As far as humans are concerned, the prince of darkness is the prince of deception. Darkness never appears as darkness, but always as something else. Something in fact desirable. We wouldn't want darkness, if we knew it was darkness, would we? After all, the human race is not suicidal, is it?
The Hollywood Dracula, Bela Lugosi, and the whole idea of formal attire, royalty, and perfected, stunning appearance, is well suited to the human disposition. His popularity proves it. We value social attainment, wealth, and refinement. What could be more appealing than the captious profile of Bela Lugosi, and that deep, rich voice, ornamented with touch of foreign, regal distance? Dracula came from afar, from obscurity in time and place. Mysteriously powerful and attractive.
Bela Lugosi, 1882-1956
It was a perfect deception. Humanity, appearing at it's very finest, cloaked the vampire, the blood-sucking monster. The foul, fetid beast feigns great intimacy, intense interest and care--especially for the weak. He senses weakness immediately, and hones in for the kill.
So, what's so monstrous about that? Isn't that what we all do, in different ways? Dracula is an archetype of the human personality. He is not foreign at all, not to human nature. I'm not sure exactly what sort of pretense we're practicing if we do see him as so offensive.
Dracula is a suffering survivor. He is alone and loathed. He lives off other people. He must deceive them into his confidence. He must lure them into a relationship. And he then lives off their blood. He drains them of their most precious possession--life. He completely robs them of their freedom. He makes a monster out of them.
Not that we all treat each other in such obviously horrible, destructive ways, necessarily, but, the idea of using each other--we seem to be constantly doing this. Sometimes it is mutual. We call that friendship, perhaps. We enjoy each other's society. We benefit from each other. But, in the business world, surely, all takers are children of the night. All business, all sales pitches, every 'sell,' is vampirism.
Bela Lugosi, as Count Dracula, in 1931
In other words, the popularity of Count Dracula is subliminal. He survives, just like we all want to. He triumphs, as we all dream of. And he's here to stay, psychologically. He's always been here, in fact. He represents our nature, our sense of being, all in the very worst, most raw manner. We're dependent on others. Yet our deepest "self" despises such weakness. So, in Dracula, we dramatize it. We glorify it. And we hate it at the same time. Being human is monstrous.
Ask the Muslims. Or, just ask the politicians.
Which Arab setting next to you on the plane, with his lovely wife and children, is not a mass murderer? We can't trust them anymore. All are suspect. Which politician is a good person? Behold how they demonize one another, for the sake of getting votes. And no, it's not just a Democrat custom, to demonize. They set the pace, however, so intensely, that demonizing dominates the media altogether, liberal and conservative sides. The vampirism of the Clintons tempted the dignity right out of politics. It's now a lazar house of moral zombies, or so it sounds, if you listen to commentators. (Bush rarely gets the kind of credit he deserves for staying above the fray, out of the mud. The day after 9-11, he called Islam "a religion of peace." Everyone knows that isn't true, but, Bush gave them, at least formally, the benefit of the doubt. A rare, kind moment in political history. Everyone knows, Islam is the religion of misery. Ask the feminists.)
But Islam appears to be a big deception these days. And Dracula is all about deceptive appearances. Dracula is about seduction, about sinister abuse. Dracula is about mistrust. Dracula rules, indeed. This is an age of mistrust. Mistrust can become a vice in itself. It can eat the heart out of a society, I should say, it can suck the life out of it. Islam is the vampire of our day. Islam has spread mistrust so far, so deeply, that it has infected the world with it's deceptive arts. Islam is not the only religion in the world that has produced cruelty through deception. But, in our time, in our modern history, I don't think there's any doubt anymore about the fact that Islam uses deception and cruelty. When a religion blesses a young mother and child for carrying mass murder in the baby carriage, we can safely say Islam is worse than Dracula. Islam contaminates innocence. Islam denigrates all human feeling.
For now, Islam is Dracula.
Indian drum ensemble sets Guiness world record. Oh, yeah?
No. It is not an American Indian drum group. This story has nothing to do with America, period, unless we can count America's liberal news media as par of "America." No. The group are Hindu people. Thats right. Sindhu people, people of "the river," in Sanskrit. People from "India," the Latin word for the Persian word, "Hindu," which was the Persian word for the river people.
BadEagle pointed this out just days ago. People from India are properly called Hindu, not "Indian." And now this latest headlilne, Indian drum ensemble sets Guiness world record. Just after BadEagle makes raises the issue, and makes the point, it is as if the liberal machine comes back with a vengeance! "Indian drum ensemble." Get it? Indian drum.
What could be more intimately associated with the American Indian? What is most specifically, most purely American Indian, than "Indian drum?"
Perhaps other people simply haven't caught on to the bigger picture here. Perhaps "liberal" Indians, professional protesters, are really not in touch with what's going on at all in the world. Perhaps they are simply caught up in their own little professional protests, like the issue over "Redskins," "Red Men," and other petty, ludicrous matters having to do with mascots and Indian names.
Well, when the big things happen, when the major usurpations of Indian identity happen, Where are the protesters? They're not even conscious! Why? Because they are completely insincere. They protest only what they're paid to protest--paid by liberals. And liberals want the honor of the image and name of the American Indian to be distributed to all darkies of the world, all in a grand anti-white movement, a colossal anti-American, anti-Western Civilization social movement.
The Hindu people play well into the hands of the cause of "Indian-izing" the dark races. Soon, Hindu people will be called "American" Indian. All non-white people of the western hemphisphere already are. It's only a matter of time and the people of Asia and then Africa will be called "American Indian." This is the will of the liberal racists.
Nearly 8,000 Hindu people, intentionally and misleadingly
called by the liberal media an "Indian drum ensemble."
The Hindu drum group was planning to make the Guiness record since the end of August. There were 5,000 of them then, including professional people, school children, and anyone who wanted to participate. Nearly 8,000 (7,951) showed up for the record, October 29, 2006. The term "indigenous drums" was conspicuously included in the story. AFP carried the same headline, Indian drum ensemble sets Guiness record, as if the 8,000 people were to be identified as an "ensemble," like an American Indian drum group at a pow-wow.
The new "Indians" of the American media.
Where are the brave American Indians who stand up for Indian indentity, who protect the Indian image, and the honor of the people? Their outrageous hypocrisy is abundantly clear now. It should be obvious to all. Their silence, their absense, affirms their utter meaninglessness and irrelevance as American Indian leaders.
Indians who really care follow Bad Eagle.
And let me point out that the record for the largest, mass drumming event was set in February 2005 by Po Leung Kuk, a charity organization for orphaned children in Hong Kong, which assembled 7,727 drummers. Of course, no one called the Chinese "Indian drummers," but, they might as well have. Aren't the Chinese descendents of the Mongolian race, as are American Indian? Indian means American Indian. This is clear. Otherwise it wouldn't be handed out like candy to the non-white people of the world. Liberals think they are dignifying the third world by redistributing the honor of the American Indian to each non-white race in the world.
