NOTE: DVDs and VHS tapes of Dr. Yeagley's University of Massachusetts speech, as aired by C-SPAN (May 28), are available for purchase through C-SPAN. Call: 1-877-622-7726.
Today, this Memorial Day, 2005, I want to remember a special group of American veterans. No, not the American Indians who fought and died wearing the American uniform, nor the 200,000 living Indian veterans of today. I want to remember our ancestors, our Indian fathers, who gave their blood for the honor of our people. They were patriots, too. They were great men. They gave their lives to defend and to preserve their people.
Maw-wea, "Champion Roper" (Comanche) Also known
as "Shaking Hand."
From the first skirmishes with the English settlers in the woods of the East coast, to the mighty wars of the Great Plains, Indian men, and women, did what all great men and women do: they protected their own. They gave their lives for nations, for their language, their culture, their religion, their land.
Par-rooah sermehno, "Ten Bears" (Comanche)
Yes, they were fighting with our adopted son, the great white man. He had outgrown us, and we were in his way. But, he created 'rest homes' for us, hopelessly inadequate as they were. (They're called "reservations.")
Our adopted son was a victim of his own circumstances, and, noble savages that we are, we must recognize his predicament. We must take the high country, as it were. We must not chastise him any too much, for we make fools of ourselves in so doing. He is our son. How can we consign him to the eternal flames?
Koh-eet-senko Sa-taint-te (White Bear) Kiowa. Also
known as Satanta.
In fact, as we honor our own Indian fathers, as we recongize them, for their sacrifice which has kept we Indians alive and on our own land (more or less), we also honor all the American veterans who themselves have fought for America, be they white or Indian.
Indians are still here. Our nations are coetaneous with America. We have become weak and pitful, in many ways; yet, we still represent the strongest identity of this land will ever have. Without us, America is a lost soul. We are the father. No matter how great our son becomes, nothing will ever change the relationship of the historical foundation; nothing will ever change the fact that he is our son. We are his father.
Comanche warrior, in winter dress
This memorial day, I honor our American Indian fathers, and in so doing, I honor the adopted son. May God bless America.
NOTE: DVDs or VHS tapes of the C-SPAN broadcast of Dr. Yeagley's University of Massachusetts speech (Mary 29) are available from C-SPAN. Call: 1-877-622-7726
Preceding last night's (May 28) C-Span broadcast of my University of Massachusetts speech (from March 29), on the program American Perspectives, C-Span aired a long congressional hearing called together by black Democrat John Conyers (D-MI). Congressman Conyers called together a panel of journalists and radio talk show hosts to give them an opportunity to speak their peace about media. The guests included Al Franken (Air America Radio), David Brock (Media Matters), Randi Rhodes (Air America Radio), Joe Madison (radio talk show host), and Eric Alterman (Center for American Progress), among others. They talked about their perceptions of freedom of the press. Curiously, to an unsuspecting viewer, they were all deeply progressive, liberal, or LeftThey all avowed themselves as such, and presented their cause to the welcoming ears of liberal members of Congress (like Sheila Jackson Lee) who popped in and out during the hearing.
It was a stunning testimony. The professional Leftist media representatives said mainstream media was controlled by the Right, completely biased, and that they were all victims of repression. They couldn't get access to the mainstream, and they feared for the freedom of the press. They professed great love for the Constitution, and all bled their Leftist hearts out in a remarkable unity of discontent, fear, and apparent self-delusion.
Of a truth, they simply reframed every argument and protest of conservatives, and threw it up against the Right. They spoke all about the great Right Wing Conspiracy, Right media bias, and Right tyranny. They accused the Right, ever so perfectly, with ever so accurate mimickry, of everything the Leftists themselves are guilty of, and have been guilty of all along. Their mirror of the Right’s legitimate concerns was polished, right down to David Horowitz' statements about using the tactics of the Left against the Left. These Leftists said they must use the tactics of the Right against the Right!
Verily, they said they must be strong and fight back. It was okay to fight. They shouldn’t think it was wrong to fight. They'll be destroyed by the Right if they don't. It was not immoral for them to defend themselves. They mustn't be such nice guys; they mustn't be afraid of fighting. They must be noble. They describe themselves as the victims of their very own behavior toward conservatives.
I think they all read David Horowitz' The Art of Political War (2000) together, before appearing before members of Congress. It was simply remarkable, the accuracy with which they mimicked the articulations of David Horowitz. A professional group hug, it was, in all it's self-delusive ideological intimacy.
It was in perfect chronological order. The Left commits the first offense; the Right calls foul and points out the fraud; then the Left calls foul, accusing the Right of exactly the same fraud. It's all in the timing. Who’s in front? Who accuses first wins. The Left never fails to hold the cutting edge of complaint.
It was mind-boggling to watch. I had to take breaks to recover from the heart-braking, discouraging aspect of seeing human beings so willfully deluded. I think, after a point, they really do believe what they are saying. That doesn't make it true, of course, but it shows that all their essence of being has clicked in: they're under attack, they're defensive; they feel a sense of martyrdom, and they are ennobled in their cause; they martial their forces, they feel energized in a great task of saving America.
They believe that the Bush Administration is evil, that it represses their freedom, and they still believe that the Dan Rather report on Bush's National Guard service was true, that Newsweek's story about Korans down the toilet was true, and that the Left is being desperately persecuted by the Right, and that they must be brave, courageous, and stand for the truth. Their emotions are all real, to them. Never mind the false base for their reactions. Their feelings are real. This is the tragedy of it all, this is the delusion. Oh, to be a victim! This is the secret of their power, and the cause of their emotional state. This is their religion. This is their faith. They must be a victim.
