The United States Supreme Court just reversed a 17 year old decision, and struck down a Texas law prohibiting sexual acts between homosexuals. The state of Texas is no longer allowed to exercise any punitive measures against homosexuals for homosexual acts. (In 1986, the Court had ruled that a Georgia law prohibiting a homosexual act was constitutional.)
Homosexuals throughout the world have rejoiced mightily, seeing this United States ruling as their greatest victory yet in their war against the moral values of Judeo-Christian society. It's all in an effort to legalize homosexual marriage, critics say. Homosexuals want equality, in every social, legal, moral aspect of the word. To destroy (by usurpation) the historical meaning of the words marriage, family, and even love, appears to be the result of the homosexual lobby. This they are empowered to do by having first usurped the word equality itself. The way they use the word, equality means having no standard, no social values, no morals. Of course, once wielding their version of the word equality, words like standard, value, moral, all fall out together. All language is used to justify what they want. No, it isn't about privacy. It's about freedom to recruit. They want to be free to do what they want in private, but also in public, and they want to teach public school children all about their homosexuality.
In such a trend, one day homosexuals will get a law passed that will prohibit parents from teaching their children that homosexuality is evil. Parents will not have the freedom to value what they want in their own home. What will become of their privacy?
Homosexuals make up between 1 to 2 percent of the American population, (despite their boasted exaggerations of over 10%.) Of course, American culture has taken great pride in its defense of individual rights, protection of minority rights, etc. (as long as you leave out the American Indian). This principle has made life easier for many, many people. But way leads on to way, as Robert Frost said, and at this point people seem to cherish their narcissism rather than the health of the country.
Homosexuality is a malignant narcissism, in the sense that it spreads. Homosexuals might say the same of natural (hetero-) sexuality. History is really the only argument to make here. Homosexual populations flurish at the brink of disastrous social change, as in ancient Greece, and Rome. This is not a particularly moral argument, but only an historical observation.
The fact that there are so few homosexuals in America, and that they hold such presence in media, law, and are able to assert themselves into the private lives of normal families through the public education system, only shows the social imbalance in modern American culture. It is a flaw within capitalism, really. It derives from the fact the our legal system is a competitive business, operating like any other free enterprise. A moralized homosexual case is a highly marketable case. Our legal system is financially driven, and we all live with the distorted effects profiteering has on truth and justice.
People seem free to market vice, but they way our legal system is working, court is a card table. Justice is a game. Lying is a tool. Take a gamble. You might as well win as lose.
Another black athlete, another tragedy. Patrick Dennehy, a promising young college basketball player has been missing since June 11. Police are now suspecting a homicide.
Anyone who knows basketball knows that many of the black players come from ghettos and gangs. Basketball is the cheapest, most available sport in such circumstances, and is has become a sort of cultural identification for blacks, more than any other sport. But the ghetto is merely transported into the coliseum.
There are cultural heros, like Michael Jordon, who, despite his glory, did not escape the plague of crime. His father was murdered. Michael had gambling debts. His wife divorced him.
Young Dennehy transferred from University of New Mexico to Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. He's originally from Oakland, CA, and then played for a Santa Clara high school. "He's a good student, with a radiating personality," said Dave Bliss, Baylor basketball coach.
Sound like what they said about Jason Blair, the fraudulent black journalist of the New York Times. In a TV discuession it was brought out that he was very amicable and talented. His landlady, however, said that it was later discovered that he had a cocaine problem, and his apparement hadn't been cleaned in two years. It was disgusting. Of course, except for this TV discussion, the personal information has been kept out of the media.
The lesson? Money and success do not change a person. Money and success do not solve personal problems. The government may pump tax dollars into social programs, or professional sports teams (or newspapers) may accommodate ghetto-born performers, but all the money and success in the world do not heal the man. The plague of vice and immorality does not have an economic base. Moral failure is not a financial condition.
The tragedies in the lives of black athletes are particularly disappointing, because everyone would rather see black people successful. Most people enjoy watching sports. Black athletes are terrific performers. But now its all a variation on the OJ story. OJ Simpson, king of black athlete moral failure, did more to damage to black people than the KKK could ever imagine.
It seems the media has decided to up the ante on Hillary's new book by placing next to it a book by Anne Coulter. It's all about money, in the end. Never mind what either women actually have to say. Never mind what either woman stands for.
Hillary's Living History came out this June, 2003. It has received phenomenal publicity, even weeks before it came out. It was as if Hillary could snap her fingers and get front page publicity in every paper in the country. Barnes and Noble claims it sold 40,000 copies in the first 24 hours it was available. Impressive. It shows how many women there are like her in America. Scarey thought, eh? Lots of liars out there. Perhaps its a woman's privilege, to lie.
But Ann Coulter certainly isn't known for it. Treason came out in June, also, but represents a completely different set of political values, morals, and different concept of national identity. Ann prizes the United States Constitution. Ann believes in the truth.
Now, how is it that the liberal publishing company Crown, would publish Coulter's book? Richard Poe says that the liberal publishing companies simply want the sales. In a recent article, "Can Liberals Publish Conservative Books?" Poe says liberal publishers just decided to face the financial facts. Certain conservative authors, like Coulter and Michael Weiner-turned-Savage-for-profit simply bring in too much money to ignore.
Poe's article was quoted in the Washington Times. Poe has clearly identified what's happening in the publishing business. Regardless of the message of the author, the publishers simply pick the top conservative authors and rake in their profits. Ann Coulter received at least a million dollars advance for Treason, according to Mike Drudge. No conservative publisher has such money to offer any author.