Chinese girls in the Hong Kong drum competition.
I'm sorry. I hate this. I protest this. My soul doth rise up against it! Call me savage, but I'm jealous for the American Indian. I will not give our honor to another.
No, Indians aren't the only people who drum. But, curses! Not everyone that uses a drum is an American Indian!
Here is a recent letter/advertisement from David Horowitz regarding the use of film to advocate political agenda, for better or for worse. In the case of Robert Redford's Sundance Institute--with documentaries funded by George Soros, it is definitely for the worse.
26 Oct 2006 2:54 PM
What the Hollywood Left Doesn't Want You to Know
An Urgent Message
From the Desk of David Horowitz
Dear Friends,
The Hollywood Left is making an all-out effort to tilt the elections and undermine the War on Terror, but you have a chance to make a difference by reading to the end of this letter and joining our cause.
* George Soros and the Sundance Film Festival are currently giving away millions of dollars to fund over a hundred anti-American, anti-Israeli films like "My Terrorist" and "The Women of Hezbollah." Meanwhile Robert Redford's Sundance Channel airs such fare as "Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook," a 'reality TV' show in which American soldiers are depicted torturing 'innocent' Guantanamo detainees.
* On October 27th, just one week before the election, a movie will be released in U.S. theatres titled "Death of a President" that depicts the assassination of George W. Bush in graphic detail.
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and George Clooney's "Syriana" (which sympathetically depicts a suicide bomber who blows up an American oil facility) are currently being used as recruiting tools by terrorists. Hezbollah helps to distribute Moore's film in the Middle East.
Other recently released or forthcoming films from the left include:
* "The Road to Guantanamo" - a docudrama' about three Muslim men captured on an Al Qaeda battlefield in Afghanistan who say they were innocent and were tortured by U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo; the film recreates alleged scenes of torture by U.S. troops.
* "The Situation" in which American soldiers murder an Iraqi boy and trigger a cycle of violence.
* "Stop Loss" starring Ryan Philippe - about a soldier who refuses to serve in Iraq.
* "Charlie Wilson's War," starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, written by the "The West Wing's" Aaron Sorkin, which alleges that the CIA helped create' the Taliban and Al Qaeda by funding the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s - an allegation that has been repeatedly proven false.
If you're as disturbed by this as we are, you have a chance to make a difference. For the first time since Ronald Reagan left Hollywood for Washington there is a voice in Hollywood to counter the political left. The Liberty Film Festival is Hollywood's first pro-American, pro-Israel, film festival and cultural organization. Its purpose is to create the kind of film product of which Americans who love freedom and love their country can be proud. In June 2006, the Liberty Film Festival joined the David Horowitz Freedom Center to create a force in the entertainment industry which will stand up for the values that prevailed when Hollywood was Ronald Reagan's town.
The Liberty Film Festival has featured prominent Hollywood filmmakers like Joel Surnow (creator of Fox's top of the line series about the war on terror "24"), Cyrus Nowrasteh (writer/producer, ABC's "The Path to 9/11"), Steve McEveety (producer "Braveheart," "When We Were Soldiers," "The Passion of the Christ"), Frank Price (former President of Columbia Pictures & Chairman of Universal), director/producer David Zucker ("Airplane" "Naked Gun," "Scary Movie 4"), talk show host Michael Medved, talk show host Larry Elder, and many others.
The 2006 Liberty Film Festival, is scheduled for November 10-12, 2006 in Hollywood, will be screening 28 outstanding new conservative films. These include
* "A Journey to Iraq" -- which shows the gratitude Iraqi civilians feel towards President Bush and the American people for their help.
* "Suicide Killers" -- how Islamic societies - not George Bush - create terrorists.
* "Border War" -- about the threat of illegal immigration
* "ACLU: At War With America" -- how the ACLU undermines religious freedom- plus dozens of other terrific new films by up-and-coming conservative filmmakers.
It is critical that Americans like you support the Liberty Film Festival and the brave conservative filmmakers countering the anti-American propaganda of the Hollywood Left! We can't afford to let Hollywood undermine the War on Terror and turn it into another Vietnam.
The left understands the stakes. On opening night of the 2005 Liberty Film Festival, left-wing protestors rushed the stage of the Pacific Design Center and tried to attack me as I introduced the film "Brainwashing 101" which is about the left's efforts to indoctrinate students on American college campuses. The protestors screamed "Fascists have no right to free speech!" "You have no right to free speech!" They had to be tackled by members of the audience to prevent them from doing me bodily harm. Their message couldn't have been clearer: in Hollywood, conservatives have no right to free speech.
While the Hollywood Left attacks the cause of freedom, undermines the security of our country, and places our troops in danger, filmmakers who support America and the War on Terror are under siege. Just look at the Left's shameful attempt to censor the outstanding ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11." Democrat Senators and Congressmen wrote to ABC and demanded the miniseries be pulled, simply because it depicted Bill Clinton's failure to capture Bin Laden! And in an unprecedented move, the entire Democrat leadership of the Senate, led by Harry Reid, threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network didn't cancel the miniseries.
The Liberty Film Festival led the way in promoting "The Path to 9/11" and rallying conservative support for this outstanding miniseries. Liberty Film Festival Co-Founder Govindini Murty wrote the first review of "The Path to 9/11," and helped initiate a nation-wide conservative media effort to defend the miniseries and prevent it from being pulled off the air. For her efforts she was attacked in the pages of The Nation and the Huffington Post by Max Blumenthal (son of Clinton lawyer Sidney Blumenthal) who labelled her, Liberty Film Festival Co-Founder Jason Apuzzo, and everyone who supported "The Path to 9/11" as "political terrorists." This is just one example of how the Liberty Film Festival defends the free speech rights of conservative filmmakers and helps ensure that their work is seen by the public - despite the attempted censorship of the Left.
The Liberty Film Festival was founded in 2004 in Los Angeles by filmmakers Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty to foster a new film movement in Hollywood, drawing on conservative talents in the entertainment industry. The first two Liberty Film Festivals, held in 2004 and 2005, attracted a combined total of over 6,500 attendees.
The Liberty Film Festival has screened 41 films, of which 26 have been premieres and 14 films have achieved theatrical or DVD distribution. Outstanding films premiered at the Liberty Film Festival include "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," "Broken Promises: The UN at 60," "Cochise County, USA," and "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word & Deed." The Liberty Film Festival has been covered in The New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Washington Post, National Review, Human Events, Newsmax, as well as on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, AMC, BBC, and numerous radio shows.