Michael "Savage" Weiner has called the Left a mental disease. Perhaps there is some psychological truth to this. Chemical? No. Self-inflicted, yes. Chemistry in this situation is descriptive, not causative.
C-SPAN announced the airing of the Congressional hearing, followed by this note: "then David Yeagley from Front Page Magazine discusses the image of the American Indian."
Indeed. My speech was not focused on freedom of speech, per se, though I did mention the topic. My speech was not focused on the abuses of the Left, though I mentioned some of those. I focused on the need to restore the true image of the American Indian: the host of America. I find it quite interesting that my UMass speech would be juxtaposed to the Congressional hearing in the same American Perspectives episode. Perhaps it was meant not do detract too heavily from the Liberal cause; then again, perhaps it was the perfect antidote.
Announcement: Dr. Yeagley is scheduled to appear on C-SPAN (American Perspectives) Saturday night, May 28th, at 10:30 EST. Check your local listings for the time of the broadcast in your time zone. This is a tape of the speech Dr. Yeagley gave at the University of Massachusetts, March 29. It is about American Indians and American patriotism.
Additional Note: It is 7:30 p.m. here in OKC right now, as of this special entry, May 28, Saturday night. The C-SPAN show, of which Dr. Yeagley is part, has already begun. See, American Perspectives. Randi Rhodes (radio host) is speaking. Dr. Yeagley is last on the program.
Dr. Yeagley, at the University
Massachusetts, March 29, 2005
Probably the summary of fundamental racial issues in modern times can be found in the controversial writings of Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, the psychologist of the University of Western Ontario, Canada. His publications are numerous, and they all incorporate his understanding of race, that is, the obvious divisions and sub-divisions of the human race.
Dr. John Philippe Ruston, born
1943, Bournemouth, England
Perhaps the single-most controversial work of Dr. Rushton is Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995). There is a special abridged paperback edition of this work (ISBN 0-9656836-2-1), and makes for provocative reading.
In every study cited, Rushton uses the controversial (antiquated?) divisions of Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid racial divides. Of course, he uses the terms "black," "white," and "Asian." To put it all in a nutshell, his research posits that blacks develope physically ahead of the other two races, and the Asians develope more intellectual capacity that the other two. White are in the middle, in almost every study.
In Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, there are photographs of a black baby clearly exercising its neck muscles, holding its head up, at the age of only two days. Blacks have smaller brains, however, and are also more sexually active and violent (physical). Asians have the largest brain size, and are actually the least sexually active of the three races.
These findings outrage many people, obviously, but, they are not figures drawn out of the air. They are based on experiments, observations (including autopsies), and hosts of data. They are, however, generalizations, based on the averages.
The suspicion that race is related to behavior is not a modern white invention, either. Much of what would be called "racist" writing was begun by the Arab Muslims who first enslaved African natives in the 7th century.
It is quite easy to disagree, at least emotionally, with Rushton's work, but, even someone like Cornel West, black professor of Afro-American Studies and Philosophy of Religion at Harvard, agress that race is a serious subject. In Race Matters (1993), West recognizes the existence of race, but says that the way people think about it is the problem, the way people use it, the way people manipulate it.
This of course would tend to deny that race itself produces any kind of variant behavior in its members. Rather, according to West, other races create variant behaviors by the way they treat races. Essentially, West is a blamer, a liberal, and despite some very helpful thoughts on the subject, his analysis of the circumstances is defensive, biased, and perfectly human, given the givens. The black man was torn from his home and culture, and has no path but a reactionary one.
American Indians, on the other hand, have the greatest advantage. We are still on our homelands (more or less), still have our cultures, religions, and languages. Reactionism is not our only option. We can be pro-active. We can exercise initiative coming from our own race, our own identity. Yes, we can translate these things into useful ideology in our present circumstances. I say we can make our ways play the leading role in American society, if we so desire. We can show America what it means to value one's own culture, race, religion, language, etc. America seems to be losing sight of these values, in the Liberal craze for multi-culturalism. Multi-culturalism is truly anti-Americanism.
Indians have the right to maintain our identity. Everyone else must assimilate, at least culturally, or consider himself an weakening element in a strong society. As Indians preserve our identity, American should preserve it's own.
America does have a racial, religious, and cultural identity. It needs to be preserved, or America will become nothing more than an international clearing house for world commerce. The country will be no more than a business. This will spell the end, eventually. When the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is just another variety, with no superior value, for any reason, then America is no longer America, but something else, and inevitably, something less.
Perhaps Adolf Hitler was hoodwinked by his own Rorschach-style interpretation of racial realities.
Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychiatrist (1884-1922), is famous for the "inkblot" pschological test (published 1921) which presents an amorphous ink blot before a client or patient, and lets him interpret the blot however he sees it. Some patients see one thing, other patients see another. In the patient's interpretation of the random blot, he reveals certain things about his personality. So thought Dr. Rorschach.
Dr. Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922)
An other words, any given phenomenon can be interpreted in wildly different ways.
A typical inkblot, as the
paper unfolds in halves.
In Hitler's infamous book, Mein Kampf, there is a classic example of this kind of interpretation. Hitler made an interpretation (not an objective observation) and completely ignored a basic element in the actual phenomenon he was interpreting. Here's the story.
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl [the blonde, blue-eyed German girl] whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." Hilter then says not only does the Jew do this individually, but also collectively. "It is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race." (p.325, Ralph Manheim translation).
The incredibly obvious yet utterly deleted element in this scenario is natural sexual attraction. Integration always means interracial sexual relationships, and intermarriage, and mixed children.