But is it a good thing that Ann Coulter should be "owned" by the liberal publishing house? What does it say about Ann's message that the liberals do not consider her a threat? Does it not weaken the intent and effect of her effort? Does it matter? Has the Liberal/Communist concept of equalty now seen it's ultimate triumph--the truth is equal to a lie?
Pitting Ann Coulter against Hillary Clinton all about money, not about Ann's message. The popularity contest is about sales, not political influence or social effect on the country. It's just a good cock fight, or, I should say, hen scratching. People pay to see such things. It's called sport. Probably, the sales figures of Hillary's book are not reliable, but rather financial spin, or, hype and fluff.
Remember, too, Hillary is the woman who decorated the White House Christmas tree with ornament celebrating, not Christ, but sexuality, drugs, and rock and roll. Gary Aldrich gives a detailed account in Unlimited Access, (published by a small conservative company, Regnary, back in 1998). The twelve lords-a-leaping came in a mobile of naked male figures with large erections. That was 1994. The year before, Hillary featured "Bertha's Big Butt," a black statue of a completely naked women with steatopygia, typical of the women of certain central African tribes. This statue she wanted all White House visitors to see.
Hillary's actions have always spoken much more eloquently than the words of her ghost writers. Nobody really knows Ann Coulter's actions. All we have are her words, and they certainly shouldn't be classed with those of an avowed enemy of the State.
JewishWorldReview writer Scott Ott reports that 13,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have petitioned the U.S. government to grant them a homeland out in America's "wasted space out west." If that isn't outrageous enough, the fact is these Arabs and Muslims are illegal immigrants. According to reports, there are some 82,000 adult males who were required to register with immigration service because of the fact that they come from Muslims countries. These 13,000 are those whose visas had lapsed, and they face deportation.
"This is a major concern. They are planning to reduce the number of Muslims on American soil... discourage Muslim immigration, make our lives difficult," says Fayiz Rahman of the American Muslim Council.
Poor things. How dare America deny them the right to their Cadillac, and their right to own American land. How dare America wrong them this way. After all, they were born into the world, like all other human beings. Doesn't that qualify them to be American citizens, and to own part of America?
This is the final stage of Liberal, Communist thinking. All are equal. All deserve whatever there is to be had in the world. America is obligated to every person born in the world. The world owns America. It is only arrogance on the part of middle-aged white men that would suggest otherwise. America is evil to behave otherwise.
The American Arab Institute studiously monitors all such evil behavior toward Arabs living in America. The web site proudly displays the American flag as it's top banner, defending the rights of the oppressed--in the grand American tradition. What could be more authenticating for them? Since the King Nightmare of the '60's, to be a victim is the foundation for being an American.
The BBC, as well as other European news agencies, is of course quick to hold America accountable to its standards. America's critics are generally those who are most anxious to prove themselves superior, at least in word or thought. And of course they have great allies within America, great watchdogs of American values, people who work to make sure everyone in the world can have their Cadillac. Righteousness in politics, it is. Political righteousness. Nothing to do with personal morality. This is way beyond that. We're talking global righteousness, you know, the kind that wants Bill Clinton as its messiah.
Hispanics aren't fairly represented on American TV! It's a crisis. Why, the largest minority group in America is hardly seen in the media. Only 3% of total screen time was given to the Hispanics by the six major networks in 2002, according to a recent UCLA study. They make up 13.5 percent of the population (that we know of them), yet they just haven't made it on the great American stage. (Does it have anything to do with the fact that they speak Spanish?)
There's a lot of Spanish TV in America, and lot's of other foreign language groups have their own networks, also. Are they counting these numbers? Or are they only talking about major English speaking networks in an English speaking country? "Spanish-language television doesn’t make up for Hispanics’ exclusion from the dominant networks," Alex Nogales said. Head of the National Hispanic Media Coalition of Los Angeles, Nogales said the 2003 show line-ups reflect scant improvement. So they simply want America to be more Spanish, to reflect their hoards of illegals living here.
So, the Latinos want to be on prime time American TV, because they are such a big part of American life now. Last week, the Census Bureau announced that the number of Hispanics has grown four times the national population rate in the past two years. Such numbers, legal, illegal, mindlessly reproduced, all demand equal TV time!
TV is the test. Media is the key measurement of one's status in America life. If you're not on stage, you really haven't made it in America. If you don't get equal attention, equal "idolized" time, you just haven't cut it yet. You don't have what it takes. You're not there.
(Funny, the Spanish-speaking shows I've seen always used very white-looking people, speaking Spanish. I don't see any brown-skinned, illegal Mexican immigrants being given their time on Spanish shows. Why is this? They are the ones making up the new population "numbers" to which the Hispanic leaders refer to make their argument for more prime time American TV featuring Hispanics.)
This kind of "numbers" thinking represents the excess of egotism, capitalism, and all that is ill with American society. America is a place for individual initiative and achievement, yes. If that's egotism, so be it. America is a place for free enterprise, where one can compete on the basis of quality product or service. That's capitalism. But to say a minority race deserves TV time is not only perverted egotism, but myopic political posturing, and insults the whole idea of the American values.
That American TV should become the litmus test of one's status in the world is a pathetic commentary on any society that concedes such a test as valid. This is all terribly primitive, superficial third world thinking. Civil rights activism started it in the '60's. King's dream was a degrading nightmare, in the final analysis. His kind of Communist equality cripples achievement, and destroys accomplishment, and brings nothing but discontent for all.