The festival has achieved a tremendous success so far, but it needs your help to expand its efforts and make its impact greater still. The Hollywood Left has taken a side in the fight - and so can you, by supporting the 2006 Liberty Film Festival. The festival depends on individual donations. Please help the Liberty Film Festival by making a donation of $25, $50, $100, or $1,000 today. Support our filmmakers by giving as generously as possible. You can make your tax deductible charitable gift by following the highlighted links right now!
My Sincere Thanks,
David Horowitz
President & Founder
Horowitz Freedom Center
Now can everyone see why it is shameful for the sacred plains Indian sundance to be associated with such utter perfidy, such treacherous anti-Americanism? This association brings no honor to American Indians, but deep disgrace.
It is time to revive the Redford Raids, begun on the Bad Eagle Journal in January, 2005. I have long neglected this important endeavor. With the significant role George Soros has come to play in the Sundance Institute, it is critical that we understand how the name "Sundance" is being used to validate social agendas that are neither sensitive nor beneficial to American Indians.
To this end, I have created a new blog, The Soros Sundance. I will concentrate information and news about the matter there. Robert Redford, resentful if not spiteful "American" has given the Documentary division of his Sundance Institute to the control of George Soros, enemy of Western culture, particularly American culture. Or so it appears.
George Soros, billionaire, and Robert Redford, movie actor, doing their own
anti-American "Sundance." This is not what American Indians need.
Richard Poe and David Horowitz have devoted an entire book on the efforts of George Soros to subvert American society: The Shadow Party (2006). It is a phenomenal program Mr. Soros has undertaken. Soros funds the major "Democrat" social subversions. Richard Poe has been exposing Soros for some time now, and yet Soros' influence and power continues to make inroads into American culture. Richard Poe warned (on Bill O'Reilly in May, 2004) that no one was going to pay enough attention to Soros, and that the whole thing would ignored. Bill bragged about the huge number of his listeners, and then assured Richard that he would follow the Soros story. He hasn't.
Richard Poe, champion
of American values.
For the sake of American Indians, I will now follow the Soros story--and the Redford connection. I personally find it wildly offensive and tragic that an anti-American like Robert Redford, who hypocritically plays parts of rugged individuals--a peculiar and uniquely "American" cultural stereotype--and yet who literally despises American values (at least conservative Republican values), should be allowed to use the name "sundance" like a political party mascot. "Sundance" represents the deepest religious significance to the plains Indian people of America. Redford's use of it has never been remotely connected with Indian people, beneficial to them. (One must simply study the applications for film 'fellowships' at the institute, to realize there is no tactile interest in American Indians. One or two Indians, in a great while, are granted two-week fellowships, to show their already financed, already made, films to the pros that hang out at Redford's institute, to hear comments from them. That's it.)
I find it unacceptable that George Soros now has access to the same name, "Sundance." As I have pointed out, the name is in fact connected with a spot in Utah that was a Paiute camp, where the sundance was done. The name isn't about some laudry soap, or used car dealerships, or anti-American social causes. It is about the sacred, religious rite of the American Indian. Neither Robert Redford nor George Soros, enemies of American society, have any right whatsoever to usurp the glory of this name, and use it to validate or advance their personal agendas.
Why haven't American Indians protested this matter? Where are all those professional Indian protesters like Russell Means, or even the non-Indians like Ward Churchill? This Sundance abuse is the most outrageous abuse of all. And yet not a word of protest, save on BadEagle.com. I will henceforth begin a renewed campaign to correct this historical abuse. This time, I will not only blog, but I will plan effective measures. Redford and Soros will face the truth their abuse of the name "sundance." A cloud of protest will rise over the Sundance Institute.
This is a worthy enemy. The only kind that interests me.
Historically, people who come from the Indus river and eastward, were called Hindu. It is very important that they be referred to with the word Hindu, and not "Indian." Historically, Hindu did not indicate the religion per se, but the people, their culture, and everything associated with them.
In the English language, still the language of America, the word "Indian" was first used in reference to the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere, the North, Central, and South American continents. Yes, it was mistaken, but, that is beside the point. The historical name for the indigenous people of the Americas is Indian.
Why is this important? Here is a reference from an article I published on VDARE.com, 12-29-2003:
The Tatar Relation manuscript (ca.1247), written in Latin, already referred to the Asian sub-continent people of the "Sindhus" (the Sanskrit word for "river") as Indiam. In English, as early as the 6th century, A.D., Boethius used the terms "India," "Indus," and "Indea" in his De consolatione philosophiae.
Of course, Boethius was a Roman, and wrote in Latin. His work was translated into English in the late 9th century. More English translations followed. Continuing in the VDARE article:
The Persian pronunciation of "Indus" was of course "hindus," with the sounded "h." One Hindu authority says such a term didn't enter the "Hindu" vocabulary until the 7th century, or the age of Islam.
But not until 1662 did the Persian term appear in English, in the translations of John Davies (of Kidwell). By the next century, Anglo-Americans referred to people from the Indus as "Hindus." The only people whom they called "Indians" were the inhabitants of the Americas.
And from another VDARE article I posted, October 10, 2004:
However, the first written use of the word "Indian" in English is in 1566, in John Alday's translation of Boaystuau's Theatrum mundi, in which he refers to "an Indian philosopher named Diphileus"--a Greek name, no less.
I am offended by this confusion in modern day America, confusion which is created by the abundant presence of Hindu people referred to as "Indians." This, in effect, is yet another and very serious assault on the identity of the American Indian.
Thus, the typical modern headline in American papers: Indian Communisty Burgeoning in America. Of course, the article has to do with Hindus, not American Indian. And recently there appeared this entry on the blog, aboutbloginfo.com: "Fact about India." It is a strange collection of information about American Indians (Seminole), and it has my name and a name of one of my articles (It's the Casinos, Stupid). It has nothing to do with India, or Hindu people. Yet, is listed as "Fact about India."
Just search the single word "Indian" on Yahoo and Hindu people and culture are the first several listings. This is in English, of course. Google is little better.
This is an unnecessary confusion of race, culture, religion, and identity. This, of course, is the absolute delight of the Leftists, i.e., the Marxist, i.e., the Communists, the liberals, the socialists, whatever. They desire to eliminate all boundaries, all differences, and all in the name of equality. Yes, they'll use a race or a culture to create tumult and rebellion against any establishment. It's call ed racial agitation. This is what the Black Panthers was all about, and what the American Indian Movement was all about. The same white socialists created both parties.
I resent it. The name American Indian, or just Indian, in America, in American history, is too sacred to me. It means too much to too many people who are native of this land, more native than anyone else. That a horde of foreigners would come, bringing the same name--unnecessarily, is unacceptable to me. These people are Hindu, not "Indian." I will never refer to a person from India as "Indian," but always call them by the name which is more similar to their own name, sindhu, Sanskrit for "river."
