to be considered a “woman” you might as well.
You know when S will hit F? When a 6’2″ self-identified “woman” wants to play sports as a woman.
So you’re saying I have a chance? LOL
And I agree, the WNBA could get interesting.
So it’s a good thing I watch MSNBC because this morning on Morning Joe I learned that people will die if the ACA is repealed. That President Trump is a habitual liar and his absurd claim that the Obama and the federal government wiretapped him will bring down his Presidency, and Mika sadly noted that the GOP budget has no soul and will hurt seniors and children the most.
You see these are the kind of insights only found on MSNBC.
You have to love bluntness.
There is a whole lot to digest in this study which was detailed in this NYT Op Ed. I haven’t read the entire piece yet but came across some really good nuggets, including this one:
“boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”
Haven’t conservatives been pointing this out now for quite some time? Yet we seemed to be personally attacked every time we do. Odd.This study actually makes a great argument for conservatism and against those agendas of feminists and progressives, yet that doesn’t stop the author from making this claim:
It would be paradoxical if the right-wing takeover of the country on Nov. 8 were to instigate significant policy initiatives to address this problem. Or perhaps not so paradoxical, given that males who are particularly conflicted about their disempowered status in American life — and who are the most loyal Trump supporters — might be the ultimate beneficiaries of this kind of reform.
RIGHT WING TAKEOVER !!! Love that phrase.
Just how bad is this Hawaiian judges decision to impose a nationwide injunction on Trump’s travel ban/suspension?
I’m guessing Trump won’t go full Andrew Jackson on this judge, but it does beg the question, what if an immigrant or refugee from one of the 6 countries launches an attack that kills and maims dozens of Americans? Can this judge and the state attorney general who filed the suit be held accountable?
As is the current state of our judiciary. Littered with deep state authoritarians. They are as much of a problem as career federal bureaucrats who are unelected and unaccountable and impose regulations driven by their agenda. It’s a YUGE problem. And of course I take exception with the following:
“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim.
Someone needs to point out to the judge that his “First Amendment constitutional right” is because of his American citizenship, not because he is Muslim. Muslims actually don’t react too kindly to free speech. But who am I to correct a Harvard Law graduate?
Seriously though, can you imagine the backlash if a bunch of Americans die because of this judge’s decision?
It may unfortunately have to come to that to knock some sense into these mindless, politically correct progressives. However, even if that did happen, I can still see them blaming Trump for “enflaming hatred towards the west”. Remember, we need to be careful not to piss off the Muslims.
Well, a district court judge has jurisdiction in his district. The only judges in this country with national jurisdiction are the Supreme Court justices (and they don’t even have to be judges, but i digress…) But this guy takes it upon himself to not only override federal law and a presidential executive order, he presumes to make his order binding across the whole nation?
Can this judge and the state attorney general who filed the suit be held accountable? Once again, we need to pass legislation making the oath of office binding. As the oath of office of judges includes upholding the law and protecting and defending the Constitution, antics like this could result in removing this guy from the bench. Ditto for the attorney general and anyone else in the administration in Hawaii who thinks he or she can just make things up as they go.
So here’s a good article about the NHS in Britain:
And one excerpt:
According to the UK Independent, district nurses declined by nearly 50 percent from 2000 to 2014 and 15 percent from 2014 to 2016.
So after all of their extensive training and schooling, nurses object to an oppressive work load and being reimbursed 50 cents on the dollar for their services by federal bureaucrats??
Who could have ever predicted that?
The bureaucrats obviously didn’t take into account changes in behavior caused by their policies. Progressivism has many faults and shortcomings, but their static view of pretty much everything is one of the most egregious.
I knew a chef in Denver who went to work for a new restaurant that was part of a California chain, and they had brought management out from California. When they stopped paying for trash removal and the trash was piling up and becoming a health hazard, the manger told the chef to just have one of the busboys use his van to take it to the dump. What busboy and what van? Oh, she blithely announced, all busboys drive vans. Problem solved. She had the knowledge to solve the problem. All busboys drive vans.
I am reminded of this every time I hear of some other Progressive policy that hits the wall because it is based on assumptions of how other people will act, said assumptions being based on—-well, on nothing. That is why they are called assumptions, instead of conclusions. Progressives just know things, whether or not they are true.
(BTW, the restaurant failed because it was based on another assumption—that the Denver dining market was the same as that in Los Angeles. They had a very very limited menu, and depended on quick turnover, which worked in LA because there people go out to eat as a matter of course and do so as part of their evening, so they don’t linger. Their business model was 45 minutes to an hour per seating. But in Denver people don’t go out that often, at least to expensive restaurants, and the dining IS the evening, meaning turnovers of about two hours. This restaurant, and its management, come to mind over and over again when some Progressive starts explaining “how things are” and then “how things will be”.)
And here’s this morning’s HuffPo article:
A Budget Is A Moral Document. The One Trump Produced Is Dark.
It targets the elderly and the poor.
And here I thought a budget was a financial document.
Democrats have claimed that Republicans want to kill children and old people for as long as I can remember. Just like the race card, it really doesn’t have much impact any more.
I can’t think of many things more ironic than Progressives becoming outraged at the idea of killing children, when that is a major plank in their platform.
Normally I would expect something like this to originate in California.
The potential unintended consequences are mind-numbing.
On the surface, it sounds like a good way to protect people from malicious postings on the net (Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,” “all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
“and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”…) but that is deceiving.
It looks more like what could be called the CYA law. as it extends the favorite Lefty tool of rewriting history to the Internet. It is certainly loosely written, full of vague terms that would constantly need interpretation—inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate ,‘excessive’, ‘a significant lapse in time’, ‘material to current public debate or discourse’, ‘substantial’—-which would put immense power in the hands of whoever is selected to be the decider.
It would be nice to be able to purge false, defamatory and malicious content from the net, but this bill is so broadly drawn and gives so much power to so few that it can easily be used for political purposes.
and gives so much power to so few that it can easily be used for political purposes.
That was my thought, and, I suspect, the underlying intent of the sponsor of the bill.
and gives so much power to so few that it can easily be used for political purposes.
If a bill is introduced by a Democrat, this is its true intent.