I'm not talking about pornography, prostitution. or "exotic" dancers. I'm talking about the philosophy of nudity, and the nudist camps in Florida. This subject was part of Joe Scarborough's show last night, Monday (23rd). Joe had on Florida Congressman Mark Foley, and featured a letter Foley had just written to Florida Governor Jebb Bush. Foley questions the legitimacy of marketing nudity to minors. The camp specifically named in the letter is the Camp Como Resort, in Land-O'Lakes, Florida. The camps are for children ages 11-18.
Nudist camps are certainly not new, in America, or in Europe. They've been around a long time, actually. There has always been a philosophical sort of justification for the phenomenon, laced with a quasi-religious identity, of course. Such an outrage needs severe explanation.
I remember when I was at Yale Divinity, living in New Haven one summer, I was walking through the YDS apartment complex for graduate and married students, and I came across a large group of children 2 to 4 years old, all playing outdoors in a make shift nursery, stark naked.
I held my breath until I met up with the first administrator in my path: Jill Bigwood, Director of Financial Aid. "Jill!" I gasped for breath, "What's going on?! There are a group of kids out on the lawn all naked!"
"Oh, calm down," she laughed. She was a transcendent liberal (with a luxurious personality, and attractive to boot). She was most motherly to everyone, and much appreciated, too. But I had to bring this matter to her attention.
"It's perfectly normal!" she assured me. "My daughter's running the nursery. She's trying to teach them about gender equality, and not to be ashamed..."
We suddenly heard a blood curdling scream of an adult, from down the hall from her office.
She laughed again, as I was numb with this additional shock. "That's the new experimental psychotherapy. They're trying to teach people to re-live their personal experience of child birth."
Oy vey! Too much for one morning. Nudity and adult screaming techniques--not the religion I was looking for.
That was years ago. Today nudity, in all its forms, is a big business. Therapy is foundational to our whole culture. These things are here, all around us. Is America terminal, morally speaking? What can be done at this point? Willful naivete?. Believe in her, even when she's sinking. Fight for her, even when she betrays you. Preserve her, even when she doesn't want to live. Fight to the last man, and at least your own conscience will be clear.
That year Jill made me go into debt, borrowing money when I had already obtained enough scholarship to pay for that year. "No, we need to spread the money around to other students. You all need loans. It's the government's investment in you. It's a good investment."
Not for a crazy Indian who never got ordained. Then again, it took me years to pay off the loan. The government made a lot off me in interest.
I have objected to those that call for a second violent revolution in Iran. I have openly criticized Michael Ledeen, who holds a scholar's chair at the American Enterprise Institute, for his dedicated purpose of fomenting such a revolution. Front Page Magazine has rejected my ariticles of objection. And though I myself have written several articles for American Enterprise Online, none on this Iranian subject have been accepted. I risk my own professional status as a writer by contradicting Ledeen. Yet, I feel he, and other American journalists, have been irresponsible with Iranian people. I must protest.
When they say it is in our best inteserest for a regime change in Iran, and the only way to bring it about is through violence, they all betray their own self-interests as journalists. Of course it would be in our best interest for Iran to join the rest of the world. The world has been robbed of one of its most precious jewels of all history, Persia.
But let Americans never forget that the Richard M. Nixon 'regime' was instrumental in causing the first revolution. Kissinger and the Rockefellers (David and Nelson) were big players, too.
For example, the way Americans living in Iran were exempted from all Iranian law was just too outlandish not to created a reaction. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), also known as the Capitulations, insulted every since of dignity in the Iranian people. (James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion (1988), p. 156, f.
The Majlis had narrowly passed the bill in 1964. The Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) had first dissolved the Majlis in 1961, but revived it in 1963. The new governing body was composed of university educated professionals, and that in itself should indicate source of their general resistance to the monarchy. "University educated" generally means "communist oriented." The Shah was trying to bring reforms, but there were forces taking advantage of the word "change." Communism had a stronger hold in Iran than many realized.
The fact is, nonetheless, the Shah brought Iran to the cutting edge of world politics and power. Yes, the United States was a willing partner. (There are those who believe that the whole Pahlavi regime was created, then destroyed, by the CIA. I actually heard that from an Iranian friend in Connecticut, in 1981.)
But it seemed that the Shah, then head of OPEC, offened the West when he commanded higher oil prices. (He was struggling with interior economic problems at home after the oil prices fell in 1975). It looks like the West (particularly the US) did not want such a powerful figure in the Middle East. The Shah must go. The US has supported all other other Middle East countries against Iran, at one time or another, including Iraq.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, 1919-1980
So, the US and Britain just play chess with those oil-rich countries? We start and stop revolutions at will?
If there is any doubt about this, now is the opportunity to show sincerety. The Iranian people, more than half of whom are 18 and under in age, are ready for a change. It is a deep feeling, all over the country. This is true.
But they are not armed, they do not like guns, and they will not have another violent revolution. Reza Pahlavi has campaigned repeatedly against violence. This says a lot. The people believe the process will evolve, and not require a gigantic nation wide revolution.
Why don't we listen to the Iranian people, from inside Iran? Only the careless egotists of Western press will continually try to foment revolution. This kind of carelessness led to the first revolution. These so-called authorities on Iran care more about their own journalistic bravura than they care about the Iranian people. It is that Western presumption of superiority at work, I'm deeply disappointed to say. This is what offended Iranian people the first time.
I say let the new generation live, and bring about its own change, naturally. They love America, and almost everything they know about freedom. I know. I've been over there, and talked with many young people. We don't need to have western journalists midleading them with arrogance and selfish designs.