I am offended to call them by the historical name of my own people. This is America, not the world. The people from India have another name by which they were historically known, and by which they should ever be known. American Indians don't have another such name. "Native American" is false, for anyone born here is technically "native" of America. "Indigenous" is to animalistic for me, and degrading. Too inhuman. Plants are "indigenous."
American Indians have enough problems without this unnecessary confusion of identity. American Indians should file suit, demanding that people from India be referred to as Hindu, not "Indian." Mark my words. In due time, the Hindus called "Indian" will eventually encroach upon the honor and priviledges of being American Indian. Every other darky in the world has already been at it. With the advantage of the improper name "Indian" so profusely applied to them, they stand in a position of great advantage. Perhaps no Hindus have even thought of such a thing. But the white anti-American racists of the Left have thought of it. You can be sure of that.
This man is not an American Indian, but a Hindu, his true name..
Human consciousness is a programmed balance of likes and dislikes. We desire some things, we are repulsed by others. According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the father of modern psychology, we are driven by the pleasure principle. We seek pleasure and we want to avoid pain. This is natural, and seems quite simple.
Sigmund Freud, creator of psychoanlaysis.
However, pleasure and pain are not just sensual experiences. In the human creature, there is the peculiar thing called self-consciousness, or psychological dimension. We can easily get perverted from the natural. We can find pleasure in pain. We can be repulsed by the pure and the beautiful, depending on our 'orientation.'
Politically speaking, there is a social ideology with a disposition that seems to have confused the plain and simple concepts of the human personality. The party of liberalism (which has many names, such as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Leftism, Liberalism, or Progressivism, and even Fascism--or anything that believes in the priciple of coercion) is intent on turning the personality upside down. Liberalism doesn't want you to have any aversions, to anything, for any reason. The only thing liberalism wants is that you hate intolerance of any kind. You mustn't condemn anything except condemnation itself. Of course, this "set of all sets" contradicts itself, like all coercive thought always does, but, liberals are not concerned with consistency, logic, or any order save their own power schemes. You logically cannot condemn condemnation without condemning your own position.
Thus, liberalism is the most vicious, hateful, intolerant, and above all, abnormal approach to human experience ever evolved in the social sphere. Liberalism is like the mafia. It is all about coercion. "We're going to take things away from you," as Hillary Clinton put it. She is speaking of the Communist (Marxist) principle of the redistribution of wealth. This is that materialistic idea of "equality," which these days, includes redistribution of words, talent, ideas, sex, children, and race. It is is a chemical diffusion in the brain, in fact, this ideology. Michael Savage has called it a mental disorder, or a psychological dysfunction. A disease. But, since it is so spread out over governments and countries, it is not perceived as a personal mental disorder. It is a grand scheme to rule the world, in the name of the world's good. (By the way, Savage was the first to idenity a social ideology with a personal, psychological term. The Left, of course, ever imitative and parasitical, has in recently started using the term to decry conservatives. How unimpressive and weak, with meaning only to the blind, ignorant, weak, and uninformed.)
Hillary Clinton, rejoicing in liberalism?
Liberalism's "equality " is contrary to every known function of the human mind. Preferences and aversions are the very definition of personality. Likes and dislikes are the stuff of identity. Differences and independence are the meaning of freedom. But liberalism will have none of this. Liberalism would deny the human being.
In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter calls liberalism the party of death. They express, in no uncertain terms, albeit deceptively, a desire for mass murder. Liberals are against anyone who wants to defend himself against an enemy, personal or national; they are against the death penalty for any reason; they promost muslim mass murderers by condemning our efforts against prosecuting them. By this, it is clear that liberals want many people to die. But, if that weren't clear enough, they want masses of unborn children to die.
So, liberals want to redistribute death. That's the bottom line. They want you to die, not the muslim murderer. Liberals want to spread death around, "equally." If you have an advantage in defense somehow, that defense must be taken away from you, so that you may be killed. After all, you dropped bombs on them, so they have the right to kill you. Let's be fair now. (Never mind why you had to drop bombs on them in the first place...)
You must not hate. You must not be repulsed by that which naturally repulses you. You must be come mature and accept, yes, even love, that which disgusts your very soul. That is liberalism. That is their "righteousness." That is their "religion," their "christianity." It covers all human experience, from sexuality, birth, growth and development, earning a living, even dying. The glaring inconsistences concomitant with this coercive redistribution of death are of no concern to the liberal. There is no connection between euthanasia and abortion. There is only a connection between mistreating muslim murderers and American freedom. Love of murderers--yea, love of murder, is more important than America, more important than freedom itself.
Liberalism is redistribution of death, want, and misery. Everyone must share the curse, equally. This is the great principle of Marxism, Communism, Leftism, Liberalism, or Progressivism. This is the principle of deception. This is Satanic. You mustn't try to escape the curse. How dare you! How dare you be so arrogant as to make an effort to rise above it. The great, religious liberals are here to make sure you don't escape it. Their mission is to baptize you in human misery and oppression. You must have your fair share.
You must have pain, not so much pleasure. It is the will of the liberal god. Indeed, the will of Allah.
Susan "Ostrich" has her head buried in the blindness of a protracted low estrogen level, or so it appears. Cranky, construed, and desiccated. In this new 'literary' effort, Soulless, Ann Coulter and the Right Wing Church of Hate, the intellect of Ex-rich seems wholly given to the parasitical. (Talk about "soulless"! How about lifeless.) And the implications of her maukish mime exceed the belabored excesses of her own agonal enunciations. This is a giddy sort of indulgence. Of course it is an attempt at humor. Any effort of Susan Estrichen to compare herself to Ann Coulter has to be funny, if not ludicrous. But that's the point. Except through a (cracked) mirrored comparison, there would be no way for Susan Ostrich to engage the mind of Ann Coulter. Susan E-stretch does not have the mental acuity to discuss any subject on a par with the greats. Nothing personal here against Susan Estricks, but, despite her impressive honors, she doesn't come across as an intellectual at all, but rather like a mildly sedated Ethel Merman.
Susan Estrich, attorney, professor, writer,
etc., but, sorry, not great thinker.
What's interesting, though, is how Susan Oistros plays both sides. Her new "book," Soulless, is published by Judith Regan, supposedly a great 'conservative' publisher. Of course, Susan Extracts has marketed her own victimhood, along with other liberal causes, but, her attempts to find the middle of the road are in error. She has critiqued major figures of Fox News (on which she appears often), but did so in great error. The Left sources were quick to point this out. Her criticism of Ann Coulter, hysterical, pretentious, boring and ineffective, will no doubt prove to be just as inaccurate.