But, aside from that, there are a number of errors in Hitler's statement. First of all, not all Jews are dark haired and dark eyed, certainly not in the 20th century Europe; but that is a stereotype being employed. Even so, contrasting coloring is often a basic sexual attraction. Exoticism is a normal sexual dimension. It is not a plot of one race to destroy the other. Furhtermore, the plotting race stands to lose as well. Such intermarriage is self-destructive, (despite what Kevin MacDonald may theorize in his Culture of Critique).
"Satanic joy" may have more to do with Hitler's own accusation than any remote relation to feelings of romance in the Jewish youth when he sees a pretty blonde. That would be a psychological revelation, Rorschach style. The ink blot is the Jewish-German romance, and Hitler sees it as a plot, with satanic joy, to destroy the German race. Instead, it's probably just boy-meets-girl, in a romance heightened by contrasting colors and culture.
And the Jews certainly did not bring the Negro into the Rhineland. It was French regiments of Sudanese soldiers, brought in to occupy parts of Germany after World War I. Hitler is simply way off the mark of historical fact. To accuse the Jew is baseless, and therefore nullifies even Hitler's Rorschach interpretation of romance between a Jewish boy and a German girl.
Black girl among the Germans, 1930
When a person of one race is romantically attracted to a person of another race, it simply does not prepresent a global plot to destroy that other race. It is simply the natural course of emotional, psychological, social integration. There is no profound motivation, no deep seated design to overcome the world, or even to survive in it.
Now, I must say, American Indians today face racial dilution to the point of annihilation. Integration, intermarriage, pose a real threat to the future of Indian people. We are a minority, we have some land base. We have our culture, our language, our religion, etc. We are separate nations, indeed. But we are being subject to all manner of integration and intermarriage these days, and it simply must come to an end. We have to begin to draw the lines, immediately.
Does this represent a plot to destroy another race? Are the people who are intermarrying with Indians trying to destroy the Indian race? No. They're just trying to own part of it. Maybe they're just attracted to Indians.
But it doesn't matter. Whatever attracts non-Indians to Indians, this is no justification for the destruction of the Indian races. We have the right to preserve ourselves. That's all it is. Self-preservation.
Romance is subjective, personal, and self-oriented. It is time to take the larger, nobler view. We mustn't idolize our own emotions, but think rather of the people first. This is the grand vision. We must serve our people, not ourselves.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who will serve his people, all? People first, romance second. Sound a bit barbaric? Sound ever so contrary to the "me" generation of America and the west? America needs to be reminded of the truth: America's enemies of today do not respect the white race, nor the Judeo-Christian religion, but they do idolize their own race and religion. That precious, political religion in America, with the Leftist "equality" bit, gives our enemies a distinct advantage.
It is not racism to love and preserve one's race. It is racism to destroy another's race, intentionally or unintentionally.
"Have been under-going a thorough self-examination," writes Charlotte Forten Grimke in her journal. "The result is a mingled feeling of sorrow, shame and self-contempt. Have realized more deeply and bitterly than ever in my life my own ignorance and folly. Not only am I without the gifts of Nature, wit, beauty and talent...but I am not even intelligent...Hattie Purvis is [however] quite attractive, with such long, light hair, and beautiful blue eyes. She is a sweet gentle creature...I have fallen quite in love with her."
Now Charlotte herself was educated, knew languages, and lived in Philadelphia. She had exposure to society. A famous writer said she was "a young lady with exquisite refinement, quiet culture, and ladylike and engaging manners, and personal appearance." How on earth did she come to have such feelings of inferiority?
Well, Charlotte was black. African. A free woman, however, when most of her race in America were still slaves. It was in the 1850's, and despite what John Greeleaf Whittier had said about her, she felt nothing but self-loathing.
Oh, there were plenty of cosmetic and hair products to make black women look lighter, and to make their hair straight. Crane & Co. (Richmond, Virginia) offered a "Wonderful Face Bleach and Hair Straightener." It only cost a dollar, and it came with a money-back guarantee.
Sounds incredible to people who are not familiar with black history or black slave culture of 19th century America; but, it's all true, and more.
You can read all about it in small paperback by Noliwe M. Rooks called Hair Raising: Beauty, Culture, and African American Women (Rutgers, 1996). It is a must, especially for people not familiar with the more intimate aspects of feeling black in a white world.
She quotes a dandy of a poem by Willie Coleman, called "Among the Things That Used to Be," in (Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology, 1983).
Used to be
You could learn a whole lot of stuff
sitting in them
beauty shop chairs.
Used to be
ya could meet
a whole lot of other women
sittin there
along with hair frying
spit flying
and babies crying...
It's all about how black people, especially women, feel around white people, and the special psychological challenges of looking different, and feeling that you have to make yourself look like something you aren't. The book came out a long time after the 'black is beautiful' idea of the sixties, but, there's not been too much change in the behavior, or attitude, since the slave days.
And yet the world is not against black people. Black people just react naturally in an environment in which they feel inferior. Volumes have been written as to why they so often feel this way, but, whatever inward progress has been made, there is still a very strong impulse to look 'whiter.' Lighter colored make-up and hair straightener are still big sellers. In fact, coloring hair red, blonde, and even tow-head, is a common practice among black women. Wigs are a hot item.
So, it shall ever be so. People of color, especially dark color, are fascinated with the blue-eyed blonde, just like Charolotte F. Grimke. There is no crime in this, nor should there be harm, really. One must accept the world as it is, and accept one's place in it, at least relative to one's environment. There should be no anger or resentment for the evolutions of nature. Nor should one rebel against one's place.
Charlotte Forten Grimke, 1837-1914
There's no Uncle Tom in this. This is simply health and wisdom. And besides that, Uncle Tom, in a stiff white dinner jacket, probably knew a lot more about class and social grace than half the white population in America today. Maybe he was among the lucky, after all. It's all relative.