The entire time I was there in Iran, I never once heard a single complaint about the United States, or about the crippling sanctions against Iran, which have helped keep their country in poverty. I heard them say, repeatedly, "Dr. Yeagley, we love America! Please tell everyone back home!"
So let's not betray these beautiful young people. Let's not indulge the warped self-glorifying notions of yellow news journalists here in America. The Persians are a wonderful people. They will evolve in their own time and way. It seems to me that Reza Pahlavi would be a most excellent leader, too. He is still young, and not only speaks against violent revolution, but also has no urgency about monarchy. He has openly said he would not even try to lead unless the people wanted him.
He has also said that to set up a regime by violence, at least in Iran, will only ensure that another regime will arise to topple it, by violence.
There is enormous news these days about Prince William (son of Prince Charles), heir to the English Crown. The lad has hit twenty-one. He's a man now, or so we hope. There's a stamp made in his honor already.
Charles and son William
Of course, every English journalist is cashing in on the story. "He resembles his mother, Diane," they say, remembering how much they raked in off her! Well it may be. But is this a good thing for England?
The Queen years ago referred to Diane as an "adventuress," and more recently a Conservative Party minister called her "a loose cannon." Charles showed very poor judgment all the way around. Young William's disdain for the Royal customs indeed reflects that of his mother's.
One crusty old British commentator last night on TV said that he had never seen in the history of a royal family any father that had been so totally involved in the training of his son. Let's hope not! Let's hope the boy shows more sense than his father has, at least when it comes to women.
And this is where it ends. The English are entitled to idolized their beloved royal family. However, there is some objectivity needed in this continued media frenzy.
The most well trained prince in the world is Reza Pahlavi, son of the great Shahanshah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Reza Pahlavi
By the age of 21, Reza had already become an accomplished jet fighter pilote. At only 17, he said that all his endeavors were for his people. "I must know their wants and desires. To have an idee fixe and prevail upon the people in spite of their instincts is something I am totally against. There must be a system where everyone can have his say and make his feelings known." Peter Louis Templeton, The Persian Prince (1979), pp.51, 52. Imagine such maturity, at such a time, at such a young age.
I think he is one of the most qualitifed human beings in the world. He could lead any country wisely. I told him as much a couple of years ago, when I sat down with him. "You should really become President of the United States," I said. "You could work wonders." He and is staff got a kick out of such a remark. I was actually serious, though. I know that Persians are incredibly talented. The Prince recognized that my compliment was most sincere.
"Well," he humbly said, "one has to be a native-born citizen..."
"Oh, well," I continued, "these are liberal days. Look at Clinton. Anyone can make it!"
The Prince answered, "I suppose if I could re-define citizenship the way he has re-defined sexuality, maybe I have a chance!"
His book Winds of Change (Regnery, 2002) should be read by everyone, really. It is about democracy, and he doesn't mean Communism. I just want to see what the Persians (Iran) would do with real democracy. Reza says Iran simply doesn't have the practical experience of working with it.
World-renown Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr says, "Persia from time immemorial has played this role of imposing unity upon the multiplicity of ideas, forms and motifs that have entered its borders from East and West, thereby bringing into being a new creation fresh and profoundly Persian." Roloff Beny, Persia Bridge of Turquoise (McClelland and Stweart Ltd, 1975), p.34.
So lets see it. Let's see how the Persians manage true democracy. My hunch is that we will all learn much from it. I've suggested it before. I'm patiently waiting.
"There are still terrorists in our midst," Attorney General John Aschcroft declared yesterday, after Iyman Faris was captured and revealed his connections to Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and the plans of Osama bin-Laden. New York's Brooklyn Bridge was the next target.
Not a revelation. Furthermore, liberal critics seem to object to anyone, especially an "American Citizen," being labeled a terrorist, or treated in any but the most royal American manner. Why, the Pakistani-born creep had become a naturalized American citizen in 1999. He deserves all his legal rights to be here, act like a "hard-working" American, and plot the mass murder of other Americans.
Notice the foul Faris is identified as an "Ohio truck driver." What could be more down to earth? What could be more normal? News writers always dramatize, but this is a case of criminal journalism. If the point is to show how deceptive these terrorists are, then the effort fails completely. Faris needs to be identified as the murderous Muslim he is. The headline should read: "Murderous Muslim Caught." And the non-Muslim American public needs to be put on total alert for Muslim murderers. The "truck driver" bit is a mis-emphasized point. Who cares about how we are deceived by the Muslims? Deport the Arab/Pakastani Muslims! That's the most logical and easiest response.
The effort of the government to perfect the screening of white female grandmothers at airports is not the action that needs to be taken. The Patriot Act, opening the door to the loss of American freedoms, is wholly mistaken. This approach of course guarantees plenty of jobs for government workers, of course. It it supposed to make sense to preserve rights for American citizens by not throwing out all Muslims just because there are a few terrorists among them. It would appear to be the more patient, more "compassionate" way of dealing with the problem.
But that's like saying "Let the disease have its place. Disease has a right to invade. We will develop our medical, surgical skills, and remove organs, arms, legs, and save the life. But we must let disease have its opportunity." We mustn't judge a "cell" untill it has spread cancer.
NewsWeek's Danial Klaidman has an ever more insidious suggestion: just let the men live here a while, and they'll be lured out of their terrorism by enjoying the freedom of American life. What a wonderful statement. How joyfully it confirms American values. What's a few thousand innocent lives killed occasionally? Let the great American life itself convinced these terrorists of their folly.