By her use of the word "soulless" as a parallel to "godless," Eshticks shows she is unacquainted with what either term means. A profound liberal, Susan Estiques can only claim "hate" as her triumphant assessment of Ann Coulter. That is, Ann hates. Susan wants everyone to think that Ann hates. The Right wing hates. Hate is wrong. It is wrong to hate. This is the kindegarten emotionalism of Susan Ecstats. If you can accuse someone of hate, then you won all arguments. There are no arguments. Hate is the only evil in the world. Hate is the only thing wrong in the world. Oh, what lofty vision. What grandeur. What victory.
Funny, I for one never picked up on that, from Ann. I never thought she "hated," certainly not in the way Susan Atrisk tried to portray her. I've made some sport of Ann, too. Her wit invites it from others. But, Ann is really very great, in my opinion. I don't see the hate. I see a lot of truth, a lot of honesty, a lot of frankness. Of course all that incites the pharisaical Left to madness. The people that really hate here are the Lefties. They hate being exposed. They hate the freedom others have of disgreeing with them. They hate not getting their way. I've seen a lot of hate there.
But, for poking fun, nearly all writers seem to do that. Maybe it's just growing up with sibblings. Kids are artists at name-calling. I've never taken that seriously. I've had a share of it. But I take lying seriously. I hate liars. Indeed. I hate liars. I hate being lied about.
Some people call it righteous indignation--the kind of feeling you get when you see an adult sexually abuse a child, when you see a human being torture an animal for no reason, when you see muslims blow each other up, and everyone else they can. Yes. I hate these things.
I hate wrong. Yes, there's plenty of it in me, as I'm sure there is in most. But, I still hate it. I find the Left a hord of liars--who love lying! For the most part, they are not above the lowest forms of communication. In fact, this spoof of Susan Escringe demonstrates the point. She hates Ann Coulter. To write a book in such a way only shows that Susan E-string is a complete liberal, a professional Leftie.
Do we need again to define the Left? Democrat, government owes you, America is immoral, bad, wrong, evil, down with the West, up with the Third World, forget Christianity, forget the Constitution, forget history. America is a terrible, horrible place. And so forth. Now, obviously, not every Democrat thinks this way at all. Susan Eggrich may be right for trying to take a middle ground, but, her 'book,' Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right Wing Church of Hate is indisputable evidence that there is no middle. The "middle" is deep into the Left.
Ann Coulter has simple pointed out obvious duplicity, error, and nefarious motivations of the Left, and used cutting humor in so doing. Yes, the Left needs to be cut up, bad. The Left is dangerous, deceptive, and violent. Just look at Sears and Osten's book, The ACLU vs. America if you feel otherwise. Look at the violent demonstrations of activists--supported by the Shadow Party (supported by people like George Soros). Look at FrontPageMagazine's Discover the Network. Read Richard Poe.com. These sources are all well-documented.
I don't see Ann blowing up things she protests. She write about things she thinks is wrong. So she uses a very sharp edge in her words. Is this comparable to violence? Is this to be condemned, while Leftist political violence is ignored? Yes, if you as Susan Estrus. This is what the Left is all about: inconsistency. They have an agenda. All serves that agenda. It isn't about integrity. Susan Estrich may profess to be moderate, and may even think she is. But Ann Coulter is not an extremist. Ann Coulter is a very normal, red-blooded, patriotic American. If Susan Estrich considers this right wing, then this is uniquivocable evidence that Susan Estrich is deep Left.
The leadership of N.Korea is averse to the free world, and a menace to the health of the planet. This, to say nothing of the fact that the leadership is wickedly oppressive to its own people, starving them to death as we speak.
Kim Jong-il is obviously averse to all but his own fancy for power. People are not important to him. The world is not important to him. He has no friends, only cooperatives in crime. The world has spoken against him now, and all he has to say is that the world has 'declared war' on him. Clearly, war is all that is on his mind. It is his polemical drone, and has been ever since he has attempted to rise out of obscurity. There is a deep cultural pathology in North Korea. We generally refer to it as Communism, which, in his case, means let the people starve, equally, while the government enriches itself, and attempts to throw a nasty weight of threats around the world. This is North Korea.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il (C) inspects the Korean People's
Army unit 851 at an unidentified location in North Korea in this un-
dated file photo released August 30, 2006. North Korea said on
October 9, 2006 it had safely and successfully carried out an
underground nuclear test, flying in the face of a warning from
the U.N. Security Council. JAPAN OUT REUTERS/Korea News
Service (NORTH KOREA)
The nuclear test was on October 9, 2006 (in defiance of U.N warnings). Six days later, there was a sizable earthquake in Hawaii, Sunday, October 15. Of course, no one has attempted to relate the underground nuclear explosion with the earthquake, but, it doesn't seem illogical to imagine a connection. After all, the entire shores of the Pacific Ocean are known as the 'ring of fire' due to the unstable, volcanic activity on virtually evern land mass touching the ocean. The press tried to play down the size of the underground nuclear test ("less than 1 kiloton, a comparatively small nuclear detonation" equivalent to only 1,000 of TNT), but it seems only logical that such a jolt underground would have to have an effect on an already unstable earth crust. We know Kim Jong-il doesn't care what happens to anyone.
But where are the environmentalists? Where are the eco-terroriosts? Why don't they take out Kim Jong-il?
Where are the radicals when you need them? Simple: they're willing to support any one or any thing that undermines the United States, or the free Western world. That's where they are. Like all lefists, they have an agenda, and it's hate America. Doesn't matter what the guise or the "cause" they're behind, it's focused on downing America. Therefore, such radicals are always violently inconsistent, self-contradictory, and always duplicitous.
North Korea is all about destruction, weapons, and power. It has become a rat hole in the world. China is busy making money. China doesn't want to get tough with North Korea. Economic growth truly weakens moral resolve and erodes national definition and pride. And after all, China, as well as Russia, are enemies of the United States and of the Western free world. There is a stupifying trend of acceptance in the political world, enforced by the media, but the fact is, China and Russia are the enemies of peace and freedom. (They need a good does of islam! Ah, but, enemies work together for the destruction of a mutual enemy. Then they'll go at each other's throats in a wonderful "peace" frenzy. Watch.)
Either we starve to death the whole nation of North Korea, which is starved already, or we have to knock out their war machine. Otherwise, they will deliver destructive nuclear devices to the terrorists of the world. Either we set up missles in South Korea, Japan, and Alaska, pointing them directly at North Korea, or we sit back and watch them point theirs at us, and at everyone else. This is what's happening. We have to make a move, and stop talking about it.
Back in the news again, that grotesque and ghastly lie about Duke University LaCrosse players. The Bad Eagle journal named the black female 'victim(s)' as liars from day one. It's all turned out to be more than true. The lacrosse players did not rape anyone. No one was raped. The black girls were nothing but liars, from the start. Opportunists, and manipulators.