It is unlukcy, however, and unreasonable to try and overthrow the dominant society when it is a matter of race, not just socio-economic class. But, Leftist racial agitators care nothing for the welfare of the ethnic groups they use, even if it's their own. They just want to destroy establishment, to destroy achievement. It is a terrible crime to use ethnicity and race in this way, but, this is the way of Communism, and most ethnic groups play right into it, without even knowing it.
America is a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant establishment. That non-believing Leftists (Communists) among the whites should use the ethnicities present here in this country to try and overthrow the American establishment is a terrible predicament. It is a fearful thing when the unprepared, the undisciplined, the inexperience, and the unbelieving are in charge, whatever color they are.
No, I think real black women should leave their hair black, and let their skin shine for what it is. Live under the safe, if dark, shadow of the Almighty. After all, you can't blame white people for your being black. They had nothing to do with it.
CNN and MSNBC are using a number of "mullatos" as anchors on their prime time news casts. This is different from the entertainment industry, where idols tend to be chosen by the audience. There have always been performers of mixed black and white races, who have been very successful. But the people seem to choose whom they want to idolize. In news media, however, it's an 'in-your-face' prospect. The ancor is what you have to look at, if you want the news.
Now, this matter pushes the envelope, really, about the whole idea of whether the Negro race is something other races enjoy looking at, or prefer looking at. This is a sensitive issue, naturally. In fact, it's so sensitive that the laws of America tend to require a non-Negro person to dutifully respect and value the Negro, regardless of any personal preference. The law thus makes a world of hypocrites, in a way, in the name of equality.
But, again, the Halle Berry's, the Mariah Carey's are a matter of taste or choice. But what about the news anchors, the Frederica Whitfields, the Alison Stewarts, the Lester Holts, the Suzanne Malveaux's? These are counting as "black" statistics in the hiring quotas, but, do they really represent black people?
"Fred," as they call her, Whitfield
Remember the famous line from The Color Purple (1985), ""I'm poor, I'm black and I may even be ugly, BUT dear God .. I'm here, I'm here." It looks like, however, that the preference for mulattos in the culturally coerced viewing of TV news stations inevitably says, "Hey, look, baby, you ARE ugly. We have to have 'black' people who look white, in order for this to work." Black is beautiful, as long as it looks white.
Alison Stewart, on and off the news stage
It is a curious predicament, indeed. Now, there are black men and women in politics who are not part of this predicament, like Condi Rice, and a host of others. And they are certainly in media a lot. But they are elected because of their qualities of person, not their appearance. News media, now a form of entertainment, really, has to be concerned about appearance, and, aside from a few sports commentators, the black people choses by the media to ancor are basically mullatos, mixed, and with a lip and nose make-over, look more white than black.
Lester Holt
Seems to me this is should be considered an affront. Where's the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, to protest this oppressive, abusive attitude toward true black people?
Suzanne Malveaux, Harvard graduate
There's no question that some of these mulattos are quite attractive, but, there will always be the issue: are they really black? Do they represent black people? Do they look like what black looks like? Does their success indicate that black is beautiful, that the Negro race is pleasant to behold, and the public demands to see it? (And even if the public doesn't demand it, the law will stuff it to the public anyway.)
Mixed races leave mixed impressions, and sometimes it's just difficult to understand what's really happening. Either black people are simply not the preference of other races, and black ain't beautiful, or else there's being a lot of wool being pulled over everyone's eyes. And it's hard to tell whose wool, over whose eyes.
Maybe it's something as simple as this: in every race, there are simply some people that are more attractive than others.
It wouldn't really matter, if it weren't for this pesky PC problem in America, where "equality" means no discretion. In the case of the mulattos, we have a cover-up discretion against less attractive people--of any race! Bring on the uglies! Let's call for the misanthropes! We want uglies on TV as anchor men and women. That would be true equality.
Newsweek Magazine has committed treason against the United States, and wreaked, unforgivably, anti-American sentiment in the world. There is no excuse, no acceptable explanation, and there should be no mercy.
Newsweek must be fined, in a devastating, permanent, and exemplary manner.
Perhaps a gesture of good will would be for Newsweek to pay out millions to the families of those killed among the protesters in Kabul (Afghanistan), but that would be too Leftist in style. (And Leftists always play Right when their own tactics work against them.) Paying reparations would suggest that the Afghans have no self-control, and are not responsible for their own actions. Well, that may not be far from the truth when those Islamic passions are whipped up. But that satanic fanaticism is self-willed, at root, and cannot be regarded as anything but willful slavery. (And everyone continually overlooks the fundamental issue: Is the Koran holy anyway?)
Newsweek, however, professes freedom, freedom of the press. Instead, the professional competition for the breaking story, the hottest scoop, for the biggest sales, presents another kind of slavery, the kind which is equally as destructive, in the long run. It's called avarice, or greed. It isn't a matter of irresponsible reporting. It isn't a matter of carelessness.
It's even worse, perhaps beyond greed. It is a matter of anti-American sentiment, and Leftist media desperate to bring down all American efforts. It is a matter of people in power who want to wrest power from others, in the name of professed righteous causes.
It happens frequently. Rober Novak blew it, when he 'leaked' the name of a CIA agent in a nationally sydicated article. Dan Rather blew it, when he published a completely false story about President Bush's National Guard service. But that's all small political potatoes compared to Newsweek's crime. That's petty gossip, compared to the breach of trust committed by Newsweek.
Dan Rather apparently didn't care whether his story was true, and Robert Novak couldn't care less about his infraction.