Sure. Let each maniacal terrorist bum find some low-class fat white woman desperate for romance, marry her, become a citizen, and even start a wonderful American family. Let them take jobs from fourth and fifth generation Americans, and become part of the fabric, the mosaic. It's all to the greater glory of multiculturalism, that coerced self-righteousness of godless politicians trying to fake sincerity and goodness. All part of the globalist Communists, still trying to grab the world. Unfortunately, American big business has itself come under their spell. Cheap labor lies at the bottom of a lot of this.
It's just too easy to become an American. It means nothing anymore. America has become a prostitute, in a way, made available to the world for wholesale rape by its own leaders.
It was the cry of the French Revolution, 1789: Liberte (liberty)! Egalite (equality)! et Fraternite (and brotherhood)!
Hard to see that as an active principle in Paris these days. Iranians who want freedom for their countrymen in Iran are being treated like criminals. No freedom wish for them. 150 were arrested Tuesday, and Wednesday three Iranians set themselves aflame in protest.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) protests the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. I thought we were all for that. The US has certainly supported different extensions of the "mujahadin" since the 1980's. Yet, currently the US and Europe has the Mujahadin listed as a terrorist organaization to be undone. French police claim the Paris group was planning attacks. Against whom, and by what evidence, the news does not report.
The people of Iran are certainly voicing their call for "Liberte" with less resistance. This isn't a student demonstration, either. (Ledeen is right about that part.) It is the people if Iran, demonstrating for the eighth night in a row now.
It seems terribly ironic that in Paris, Iranians supporting regime change in Iran are held with suspicion. People have said that France's problem is the enormous population of Arab (and other ethnic) Muslims. The liberal spin (lie) on the situation says France is wondrously becoming Mulsim, and such spin avoids recognizing that if France offends Muslims any too much, there will be a terrible price to pay on the streets of France. France was the most vocal opponent of the US invasion of Iraq.
Is religion then France's problem? Atheism was declared the state 'religion' during the Revolution. The people had become so dissatisfied with the French Catholic leadership, and its history of brutal persecution of French protestants, that they threw the baby out with the bathwater. No more religion. Since then, France has had a flair for dictators and Communists. And now, ever so ironically, the trend is Islam, and that is in the name of liberte, egalite et fraternite.
These Muslim foreigners from the East are so anxious to come and be part of the great Western accomplishments, to luxuriate in the cultural splendor, their Islamicism is somewhat pretentious, I dare say. They are out of place in the salon, yet insist on being there, because that's where they want to be. They can't help it because their dark Muslims. They want to have tea with the cultured whites. And they don't want to be criticized for looking and acting wholly out of place. I say it's a bit naive and culturally immature (childish), and rather annoying in the world, at this point.
The danger of terrorism would urge that they all be send back to their own homes, their own countries, and their own environment. They can play "Frenchman" there. France is a beautiful thing. I'm beginning to get defensive for them. They're acting more stupid than Americans at this point, though we're not far behind.
Is it happening again? According to Michael Ledeen Iran is just ebullient with revolutionary fervor, from Tehran to Masshad, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. In fact, Ledeen (and others) have been calling for student revolution for some time now.
Ledeen, a resident scholar for American Enterprise, wants a total regime change in Iran. Never mind the blood of the new generation of young people in Iran. Ledeen wants a violent revolution. His recent article in the Wall Street Journal says the students are really 'former' students of the last revolution, and are mature adults now. It's for real, not just some wild student thing.
Ledeen was on Bret Hume's Special Report last evening, for FoxNews, June 16. Ledeen describes the situation as exciting, expecting a full revolution soon. He described the horrors of oppression in almost indulgent, juvenile terms, and I testify there was a gleam in his eye. Something was perverted about him, in my opinion. He felt like his predictions were coming true, and his efforts were being rewarded. There was violence again in Iran. There is going to be a revolution.
To be fair, I know Iranians who say, "We have to pay a price." They mean that the only way to change things is through force. (An old Communist trick, by the way.) Not that anyone who wants to see Iran change is a Communist, but, I just think everyone should beware of people who foment revolution the second time in Iran.
Communists use words like "democracy" and "freedom" these days, as they are doing in Iraq. "We want democracy," said Faris Faris, a leader of the Iraqi Communist party. I heard him with my own ears, saw him with my own eyes, on international television.
There is indeed a lot of dissatisfaction in Iran, and the people are weary of the regime. But there are already reports that the demostrations are dying down. The people aren't armed, and I really don't believe they want another violent revolution.
Ledeen has many interesting things to say about the interior conditions of Iran. He said the army does not support the mullahs in using force on the people of Iran. Ledeen describes the situation as really very positive, as if its already happening. The Iranian Revolution II is underway, and Ledeen is its prophet.
I say Ledeen & Co. want regime change, not for the sake of the people of Iran, but for the validity of their own theories. Yes, regime change would be best for the Iranian people, the world, and especially to save Bush and Blair from total embarassment, as Ledeen points out. Ledeen seems delighted that Iranian people should "pay the price." It's only just that they should bleed.
But Ledeen can't count on the French to support him. The French apparently would subvert anything that would lead to the fulfilment of Ledeen's prophecies, like "democracy" in Iran. This one reaction of France might suggest that the democracy Ledeen is hoping to see is in fact the genuine article. To be fair to Ledeen, we must consider the French factor.
We'll just have to wait and see. As the prophet Ledeen says, "No one can predict these things." Indeed.
It all started with some foolish feed industry that ground up animals parts into livestock feed, all in the name of efficiency, I'm sure. They didn't want anything to go to waste. Grind it all up, mix in some other organic material, like saw dust, and you've got bona fide livestock feed.