There are no extenuating circumstances, really. They have a right to make a living. They also have a choice about what kind of occupation they're involved in. Yes, it was quite foolish for two black girls to show up at an all white (save one) drinking party of athletes. But the story is out now. The whole problem was caused by the girls, and the girls alone. They initiated every confrontation. Kim Roberts, the lying witness, just wants to make money, and gain notoriety. The fake victim, perhaps roughed up by her boyfriend (--who skipped town), is just 'getting off' on the power of accusation. She made a big stir. She thinks that makes her happy, or at least covers her other miseries. (And there were plenty of hysterical black racists to support her, and give her all the attention and validation she is apparently so desperate for.)
The three white athletes, accused by attorney
Mike Nefong, of raping a black female: David Evans,
Reade Segilmann, and Collin Finnerty [CBS]
Beyond that, however, is the matter of Mike Nefong, their attorney. Mike Nefong, knowing the truth about the situation, nevertheless took advantage of the racial circumstances, and used it to insure his own re-election. For this, he should be not only dismissed from office, barred from practicing law anywhere, fined by the state of North Carolina, and sued by Duke University and each of the accused's families. The nefarious Nefong should be universally ostracized by American society, for he represents everything that's fundamentally wrong with it.
The nefarious, lying Mike Nefong, who transgressed every fiber of decency in the
law. "Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong sits in a courtroom at the Dur-
ham County Judicial Building in Durham, N.C., Tuesday, April 18, 2006. Nifong was
present for a hearing for Duke lacrosse player Collin Finnerty, who, along with team-
mate Reade Seligmann were arrested in connection with the alleged rape of an exotic
dancer during a party involving the Duke lacrosse team." Photo: AP Photo/Gerry
Broome
Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Isaiah 59:14
Yes, it is time to understand things in ancient terms, in time honored terms, in true terms. This Duke LaCrosse story is about lying, greed, deception, prentense, and falsehood. It is about using other people perniciously, viciously, and so far without consequence. The two black women, and white attorney Mike Nefong have paid no price for their perfidy and cruelty. They have gained. The lie has paid then, so far. They have benefited.
Poor, miserable lying, low-level porno women--what can they be made to pay in terms of justice? Nothing. Their lives cannot be made worse, apparently. All that's left for them is lying and the entertainment they get from that. Mike Nefong can be reduced a bit. He needs to be in jail, actually. He needs to receive the punishment he is so anxious to mete out to the LaCrosse boys. That would seem to be the call of justice.
We struggle to even conceive of justice these days, we see so little of it. In the name of false charity, of feigned righteousness, our courts plod along in a hopeless round of accusation, conviction, and then amnesty. What really is justice? Does anyone know? These boys' lives have been warped forever. Whatever error they committed in having a stupid drinking party, and calling up local "strippers" might be written off as immaturity, but, criminals they are not. They've had a social 'car wreck,' and they'll just have to move on.
The black girls? They seem to be in a hopeless condition. They have no remorse, no conscience, and no one is instructing them to value any such thing. Life is fairly meaningless to them, and they cannot comprehend meaning in anyone else's life. They have no appreciation for the denigration they have caused the white athletes. They can always indulge in racial "justice." They can always write it off (if they even think of it as a problem) as a pay back of some kind. That's what most black leaders have taught their people. You can't commit a crime against a white person. Why, they deserve it! You have the right to wrong the whites!
It appears that the wrongness of this incident is itself newsworthy. That's unusual. That shows just how outrageous racism and greed really are, and how deeply they affect our courts, and how shameless the media really is. Glorious combination, the media and its 'stars.'
And people want to critcize the Baghdad court over the Saddam Hussein trial? The Hague and the trial of the Serbian leaders? American courts are in fantasy land. The Duke case proves that 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'
In principle, if Nefong is free, then Saddam should be, too.
And one more lesson, if you don't want to be part of the low-life seen, then don't mess with low-life people. If you're born into the street life, then God have mercy on you. There must be hope for you, or God could never condemn you in the Judgment. If God is not just, then there is no god.
There has arisen an apparent need to address the matter of anti-Yeagley blogs, which are growing in number, and in impropriety. I shall have to address these because they may have some effect. They confuse people, they spread false information, and they cause real concern for those who care about the truth. No, they don't deserve the light of day, but, they intrude. It is the price of freedom: falsehood. The intrusion of lies. It isn't just a matter of fun and free-wheeling lampoons; it is a matter of vindictive and sometimes sinister aversion.
There have recently arisen two blogs which are devoted exclusively to the anti-Yeagley theme. Neither blog allows or posts responses, so that demonstrates the cowardice of both authors. Both claim to be written by Indian men, so that does a great disservice to Indians in general.
I shall address the blogspot "Bald Beagle.com" first. Bald Beagle is the work of homosexual Brent Michael Davids. Brent is a master of illusion and usurpation of language. But there are some simple facts here we must establish. He has never mentioned family lineage in any way. No one knows his kin. (Does he?) He says he is Mohican, but also says he is Stockbridge-Munsee. He never speaks or writes of either people or his relations with them. He completely white complexioned. I have met him in person on two occasions.
Brent suffers from tinnitus, a terrible ringing in the ear, and even wrote a quartet illustrating it. (That's his idea of music.) Whatever sympathy is due, he obstructs it with perversion. He also suffers from homosexuality, and the distortions of reality attendant thereunto. He has displayed numerous homosexual pornographic illustrations on Bald Beagle. (This alone should end any serious respect for him. People have been imprisoned for less.)
Brent writes all his own promotions, and writes all his own reviews, apparently. It is difficult to discern what is true and what isn't. He has misrepresented himself (in a positive way) and others (in a negative way) all too often. As he has failed in the matter of writing serious music, possibly due to his hearing problem, he has turned more and more to visual entertainment, thus his own site, his blogs, and Bald Beagle.
He had what appeared to be genuine creative talent in the beginning. (He tries to tell everyone he is "young," but he's nearly 50.) Alas, he has turned out to be an illusionist, in every way. He has ripped off all the honors by using the "Indian" image and manipulating it. He has absorbed much interest from foundations, national organizations, etc. His avid and pathological homosexuality, however, makes one wonder how much a part it has played in all his connections and success.
He has usurped every word and term from the field of classical music, and written works exploiting the time-honored value of these terms. He cannot write in form, in content, or in valid expression. He loves terms like "symphony," "opera," "quartet," but in no way remotely assimilates the meaning of these terms in his "music." His anti-Yeagley lampooning is the last of the Mohican "talent" in Brent Michael Davids. Indeed. It is total fanatasy. (I mean that literally. It is a false reality he creates. It is more than lampooning. It is psychotic, complete with multiple personality disorders and schizophrenia.)