In the May 8 issue of Newsweek,the Periscope column written by Michael Isikoff and John Barry included a brief piece about U.S. military investigators finding evidence that interrogators flushed copies of the Quran down the toilet to provoke prisoners to talk. But there was no evidence for the story that American servicemen (guards) at Guantanamo Bay flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet to provoke Islamic prisoners. There was no proof. In fact, there was the suggestion that released inmates themselves had spread the rumors, and perhaps even tried to frame American guards. Gen. Tommy Franks made such a suggested just yesterday on national TV.
Joe Scarborough is certainly upset about Newsweek's behavior. Yet, he's not calling for the ultimate price. No one is going to hold Newsweek, Dan Rather, or Robert Novak responsible. Restitution will simply not happen. In this age of economic tyranny, one can only express one's desire to see resitution.
Newsweek should be punished to the full extent of the law. Newsweek knowingly incited a riot. This is not freedom of speech. This is treason. This is an intentional, social movement, designed to attack American purposes in the Middle East and in the world. This endangers our troops and also endangers American citizens here. Islamic fanatics are ensconced within Muslim communities. There is no surety of safe cohabitation with Muslims.
Newsweek has declared itself an enemy of the United States. Newsweek has demonstrated that it has no value but it's own sales, and has no value for Muslims, Americans, or the world. Newsweek is bad news.
The Tony Snow radio broadcast is aired on OKC radio (KTOK 1000) on Sunday afternoons. This Sunday, May 15, Snow had a live guest, Arianna Huffington, the Greek columnist who in 1986 married American politician Mike Huffington, and who herself later ran for Governor of California, against Schwarzenegger.
Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington
Huffington (nee Stassinopoulos) is certainly an intelligent and capable woman, but as yet not taken completely seriously in American politics. (Is her accent too heavy? Well, Teresa Heinz doesn't let her own hold her back, either. Arianna just has to marry the right American political candidate. Ah, these American white men, marrying foreign women! American politicians, no less, 'leaders' of the American people. Well, America seems to be the heir of all history, so why not all races? Is that their thinking, these multi-culturalists?)
Tony was anxious to advertise Arianna's new blog on her web site, The Huffington Post.com Tony asked her about it, in detail. Interestingly, Arianna said she didn't want it to be all about politics, but simply a place where people could come together to talk about everything, wine, food, people, the world. She has a broad vision of bringing diverse people together to talk. Tony was concerned about behavior, and asked if there were any rules or screening. Since Arianna expects to attract only the rich and famous, she was not terribly concerned. The blog has only been up a few days.
On a CNN interview, she said, "They can write about anything. They can write about politics or they can write about cooking or they can write about their children. Right now, for example, this morning, you have a funny, really, hilarious piece by Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Brad Hall called blogging, about how gay marriage is destroying their happy marriage. Or you have Ellen Degeneris drawing attention to the fact that we are slaughtering horses and taking the meat and selling it for dog food. Or you have David Mammoth, the playwright, writing about can we trust the old media, can we trust the new media? So, there is a bit of everything there. And you don't know when you go back what you're going to find."
We recongize the power of money and friends in high places to produce interesting, quality products in media. Social selectivity is essential, and wealth does tend to weed out the unworthy. No discrimination necessary or desired in any other realm, obviously.
But, in terms of her concept, Arianna is a bit behind. I must say, BadEagle.com has been the cutting edge of 'diveristy' for nearly three years now. No, our blog and our forums don't attract the rich and famous, and we don't screen. But we talk about the most sensitive issues in the world: race, religion, and gender. These things are the basis of all politics. Money cannot evade these subjects. On BadEagle we have no such pretenses. We have only the prefession of seeking the truth. And we've been writing "about anything" in an organized fashion, with nearly 60 forums.
We do discriminate. We do make judgments. We do have values.
Behavior problems? Indeed. We have plenty. It is the price of learning to talk about the most volatile emotions and values in the human heart. It's the cost of talking about these things, with people from different parts of the world. We're all born of some race, we speak some language, we inherit some religion, and we are born either male or female. We naturally want people to think well of us, in all these things, because we cannot help the inheritance of our birth. Therefore, when someone disagrees, we inevitably take it very, very personally.
Betty Ann, American Indian woman.
Another capable woman, one of
the many on BadEagle, of the Sissiton-
Wahpeton Sioux, of South Dakota.
Love of race, love of country, are the dominant themes on BadEagle.com. BadEagle is an American Indian site, based on the idea that the American Indian is an essential ingredient in American patriotism. To enlist the Indian in a pro-active, salvific role in American society, and by extension, the world, is the purpose of BadEagle.com. American Indians originally assumed the role of guide and savior to the Pilgrim band. This historical stereotype, however immodest, remains the most fundamental power in American sociology. To revive this role is my dream for BadEagle.
No, we'll probably not attract celebrities. We aren't celebrities. And we fight, we have behavior problems. We struggle. But, thank God, we learn. We improve. For this, I most humbly and deeply thank all the participants of this strange and wonderful enterprise, BadEagle.com.
And to think, BadEagle.com was created by a volunter, of the great South, who simply wanted to see an American Indian patriot site. Little did he envision what it has become. We owe him a great deal of appreciation, if he's inclined to accept!
Thousands of people in Afghanistan rioted, violently, when they heard rumors that the Koran had been desecrated in the Guantanamo Bay prison, the place where still some 520 al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects are being held.
Newsweek Magazine last week cited sources proportedly saying that investigators at Guantanamo uncovered a previously unreported case that interrogators, attempting to motivate prisoners, flushed a Koran down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and a dog leash.
Hey, it worked at Abu Graib, why not have a media smear of Guantanamo Bay. The Abu Graib thing was a juvenile sex scandal. This new Guantanamo Bay allegation could start another real war, and undo the progress made in Afghanistan. The destroyers of good will are relentless, and well paid.