Then Mad Cow disease, bovine spongiform encephalapathy (BSE) appeared. I've written on it before, but the issue isn't over. It's all still being played out in the economic arena. Countries are still banning each other's beef, because Mad Cow disease is still around. So it's still an international political free-for-all. Never mind the people of the world. This is all about business, the rich boys, and their power.
Canada is ticked at the US for banning Canadian beef. Having already shown the true spirit of competition in picayunishness when Canada banned Brazilian beef, Canada is not about to be out-pic'd by the U.S. But Japan, Australia, and South Korea have also banned Canadian beef. Now this isn't fair. This is international ganging up on poor Canada. (Why, Japan has no hard feelings toward the US over the previous US ban of Japanese beef. Japan is a good economic sportsman.)
Well, Canada has had a rough time of it, for sure, but, the real cheater was England. The whole thing started amongst the jolly ol' Brits.
But now, England has some east Eurpean allies who are trying to blame the disease on Chernobyl! That's right. Its all about radiation, not ground up cow brains fed to cows. It's about radionuclides ingested by cattle, eating grass sprinkled with fall-out from Chernobyl. So it's the Russian's fault, not some greedy English feed manufacturer trying to take advantage of the "spare parts" of cattle. How political can we get?!
Alas, what's the public to do? Whom do we trust? What can we know? We can all become vegetarians, but then we'll have to worry about all the poisons of pesticides. There really seems to be no escape from the iron hand of economy and politics. Our stomachs pay the price of businessmen's mistakes. Our bodies pay for their sins.
For those who believe in the Hebrew God, there is comfort to be found in the ancient scriptures. At a time when Egypt idolized every animal and insect as a god, attributing all things to the "powers" and even the magic of their own healers, God told Moses, "See now that I am He, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Deut. 32:39. I hope we can say the believer needn't be fearful of every germ afloat, adrift, or ensconced in our bowels. Fear creates fanatics, and violent folk. That can't be the ultimate answer to germ warfare. Forget movies like Segal's The Patriot, or Hoffman's Outbreak.
Consider a great Psalm: "He shall deliver thee from the noisome pestilence...the pestilence that walketh in darkness...the destruction that wasteth at noonday...neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked." Psalm 91.
We are apparently headed for very hard times in the future, once again. We can make efforts to make things right, be can be careful as we can. Nevertheless, there are times when things seem out of the control of man. Maybe they always are, and we just don't recognize it until it's so far out that we're desperate. Here endeth the sermon.
When white people tan themselves, it isn't because they want to look Negro, or Mexican, or Indonesian. Tanning is a social event, not some deep ethnic desire. Tanning represents time in the sun, on the beach, and is associated with luxury, or free time to lie around. It also represents health, color, as opposed to peaked animia. It is a social message between whites, and has nothing to do with whites wanting to be another ethnic group, or to even look like another ethnic group.
Even when white women used to perm their hair to the condition of a "fro," this was not to look Negro. This was to imply leisure time, money spent, etc. It was just another "do." It was fashion, culture, and represented social status, not ethnicity. The doll industry really brings all this out. I posted once on the political issues involved in the doll industry, when wome woman thought Indian dolls should have three piece suits, instead of buckskins.
But this argument that white women want to look like a darker ethnic group is superficial, and wholly inaccurate. Yes, tanning is dangerous, but this is not to say looking like a different ethnic group is cause for taking the risk.
Furthermore, darker races are not necessarily dark by virture of sun exposure. Look at the Eskimos in the ice country. Their days are way too short for tanning, plus they seldom ever expose their bodies to the sun.
Solomon's young Shullamite girl said, "I am black, but comely," when she defended herself before the women of Jerusalem. (Song of Solomon 1:4.) "The sun hath looked upon me," she explained. It was her rural, lowly laboring life that gave her the 'tan.' She didn't say she was Negro, African, or dark by ethnicity. Obviously, in those days, (10th Century BC), the tan wasn't so esteemed. The high class women of the city were simply jealous and insulted by Solomon's choice. There is no indication that a tanning industry developed in Palestine, however.
I maintain the matter is strictly egotistical, and sexual in nature. The tan is a message between whites. The tan represents luxury, in higher social circles. That's all. The tan represents time in the sun (though the tanning beds are the big cheat here, and some people have paid the price with skin cancer). It's like pre-washed jeans. It's like gravely, rasping voices of rock singers. Everyone wants to appear they have paid some long, laborious price for something. Ragged time, age, endurance, this is all marketable in America. And therefore it engenders cheating methods. Jeans made to look worn! Imagine. Rock singer voices made to sound old, harsh, worn-out, like they deserve respect for their long, hard "drugged" path. Skin made to look like it has endured long hours of work in the sun.
This is all about marketing, narcissism, and general solipsism, all so rampant modern American society. Yes, there are draw-backs to free enterprise. A perverted ego tends to come with it.
It seems that darker women inevitably want to experiment with lighter hair color and even skin color. I've posted artlcles on the subjects of white women and dark men before, but apparently didn't make my points strongly enough.
Recently (June 7, 2003) a note was posted on Gene Expression, the site of young scientists openly discussing racial taboo. There is no pretense. Dark men prefer white women. However, there is less discussion about whether dark women prefer white men.
Since women seem to control the "attraction" elements, it is usually women who alter whatever they feel they need to in the way of their coloring. Razib, chief executor of Gene Expression, posted a picture of a blonde, as a illustration of his preference. Ironically, perhaps, the blonde is a fake. She is a bleached blonde. But the lesson is driven home futher. Even white women with dark hair often wish to dye their hair blonde.
