4/16/06

Here is a great plea for Muslims to stand up and tell us what they really feel from FrontPageMag.com.

1/21/06

Check out my blog to read a couple of new postings on how we may be tearing the United States apart from within. 

I've just finished reading a thought provoking essay by Prof. Michael Hart in Jared Taylor's essay compilation, The Real American Dilemma; Race, Immigration and the Future of America.  The title of the essay by this astronomy Ph.D is "Racial Partition of the United States". 

In this essay Hart proposes partitioning or creating separate states in what is currently the United States.  The premise is that multinational states, like the current United States, do not work very well and indeed are wrought with ethnic battles, often bloody.  Hart cites a definition of "nation" as: "a body of people marked off by common descent language, culture, or historical tradition". Hart begins by pointing out several historic examples with resultant deaths numbering in the millions.  Obviously the conflicting nationalities Hart refers to within this country are the blacks and the whites.  Whites founded this country with a European tradition and today many blacks do not choose to share in that tradition.  Hart provided compelling evidence to make his case that blacks in America are indeed a separate nation.  Here are some of the behaviors he states as such evidence:

-Frequent demands for racial preferences in hiring, promotions, college admissions, etc.

-Self-segregation on campuses, including requests for separate dormitories. 

-Formation of specifically black subgroups within most large organizations, including the American Bar Association, the American Anthropological Association, the American Museum Association and many others (I'm sure you can think of a few).

-Extreme bloc voting:  It is common for more than 90% of blacks to vote for the same candidate in an election. 

-A separate black holiday, Kwanzaa, which was invented primarily to emphasize black separateness. 

-There is an (unofficial) black national anthem, "Lift Every Voice and Sing."

-There is also an unofficial black national flag.

-Many all-black private schools use a black nationalist, even separatist curriculum.  For example, in one such school, instead of reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance," the children recite a "Pledge to African People."  At another (the Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California), the students pledge each morning to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."

While many blacks do identify proudly with the United States he feels that most of them still identify more as blacks than Americans.  I see this almost every day when I see and hear the hurricane Katrina "victims", reflect upon the O.J. Simpson trial or the Rodney King fiasco. 

Hart and I feel that the absolute wrong thing to do is to continue with the shaming and blaming of whites for the failings of blacks in this country and throughout the world.  Today's America is arguably much more "sensitive" to the black cause than ever before with all of the government programs and curriculums designed to take the responsibility away from blacks for their own actions and place it on whites.  Still, many of the indicators of a failed "nation" are worse than ever.  Welfare, crime, illegitimacy, unemployment are off the charts in the black community.  Add immigration to the mess, legal and illegal, from primarily third-world nations and you've got yourself an emerging third-world lifestyle right here in the good ol' U. S. of A. 

What to do?  Hart says partition.  I've never really considered it so it sounded sorta whacky to me.  The proposal is basically this...3 nations/states get created.  One Black, one white, and one integrated as the country is today.  Whites could not be citizens of the black state, nor blacks of the white state.  If you want to integrate, choose the integrated state.  Before the move actually takes place you decide where you want to be.  At that point the land is split up, by value, not area.  The tangible wealth of each nation should be roughly proportionate to the initial population of the new state.  Each state should be contiguous, and have a wide variety of resources.  At some point you must move to the state of your choice.  He says the government would compensate us for our movement expenses and property.  He doesn't give much detail on how these now separate nations would be governed but it appears that he wants each to govern itself, to live or die on its own. 

This is a pretty complicated scenario, to be sure.  My first inclination is to think that it is not possible.  Then, I think of possible alternatives such as a civil war between blacks and whites.  Such a race war would certainly be a much more divisive episode and would result in countless loss of life and not much long term civil order.  So, in the end, partitioning doesn't sound so crazy to be but it also doesn't sound likely at all.  There are many details that would have to be ironed out with respect to the perceived equality of the resultant national divisions that we'd likely go to war over just attempting to do this.  Whites, the primary landowners today, would end up losing more financially by having to turn over land.  Blacks and whites would see a forced migration from the areas where they grew up as an undue hardship.  I just can't see a sufficient level of agreement when the impact is so widespread and so much is at stake.  Though it would be better than a race war. 

With a little extra time on my hands over the Winter Solstice holiday break I've purchased a few books and started some reading.  First, I bought E.O. Wilson's compilation of Charles Darwin's 4 great works (Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals).  I've read "The Origin" before and I'm looking forward to The Descent of Man and the Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals as these deal more directly with humans.  I've also recently bought 2 books by Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions and The Real American Dilemma.  Both books are hard hitting pieces on the social and genetic realities of race and race relations.  I have started reading The Real American Dilemma and I really feel like reading this at the same time as Darwin's works is proving to be an eye opener.  Darwin speaks pretty candidly about his observations as does Jared Taylor 150 years later.  I'll give you more specifics and parallels later.  The beginning of Taylor's book made the very interesting observation that discussing race in the United States, and even the world, today has become much like discussing religion.  No matter how much you want to infuse either discussion with facts, figures and rational analysis, you are shut down by what can be termed faith.  Certainly, religious discussions steer clear of facts in deference to faith and likewise has gone the discussion of race.  These books by Jared Taylor make no apologies for their lack of political correctness and have been attacked, not for their facts, which are meticulously gathered and presented, but presumably because the opposition simply does not want the facts reported.  This is a very bad state of affairs and one that reminds me of the religious witch hunts in the U.S. and Europe.

I've long been seeking a good definition of modern conservatism and something that illustrates the difference from liberalism.  The following passages, religious references notwithstanding, are about the best I've found. 

Conservatism could mean free-market economics, the reassertion of traditional morality, or the endorsement of a religious or classical basis for moral thought."

                   -James Q. Wilson

"...reason operating within tradition."  "...the individual is superior to the state, state power should be limited, Communism and the Soviet Union were deep threats that must be overcome."

                    -Frank Meyer

I think Charles Murray captures the key difference between liberalism and conservatism:

"At root, they draw from different conceptions of the nature of man.  The Left holds an unconstrained vision:  Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected.  Success is defined by what people have the potential of becoming, not by people as they are.  The Right holds a constrained vision:  People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated.  Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics."

                     -Charles Murray

Just finished reading "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.  I'm not sure exactly how but I had no idea this guy even existed.  Turns out that he's pretty widely quoted and has appeared on many popular television programs.  I guess I just wasn't paying close attention.  This book is an absolutely terrific critique of religion.  Very direct and unapologetic.  What resonated with me most was his recognition that it is altogether possible that we are doomed to destroy humanity if we let any religion escape critical examination and the knife of reason.  They are all the same and letting even one off of the hook is the enabler of them all.  I have long felt as he does, even if not entirely devoted in practice, that we must begin to overtly question anyone that makes a ridiculous claim in support of or allegedly supported by religion.  We encounter religious superstition each and every day and have been conditioned by society to not hold the claims up to the light of reason.  We must call bullshit when we encounter any manner of myth, from the seemingly innocent "god bless you" after you sneeze to the Middle Eastern war cry "god tells us that this is our land".  It is a hard thing to do in social situations with co-workers, friends, relatives and even strangers but we all need to make an effort to find more opportunities to carefully point out the obvious unsupported leaps of faith taken by the majority of people we encounter every day.  Then, and only then, will we have a chance to end religion and the rein of terror it has had on humankind for thousands of years.  What's the worst that could happen?