But there's a deeper question here, which, though not at the top of their destruction list, is still an inevitable benefit, because the question is wholly lost, and it's unanswered state will lead to the denigration of more Western, American values.
What is sacred? Who declares something sacred?
There's a great lesson in the Hebrew traditions. The Bible first uses the word sacred (kadosh) in reference to the Sabbath day. "God blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed (sanctified) it." Gen.2:3. The word is not used again until Exodus 3:5, when Moses stood on holy ground, holy because God's immediate presence was there. Abraham Heschel points out that the purpose for associating holiness first with Time (i.e., the seventh day) was to present man with something that could not be touched. In that sense, the sabbath cannot be desecrated. It can be igonored, but not affected.
"Judaism is a religion of time aiming at the sanctification of time." The Sabbath: It's Meaning for Modern Man (1951), p.8
Indeed, but the point is that only the Creator has the power to declare something holy. Not man. And the quantity of human regard does not qualify any object, certainly no tangible object. If a million men regard a rock as sacred, it does not follow in the least that the rock is sacred.
Holiness does involve behavior, as a human response to understanding what holiness is. But behavior does not create holiness.
The idea that man can create holiness is at the bottom of this Koran issue and Guantanamo Bay.
Yale Divinity School is trying to push its way into the act these days, flexing again it's tired social conscience skills. In the latest issue (May/June 2005) of the Yale Alumni Magazine, Kathrin Day Lassila ('81) tells us that "A college for Protestants moves to religious pluralism: scenes from the new multifaith university," pp.32-42. "gods and men at yale," she titles her article. The lower case lettering is appropriate, for the divinity imagined by the authorities she sites is indeed not personal, nor a person.
The point is, pluralism is the very means to denigrate all religion, and to utterly obfuscate even the idea that there is any transcendent God or knowable truth.
"Generic religion evades responsibility," said Jacob Neusner, in "Can You Be 'Religious in General'?" This article appeared in a journal, Religious Studies and Theology, Vol.12, Nos. 2 & 3, May & September, 1992. The journal is published by the University of Alberta, P. Joseph Cahill being the editor-in-chief, at the time.
"For when we pretend to be "religious in general" but not in particular, we deny what is important about ourselves, that is, the families that bring us into being, the communities that draw us together, the things that evoke memory and impart sense to our lives," professor Neusner says.
Neusner, of course, is Jewish. But what he says is applicable to the situation at Guantanamo Bay. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "As you now we have given great consideration to the detainees that we're holding and their religious practices. We've given them culturally appropriate meals, we give them opportunities to worship, we give them appropriate religious materials like the Koran."
Of course it is good to respect the religion of others. But to promote it, to advocate its practice, is something else altogether. That's pluralism, and it may seem necessary in the dank tide of American multiculturalism, but, it's the kind of stuff that economic dictatorships are made of.
The trend in the world is globalism, and that is economic-driven, and forces religious pluralism--having to tolerate everyone else's religion in your face. The Muslims will never do it, not on a world scale. Their religion forbids it. Therefore, in a pluralistic situation, they will win. Always.
And, again, the deeper question is about holiness, and the identification of what is truly holy. That question is also being completely lost in the issue of religious pluralism. Is the Koran sacred? Are printed words on paper sacred? Is behavior sacred?
These are the matters at hand, not the issue of respecting someone else's religion, or someone else's idea of what is holy. That's too earthy, tactile, and superstitious. It becomes a mere power play, like saying, "Hey, that word offends me!" This way, one controls another person. Man simply does not have the power to declare anything holy. Attributing this power to man is the cause of much bloodshed in the world.
The idea of holiness is generated as an archetype of human behavior. All people have a capacity for it, and they manifest this capacity in ritualistic behavior. The ancient Hebrew idea of associating it with Time, initially and principally, is therefore rather unique in the history of man. The Sabbath is essentially the most intuitive archetype of all, and transcends behavior. It is not ritualistic, and involves no props, no visual aids. It is an intellectual concept par excellence. It eliminates idolatry, and lifts the mind above the material.
Some people are becoming concerned about Iran and her development of nuclear weapons. Last night, (May 10, 2005), on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill showed great concern that the United States may go to war with Iran. His reasons were simple: Iran supports major terrorism in the world, and, should Iran develope destructive nuclear weapons, like 'dirty' bombs, such bombs would no doubt be passed into the hands of terrorists. Thus the world would be in great peril, and particularly the United States.
Pictured here is the American flag with
the Iranian ISLAMIC flag, not the royal
Persian flag.
September 6, 2004, Abodollah Ramanzamzadeh, spokesman for Iran's reformist cabinet, said Iran was completely committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty with its additional protocals, and Iran was ready to offer transparency to any surveillance efforts. He offered reassurance that Iran's efforts are for the cultivation of nuclear energy, not weapons. (It's hard to accept this explanation, since the Persian Gulf area holds the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world. What would be the urgency to develope nuclear energy?)
September 15, 2004, US President Bush declared that the US would not tolerate any nuclear weapons in Iran.
Joseph Farah, WND, references an article from Der Spiegel which, he says, indicates that Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear weapons programme. Farah doesn't identify the article, but the point is made that Israel smashed Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme in 1981. So look out, Iran. The actual article posted April 28, apparently referenced by Farah, however, is not quite as dramatic as he makes it. Israel is said to be purchasing a large order of bombs from the US--in the future. It is merely "speculated" that this is in preparation for an attack on Iran.
(In addition to this report, Der Spiegel notes that a high-tec German-made crane has just been sold to Tehran, and the German government is trying frantically to stop the export ship from delivering it. It will apparently be used in connection with Iran's nuclear missiles, thus, it is a "political headache" for Germany.)