Razib's same post included an article on the craze in Indonesia: women getting their skin altered, bleached, to look whiter. This isn't new, of course. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Nowile Rooks Hair Raising (1996) shows that bleaching, hair and skin, has been the lot of Negro women ever since they were brought to America.
The question is why? It is not all about sexual attraction? But attraction for whom? My theory is that dark men are attracted to white women. So, dark women want to look whiter. That is obvious. But the underlying question is still why? Why are dark men attracted to white women?
It is all psychological. Dark is mysterious, bad, evil, even dirty. White is honest, good, clean, and heavenly. These are the archetypes. So long as Western egotism is the made the root of sexual attraction, so long as sex is a matter of personal ego, these archetypes will rule. For a dark man, sex with a white women seems higher, cleaner, nicer. Sigmund Freud(1856-1939) said we all usually feel sort of guilty about sex. This is natural and normal. (Thus Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton sang, "We've got nothin' to be guilty of.") A white women makes it seem more elevated. In the case of Eldridge Cleaver, (recently deceased black activist), huggin' a white women was huggin' freedom. Soul on Ice (1968), p.160.
At this point, I don't believe sex should be associated with the ego. There are deeper, grander purposes in life than personal gratification of subconscious frustrations and fantasies. As an American Indian, I look for an American Indian girl. I look for a Comanche girl. This is about people, the people, my people. I want to belong to my people. I believe in my people. We are few. We must be concerned about preserving what we have left.
I realize nearly everyone wants to be white. White people are idolized the world over. White people mesmerize the dark hoards. (Actually, it may be time for white people to be concerned about their own race, too. They are, and have always been, the minority in the world.)
It's time to dispense with the political rhetoric, the perverted Communist notion of "equality." Let's all respect what we are, and respect what others are as well. Egotism is selfishness, really. Although Communism professes to be above that, it actually is based on a more intense selfishness than pure egotism. Communism says there should be no barriers, of any kind, in the name of equality. This means intermarriage, ultimately. This is a denial of man's natural condition, and throws the mind into the hopeless frustrations of the Unconcious, making sexuality into an abject slavery of insatiable egotism.
The human ego is an amazing manipulator. Self-justification is our finest art. As soon as Sammy Sosa was found using a cheater's bat in a professional Major League baseball game, sports writers began the campaign to cover for him. The "liberal-minded" among them began assembling data on past baseball heroes who "cheated," but were never denied their place in baseball history. Some writers even defend Pete Rose for his gambling conviction based on the same campaign. We don't condemn cheating. We condemn getting caught. And we can't condemn Sosa, when others have done the same or worse.
The Martha Stewart case earlier received the same commentary of defense. She's a hero, who made a "mistake." After all, she is a woman, and how unmanly for all the scavangers to hoard in on her for one little mistake. How sexist, how rude, since there are other corporate men who have committed far worse offenses than her, and gone unpunished!
Media made justification a fine art beginning with the Clintons, who were in constant need of justification, since they offended basic morality on a daily basis. But new depths of the art were reached in the Lewinsky case, when it was pointed out that she was just another extramarital affair in a long, long list, and therefore the Lewinsky-Clinton affair shouldn't be singled out as a major crime for impeachment. In other words, to cite the extramarital affairs of past presidents like John F. Kennedy was not enough to cover for bad Bill. The media had to say, "Oh, well, Monica herself is just one affair in Bill's presidency." This was pushing it to the nth degree. Why, even past presidential candidates were cited as ameliorating evidence. But no, it was the fact that Monica was just one in a long list that was supposed to be most exonerating element for bum Bill.
The principle behind this kind of defense is justification by frequency. The more something happens, the less wrong it is. The more people do it, the more justified it is. It is righteousness by numbers.
And there's a second principle: if so and so did it, and got by with it, why should I get punished for doing it? Here right and wrong is not based on any independent morality, but solely on whether some one else was punished or not.
Justice is made to be totally social, as if social equality is the sole determinant of justice. If he didn't get punished, I shouldn't be punished.
Justice has become a matter of liberal, Communist "equality." Equal treatment, pro or con, yea or nay, right or wrong. As long as all are treated equally, the word justice need not apply further in human affairs. The only thing that's right or wrong has to do with equality of treatment.
Yet, other Americans are in prison for perjury. Bill Clinton perjured himself, but he got off. When you get off, inequality is okay. When your punished, equality is bad. That's the modern, liberal take on justice.
The ancient take? "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Prov. 17:15.
Many people believe the problem in Palestine is the simple matter of pride. That is to say, the Palestinians feel humiliated by the Israelis. To an Arab mind, this is the most unforgivable, unforgettable, and unacceptable condition. A report of Palestinians killing Israelis should always be understood in this context, as if the Palestinian pride justifies any kind of killing of any Israeli, at any time, at any place.
So the Palestinian is "sensitive." He is offended by the Israeli presence, by the inevitable feelings of being second place. He will never surrender, never stop fighting for his pride, and never accept peace on any terms but his own. His pride is indulged by the Arab world, much of the third world, and by much of the Liberal Western world. He can afford to assert himself, he can afford to kill an Israeli at any and every opportunity, knowing if he remains consistent, the world will come to see it from his "sensitive" point of view.
In this attitude, I believe the Palestinian Arabs are at a lower level of psychological operation than the American Negro. In America, the Negro has been taught that to be sensitive, to be offended, to be hurt, has great political and social power. To bleed someone else's conscience is the greatest power one human being can have over another. The Negro has found this to be true. The 20th century saw great changes, great social affectations in American culture brought about by the philosophy of victimhood, of being wronged, of being hurt.