It is all in Brent's venues, the art is in his self-created publicity efforts, and in his promotionals. There is no substance in the music. The music is as illusary as the thoughts on Bald Beagle. Brent procured for himself the opportunity to write the music for the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. The music was so perfectly horrible that it was rejected, along with him. He was later invited to participate in the "Native Classical" program this month, of course, but he wisely declined. He would probably have embarrassed everyone. He's basically a clown. Intentionally and philosophically. A "magic" Indian, and one who has about run out of tricks.
More serious, but equally erroneous, is Dr. Al Carroll's DavidYeagley.org. (Yes, he snagged that domain before I did. I never knew that there were people that cowardly and dishonest, with no self-validation possible so that they must use someone else's name.) "Dr." Carroll billed himself as a faculty member of St. Phillips College in 2005, but is no longer listed. St. Phillips is traditionally black/hispanic, in San Antonio, Texas. "Dr." Carroll, otherwise not to be found on the internet, says he is an adjunct for the Alamo Community College District now, though he is not listed. (Adjucts usually aren't.) He says he is "Mescalero Apache-unenrolled, Mexican, and Irish."
So, he is somewhat familiar with the academic world, wide and superficial as it often is, particularly in the fields of sociology and ethnic studies. He thinks listing his professors somehow qualifies him. Be that as it may, "Dr." Carroll feels completely competent and qualified to devote an entier blog to picking appart every sentence of mine he thinks is faulty. He show a certain talent for distortion and dissembling, true. He shows a fair ability to skew directions and create quirky skeins. The tedious task of unravelling his thoughts and exposing his disingenuous motives, as well as his misrepresented 'facts,' is all too laborious for now. Suffice it to say, he is wholly insignificant and pompous individual, with little comprehension of true academic thought and work. At least, he doesn't show any real rigour of thought in his blog. Every blog is a labored distortion.
I suppose the most revealing aspect of Dr. Carroll's chicanery, I should say, naivete and lack of academic experience, is that he thinks listing professors he has encountered somehow qualifies him. He thinks listing books he claims to have written--which are not listed on the internet, and listing articles included in other books with other authors (published by insignificant presses), and worst of all, listing "works in progress" are all supposed to impress any reader that might look at his blog. This is pitiable. He is clearly stretching himself, and has really nothing to say of any value in the greater academic world. He's also a liar, I'm afraid. I've looked carefully at some of his blogs. Stretching the truth, bending the facts, misrepresenting quotations, this is all to be expected from one's "enemies." But, lying is another thing. I don't like liars. Lampooners we have to live with. That's different. Liars are evil, and create only evil for all parties concerned.
Both Brent Michael Davids and "Dr. Al Carroll have lied, excessively. For this, I have no respect for them. My readers can pursue them, and believe whatever they want. However, I simply do not have time to deal with lies. I'll have to take a Bill O'Reilly move here. I have spoken about this once. "You'll never hear from me about this again," he said, when he addressed the accusations of phone porn offered up by some frustrated woman. I will not further deal with these insignificant people. I hope my readers can understand that.
"Dr." Carroll claims Bad Eagle readers have hacked his sight, after only a week of it's pitiable existence. That's what he thinks of my readers, probably all of whom didn't even know his blog existed until I mentioned it here. That's how inexperienced and self-important he is. No one cares if he is computer-challenged and can't work his blogspot. But he says "fanatic devotees" of Bad Eagle are out to get him. Hmm. Fanatic devotees? (The word is "fanatical.") Do I have fanatical devotees on Bad Eagle? I must say, he does not look at my site, or he would never say that, huh?!
I regret to even mention the sites of these individuals, for I know they will probably get traffic as a result. I've been lied about before, by Cinda Hughes. Those lies were printed in Indian news media, and caused a certain annoyance. Dr. Carroll and Brent Michael Davids present more of the same really. This is the part and parcel for one who expresses his opinion openly. I do wish there were a more worthy opponent out there, however. I'm concerned about that. If this is all there is, I'm not very significant myself.
Finally, those who oppose Columbus are generally aligned with those who oppose Western Civilization. Specifically, they oppose the principles of freedom, free enterprise, and independent development. Not to say these principles cannot be experienced outside say, American society, or that American Indians never knew of such "freedom" ideologies before the white man every came to the continent, but, there is no question that Communism is more foreign to Indians than American values ever were, or ever will be.
Russell Means has always said that Communism is alive and well on the reservation. I say, Communism is alive and well on university campuses in America as well. It is also operative in politics today. The media is apparently its chief exponent.
Indeed, I did use the term Communism ("commie") at the pre-Columbus Parade news conference in Denver. The Rocky Mountain News (Lou Kiltzer) was quick to pick up on that.
Before the event was over, Yeagley, who identifies himself as a Comanche, called one of the activists a "commie."
Indeed I did. The activist, a Mr. Cohen, had vehemently condemned history, morally indicted western civilization, and presumed American Indians should support such positions. At least that's what I heard from him. That's how I interpreted what he said. His position was fundamental Marxism, straight from the Communist Manifesto (1848). Why shouldn't he be identified as a Communist? These Lefties act like there's no such thing as a communist anymore! Why, there are Communists all over the place. You don't have to be a card-holding member of the ideology to actively promote communist values.
Karl Marx developed this idea of governance. It professes to be about "equality," but it really isn't. It's about oligarchy. A very few ruling over all. It is the masses that must be all equal. The leaders are far and above. That's how it has panned out, every time some foolish and unfortunate nation has tried it. Communism creates a tryannical dictatorship, that eschews individual identity and freedom.
In time, the word socialism came to replace "Communism." After that came the Left, then Liberalism, and now Progressive. These words all mean the same thing. And each of these ideologies, and political organizations behind them, have found a historical place in the Democratic Party. In fact, the very word "democracy" has come to be associated with Communism. "Equality" has come to mean anti-individuality. You mustn't excel. You mustn't distinquish yourself from anyone. You mustn't get ahead of anyone else. All men are--in terms of talent, ability, and character.
And money. Marxism (Communism) is all about materialism. Equality is measured solely in terms of material wealth. Redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Communism. This is Communism 101. Everyone owns everything, equally. This is a grand temptation to the poor, and has proven to be a horrible delusion.
I do use the term Communist. I will identify anyone who believes in these ideas as a Communist. What is wrong with that? Why would anyone object? What is the problem? Do they think "communism" is a bad word? A hurtful word? Does it denigrate someone? Does it lower his self-esteem? Do we have a "C" word, then? What is the explanation for this?