In the meantime, why has North Korea been allowed to produce six nuclear bombs, with all the missle power to carry them to far distances?
Kim Jong-il, and his father
Never mind the irony that the the international inspector making this report on North Korea is himself a Middle Easterner (Egyptian), and that the report comes out right at a time when the Middle Eastern state, Iran, is under the highest suspicion of creating nuclear weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei cannot be responsible for the timing of these intesecting reports, can he?
North Korea has been on the road to nuclear bombs for years, starving her people daily, sacrificing the nation, all for the sake of a maniacal dictator's rage for world clout. Kim Jong-il has done nothing but destroy North Korea as a country, and advanced only his cruel and murderous military power machine.
China has not intervened, and some have said that the only "diplomatic" solution is to let Japan re-arm herself. That would strike terror in the Orient, indeed.
North Korea does not control, nor has the potential to control, vast energy resources, like Iran does in the Persian Gulf. With a few deft moves, Iran could black-mail the world, in a way. Perhaps this is part of the explanation of the present 'preferential' treatment of Iran. Iran is actually much more 'globally' dangerous. (So North Korea buys and sells destructive technology from pirate states. So explosives go off in American cities. Why, that's nothing compared to what Iran could do. One day we might not have any gasoline for our SUV's.)
But we should remember, the people of Iran side with the United States, not their own government. They are dissatisfied with the 'reich' of the mullahs, but they are simply powerless to revolt. On whom could they depend for support, for even basic arms? Who will organize and carry out another revolution? Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians would be slaughtered immediately.
Iran comprises a very complicated social situation, and for this cause, the mullahs have been able to take control, and hold it. They forced their way in, through thuggery, basically. They used strong arm types from Jordan, Palestine, and Syria in the beginning. The Persian people are simply not war-like, but intellectual, poetic, prone to reading and education, and even the mystical. Yes, the world may fault them for allowing the dark, iron cowl of Islam to morph into anathema; but, shouldn't Iranians also be commended for their perference of spiritual things?
Well, one thing is clear: you have to believe in God, but keep your power dry. It's true. Whatever you have, even if only spiritual freedom, if you are not willing to fight for it, it will be taken from you--by cruel thugs--who will then exert their thuggery on others besides you. Fight for yourself, and you fight for the world. Perhaps this is what the Iranians forgot.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Terrorist bombs in NYC, once again!
"We do not at this point have any idea who did it or a motive," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, adding the explosion was caused by "a relatively unsophisticated explosive device." There were no threats or phone calls, he said.
Oh, so let's down play it altogether.
Why, it could be Islamic, Irish, or even English. Why? The bombs went off in front of the building inside of which is the British Consulate. The bombs went off early (3:30 am) Thursday morning (May 5), which is Election Day in England.
Oh, but "Officials stressed that it was not clear whether the consulate itself had been targeted. The midtown Manhattan office building houses a variety of domestic and foreign companies."
The obvious point is, it is terrorism! It happened again. Here, on our soil, in our city. No, it's magnitude, physcially, is insignificant, and incomparable to the 9-11 attacks on the WTC towers. But, it is exactly like the kind of daily act suicide murderers commit in Israel and in Bahgdad. This is disconcerting. It can happen any time, anywhere. There is really no stopping it.
And two people were shot an killed in a Houston oil drilling company office Thursday (May 5). This was at 8:30 am. The Cooper Cameron company manufactures pressure control systems for oil drilling. So, let's see, is that related to anything? Why, what would be the motive for that? Personal? Disgruntled workers? Foreign or domestic terrorists? Murderous environmental protesters?
Does it really matter any more what motives are? To this day, the official line on the OKC bombing (April 19, 1995) is that Timothy MacVeigh acted essentially alone, from personal motives. From that day, it has been well documented that the incident represents one of the most obvious and outrageous conspiratorial cover-ups in American history.
What is the public to think? We know now, most certainly, that we cannot fully trust the news or the government. This is truly a crisis. We have to think positively, however, to make it through the day. But we shouldn't lie to ourselves, either. Human beings are showing less and less self-control. Violence is becoming a common mode of expression, regardless of the motive.
The more this increases, the more freedoms we will lose, in the name of safety. This seems inevitable and unavoidable. The Christian faith has not succeeded in regenerating enough hearts in the world to overcome the progressive evils. Evil is on the rise, or so it appears.
Fundamental disrespect, so vehemently advocated by the Left, especially for the young, causes innumerable disputes and collisions of all kinds. Disaffection, and the natural resentment of youth toward adults and any establishment, is fostered by liberals. Hordes of gangs come into America through the massive illegal immigration, so dear to the cause of liberals. And the gangs come in all those wonderful multicultural colors. Not exactly Jesse Jackson's idea of a Rainbow Coalition, but rather a perpetual clash of envy, discontent, and impossible loyalties.
It is natural for people to band together in social groups. Clubs, organizations, churches, athletic teams, etc., represent a very natural process in human sociology. Gangs, however, from the mafia to the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13, the Mexican street gang), are based on violence. Any cause will suffice. The point is egotism, territory, control, and violence.
Solomon said this is also natural, and particularly appealing to youth. In the very first chapter of the Proverbs, Solomon warns the young man against the tendency to unite with a gang, to take advantage, to prey upon the vulnerable. (Prov. 1:10-19) Now, this is Solomon, writing from the throne, not from a ghetto. He is writing to a sophisticated people, not bedouin 'insurgents' of the dust. This only means that the "gang" mentality, which accounts for "insurgents" of every grade, is a natural propensity in the human heart, and particularly attracted to it are the young, of any social stratum.