But the Negro originally had no established culture here in America. The different African tribes had been removed from their roots, and the only thing that distinguished them was their skin and physical characteristics.
The Arab, on the other hand, has an enormous culture, an old culture, and one with great emphasis on customs, religious and social. The Arab Palestinian lives in the midst of his own history and identity. When he is "offended" it is not really as deep or moral as when the American Negro is offended, but it is much more violent, emotionally and even physically. The Arab offense is right on the surface, immediate, and more obvious.
Yet, this pride pans out to be a simple matter of control, and who's in charge.
Taking offense is a way of controlling others. If you do this, or don't do that, you offend me. I'm hurt! I'm devastated. You, being the kind, caring, good guy you are, you will surely change your behavior to suit me. Thus, I have controlled you.
This is how it all looks to an outsider. I'm not sure the Arabs really understand it this way at all. However, I'm fairly certain American Negroes are quite conscious of how this works, and have learned to manipulate "sensitivity" very effectively in politics. But the Arab is too deeply into his own sense of pride and identity. Remember he has a rock hard culture, and a rock head to go with it. He knows exactly what he is, what he wants, etc., and he doesn't really manipulate. It's all too obvious for that.
So, he doesn't want to feel humiliated. One of my Iranian friends gave me this take on the Palestinians. He said they will never accept this humiliation. (By the way, most of my Iranian friends are feeling pro-Israel these days, which is interesting.) I have had Jewish friends say the same about the Arabs in general. "We'll never get anywhere as long as too many Jews think of the Palestinians as animals."
Well, it's that mechanical attitude in Arabs that creates the animal impression. "If you do this, or don't do that, you offend me and I'll bite." This is, in the Palestinian Arab case, simply too pronounced. It is too inflexible, and too murderous.
If you show respect to a Palestinian Arab, if you step into his world, do this or don't do that, you will no doubt have a friend for life, faithful and true. But why should the Arab price himself so high? Is he worth it? Why should he be so demanding of others? What does he offer in return? If you have to be his "slave" in order to have his devotion to you, what's the profit?
Methinks things are a bit too dramatic in Palestine. With all the daily murders, and the defensive shootings, it is most difficult to start at a "human" beginning. Nevertheless, in terms of just simply concepts of human relations, I think everyone should just learn to be less demanding of others.
I personally don't value every culture equally, and don't see paying someone else's price, answering his demands, unless he has something I really want. I certainly don't see foreigners coming to America and asking me to meet their demands. However, if they want to keep their demands to themselves in their own country, that is reasonable. I don't have to buy their infested fruit. I don't have to know their table manners (if they have a table). They can keep it all.
This is why I am not ashamed to have suggested that Arab Muslims be sent back to their own countries. This began with 9-11, but it is much deeper than "revenge." I'm saying that for anyone to come here to America and demand equality for their foreign ways represents the epitomy of selfishness and pride, of the most odious caliber. That offends me.
Last week Hillary Clinton was supposedly "attacked" by the liberal Left, for supporting Bush's idea that welfare recipients should be required to work more. Well, what can we expect from a person planning to run for president? She has to expand her voting base to appeal to more voting people. Poor people generally don't vote. Who cares about them? They're at best only "useful idiots" for a Communist like Hillary.
The O'reilly Factor did a segment on this story May 27th. I am not able to locate the transcript, but, Dick Morris was interviewed, and also a famous LA attorney and commentator. It was quite clear that Hillary is a complete fake, or, a very talented politician. We know she's a career Communist (she and others like her prefer the word Socialist, as if that's less offensive); we know she's an avowed enemy of the United States, like her legal husband Bill. We know they both have made every possible effort to overthrow the United States Constitution, and to overturn American social values and morals. We know the Clintons stand for everything odious, perverted, untrustworthy, and inimical to America.
"The Clintons just won't go away!" the commentators laughed, seriously. Why is that? Because the American public has generally lost it's way, morally, and the Clinton's appear to be great navigators on the sea of amorality. They won't go away because so many people are like them. Great success comes to those who represent the masses. People see themselves in the Clintons, moral failure, ideological deception, devotion to Communist righteousness--socially coerced, together with general fraud and pretense. Crime, substance abuse, deceit, immorality, lying, murder (at least grand, extensive suspicion thereof), and conspiracy, all accompany the infamous name, "Clinton." This is their legacy. This is what media loves, and what most people tolerate, if not participate in. The Clintons are top entertainment.
The Clintons have created a generation of exciting intrigue and mistrust, with which we have all learned to live. It is common life now. It is presidential. It belongs here. It is us, now. There is no outrage. The Clintons won't go away because they are welcome here, by the powers that be. They are also protected by the same powers.
Bill Clinton devoted himself to equipping China with the power to overcome the United States. Just about everything Bill Gertz said in The China Threat (2000) has come to pass and continues to come to pass. He was caught red handed in this treasonous campaign.
So, there needn't be any careful following of Hillary's political stands on anything. There is no cause for political concern. She merely wants to be president, and will say and do anything to get there. Nothing she says can ever be taken more seriously than as a political ploy for power. And some people admire her, and Bill, for their astute, political savvy! Heroes they are. Top liars, inspiring others to employ lying as a tool for personal advancement.
The Clinton's both represent the near triumph of Communism in this country. It is ideological rightousness, without any personal moral responsibility. It is legislated, coerced values of a few perverts in charge, designed to bring America down, to make America "equal" with the third world. This is what the Clintons are all about, nothing more. This is their cause, and it trumps every other personal failure for which they are infamous and for which they are highly paid.