Even women, young girls, are not exempt. Intense networking is a natural thing among women, and normally produces such truly wondrous reservoires of information like "Mom knowledge," and say, 'Nurse knowledge,' in the medical field. Anyone who's been in the hospital knows it's often a more sure thing to ask a nurse than a doctor, if you really want to know what's happening to you. Yet, the female bonding can manifest itself in the violence mode just as easily. Girl gangs are on the rise, and are equally as violent.
Of course, everyone likes to associate the gang mentality with lower socio-economic circumstances, where gangs offer protection, safety, and identity. But, in view of Solomon's words, it seems that these modern socio-psychological evaluations are off the mark. The gang mentality is not limited to the poor. One could easily see top financial organizations and banking fraternities as gangs. Would could interpret certain kinds of suits, shoes, cars, as social identity just as surely as colored underwear and bandanas mark the gangs.
The Christendom itself has not escaped this tendency to gang up. A brotherhood of non-violence is not exempt from crisis, especially when Christian groups have specific national identity. Europe is a history of Christian fighting other Christians, for the cause of their own local and national identities, as well as their 'theology.'
"And the earth was filled with violence," (Gen. 6:11), and it repented God that he had made man. (6:7). Are we headed in that direction again? Is the Divine overthrow of the planet once again the only solution to the aject waywardness of man?
Richard Poe posted a informative blog last week, "Pope Calls for a Christian Europe." (April 28, 2005). Pope Benedict XVI has articulated his views in a new book, Values in Times of Upheaval. The book, written in German, as Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs, published the second week in April, is apparently not yet available in English.
April 19, Asian Times reported Pope Benedict's vision that Europe must revitalize it's Christian culture, and ward off the influence of Islam. Says the Times, Ratzinger had "opposed Turkey's entry into the European Union." He is "calling for Europe to return to its core Christian values. He denounced Europe's 'incomprehensible self-hatred,' adding that if Europe wants to survive, 'it must consciously seek to rediscover its own soul'. He wrote, 'Multiculturalism cannot survive without common constants, without taking one's own culture as a point of departure.'
Then Poe references the August (2004) issue of French magazine, Le Figaro, and its quotes of former Cardinal Ratzinger: "In the course of history, Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe." "Making the two continents identical would be a mistake. It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance of the cultural to the benefit of economics."
More recently, Le Figaro posted an interview with Cardinal Ratzinger taken in November, 2001. Ratzinger said, "If secularity wants to exclude the religion, it is a mutilation human being." This he said in reference to the Nazi aversion to Catholicism, however, not the Muslim aversion to Christianity.
I published a FrontPageMagaizne article, "Where's Dracula When You Need Him," shortly after the 9-11 attacks on New York's WTC towers. I reminded readers that Europe was once threatened with total extinction, total absorption by the Islamic world. The threat became a cultural drone within European letters, expressed in the liturgies, and eventually evolved into entertainment. The Turkish Muslims had beseiged Vienna as late as 1683. A century later, Mozart's famous opera, The Abduction from the Seraglio (1782), made comic sport of the dreaded racial/religious/sexual drama: the old, dark, evil Turk abducted an innocent young English (not Austrian--for that would have been too dreadful) blonde girl, named "Blonde." It's something in the vein of "cowboys and Indians," in that the conflict was pronounced, protracted, and became a subject of cultural entertainment later. The dark Muslim against the white Christian. A likely story.
Dracula (Vlad II, ca. 1430-1476) and today's former
Cardinal J. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Interestingly, the scenario seems to have redeveloped, this time not through violent military invasion of Islam into Europe, but through a perverted, Communist type of "equality," which delights in pricking the idea of diveristy and racial integration, knowing full well the disastrous, culturally destructive results. European countries, even perhaps moreso than America, have prostrated themselves before the Third World invaders, in the name of tolerance, equal rights, freedom, etc. "Self-hatred," the Ratzinger called it. Fancy that.
I've also explored some of the psychological aspects of interracial romance (never mind the political guises through which it may be promoted), in What's Up with Dark Men?, What's Up with White Women?, and Tall, Dark, and Scary. These concerns are generally taboo, and are hidden under socio-economic issues, religious issues, or anything that can divert attention from the immediate flesh.
Fact is, if it weren't for radical personalities like Dracula, Prince of Wallacia (1456-62), most everyone today would be dark complexioned, Mulim by faith, and would be speaking Arabic as a first language. Dracula, son of Dracul, was leader of a monkish missionary/military order, firmly established by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund in 1431, in Nuremburg, The Order of the Dragon. (Dracul, in Romanian, means "dragon." Dracula means "son of the dragon." Vlad I was the first leader, Dracul; Vlad II his son, Prince of Wallacia, was Dracula, the next leader. The Order of the Dragon was established for the specific purpose of driving out the Turkish Muslims from eastern Europe.
What shall we say then, does the spirit of Dracula live again in Cardinal Ratzinger-now-Pope Benedict XVI? Not a blasphemous thought at all, if one can divorce the vampire legends from actual history; if one can separate literary and cinema entertainment from the facts of Eastern European history. The Pope has announced no plans for the expulsion of Muslims from Europe, but only for the revival of European Christian values. That's where it has to begin.
One major lesson looms again: whatever you have, someone stands ready to take if from you. Europe is so quaint, so lovely, so beautiful, it has been hated since it came into being. It has always been something the darkies of the world have wanted as a prize, and have wanted to control, if not to destroy. If Europe is not willing to fight to the death for itself, for its own culture, it will indeed be taken away, and made a dumping ground for the Third World. The great monied men of the world, the multi-nationals, will rejoice to see it. It's all part of their godless business plans.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001