Simple: the record of Communists themselves has given the word "communism" a terrible connotation. Harvard's Black Book of Communism (1999) says it all. The ideology has failed universally. Those so unfortunate as to suffer under it, such as the people of North Korea, China, and others, are living testimony. Yet, today, in the free west, proponents of Communism are still able to pawn themselves off as "democrats," seeking the good of the people. They're still making a living of their "academic" status as protesters, as those willing to question, even challenge (--how adolescent and romantic) the "status quo," (Ward Churchill's favorite pass time, with or without pay).
I say these present day Communists, who first of all deny that they are communists, then protest being called communist, are basically cowards. They will not own up to the origin and nature of their ideology, they will not face the historical record of their ideology, and they continue to push themselves in the public eye as great heros of culture and global preservation. They are self-deceived at best, and they are deveivers at worst.
Oh, yes, the Rocky Mountain News (Lou Kiltzer) also told a half truth, which is the same as a lie.
David Yeagley...an American Indian who spoke Monday in favor of Denver's Columbus Day parade, refuses to shake the hand of Glenn Spagnuolo, one of the activists planning to protest the event.
Photo, Dennis Schroeder.
That isn't what happened at all. After the discussion was over, Spagnuolo came up to the table where I was sitting, and the first thing I did was extend my hand to him. He refused! "I don't know you that well," he said. I responded, "Man, if you don't have the ability to offer the most basic convention of civilization...I can't help you." He thought about that, then in a moment, he extended his hand to me--after I was out of that mode. I said, "No. You've already proven where you stand." I wasn't going to play games, like he was. That's what happened. (Also, my doctorate is in music, not history. I'm always clear about that. But news people don't aften bother with such 'details.')
This is how easily the media distorts things. Isn't it outrageous? Well, the Italians told me the press was all against them, basically. The press. Yes, the press. The news. Actually, it's one of the biggest frauds in operation. Especially in Denver.
So, it's white people against white people, trying to use Indians. That's what King George did, back in the days before the Revolution. He pitted the Indians against the colonists. Indians have to be wise and careful. We have to support what is in our best interest. I believe, at this point, America is in our best interest. We need to support America. And, like I said, Columbus never met any Comanches. (Lucky for him. If he did, he would never have lived to tell about it!) Columbus never met any American Indians at all. The Caribbean people are South American.
That's a different crowd altogether. Comanches fought! And so did a lot of other American Indians--like the whites had never seen fighting before. I happen to be proud of that. I will not share American Indian glory with any other people.
Kirkpatrick Sale's The Conquest of Paradise (1991) is considered an excellent account of the Columbus story. I have studied (and continue to study) this book. It is in second edition now.
I was fascinated with the romantic yet realistic presentation of Columbus in the opening chapters, but somewhat confused by the presentation of Medieval Europe in chapters 2-4. I must say, I find fault here. Sale presents the white European as somewhat of a mindless animal, rather, a machine. Europe is pictured as a mechanical consumer of all in its path, without conscience, without foresight, and as a result, rather self-destructive.
Europe came to dominate the world through its values, nonetheless, and Columbus is presented as the one who opened the way. Sale thus contradicts himself, as almost anyone does who tries to present the story of Columbus. He had earlier pictured Columbus as simply a heroic individual who died in complete obscurity. Columbus is quite a confusing character, after you've considered the whole story. It is a quixotic story, this "Opening of the World," as David Divine puts it.
Any age is full of condradiction, contrasts, and confusion. Sale opts to present a very dark, dark picture of Europe, so that "salvation" was to be found on new shores. Europe was a deep, dank, dying place, of horrid conditions. Europe had to break loose. I don't disagree with much of his conceptions of Medieval Europe, but I will say that any age, anywhere, could engender much of the same elements. Sale doesn't describe the Roman Church in a way that demonstrates its role in the 'dark ages' he presents. But much worse than that, Sale completely fails to mention the terror of islam, and the terror later terror of the Mongols. He concentrates on the introspective, psychological condition of the Europeans, but utterly neglects to mention one of the most intense and obvious elements: the invasion of islam, from the 7th to the 15 century in the west, and on onto the 17th century in the east. Europe was in a prolonged choke hold. This must be considered, for it is a necessity.
Every culture has an inevitable "boogie man," psychologically. In American, for instance, it was the Indian. In Europe, it was the dark, evil muslim. Circumstances reversed, of course. The muslim invaded Europe. Europe invade the Indian lands here in America. But the point is the same. One simply must have an enemy. There is always an enemy. Europe had an enemy, invading from the outside. Europe had this enemy for a long, long time. It was ingrained in the Collective Conscious. Mozart was writing comical opera about this archetypal enemy as late as 1782, "The Seduction from the Seraglio," pretty much about a dark Turk muslim trying to make it with the blue-eyed blonde from Vienna. (Of course, the roles are about the Turks and the Spanish, to keep it just a bit distanced from Vienna, where Mozart lived. It was the Arabs who were in Spain, and the Turks at Vienna's gates, but, the cast usually makes quite clear the point about the whites against the darks.) The opera is cast in the mid-16th century.
Engraving of a 19th-century London production of Die Entfuehrung aus dem Serail.
The compulsion of Europe to strike out in the world, to break away from the stultifying, suffocating grip of islam is a motivation of the most intense order. Consider the oppression already caused by the muslims in our modern world. Every time we're in an airport, we are oppressed--because of muslims. We are invaded. Our baggage is opened! This--all because of muslims. "Terrorism," we called it. Europe lived with it for centuries. Europe is living with it today, even as America lives with it. This is the effect of islam: revulsion. Oppression. Cultural stench.
So, although Kirkpatric Sale's account is marvelous, it is not without fundamental fault. That seems to be the calling card of any serious consideration of Columbus. It is a remarkable story, any way you tell it. As I have said, Columbus never met any American Indians, so, there is no real conversation to have as far as American Indian protest. It is academic fantasy, fit for an afternoon tea in Tehran (or Moscow--or Beijing).
I am convinced that the anti-American white liberals who promote this Marxist (Communist) racial agitation toward Columbus have no real heart in life. It is a false front they present. They may not even be capable of appreciating the spirit of Columbus. It seems the only discovery they ever made was their own puberty. Beyond that, they have buried themselves in feigned and vain power by professing to resent 500 years of western history. Why stop there? Other civilizations long before America had similar encounters with other people and new environments. Do the protesters want us all back in the caves?
And, yes, I do believe they are insincere. Protesting Columbus is actually stupid on their part. They are merely taking advantage of Indians who are frustrated and feel hopeless and helpless. But they are denying these Indians an opportunity to use the strength within the Indian community. Unity through the "common plight" principle is always weakness, and it distorts the future. These anti-American whites are causing great confusion and crippling in Indian country. They should always be regarded as the enemy of Indian people.
In future posts, I shall offer more specific critique of Sale's Conquest of Paradise. Next time, we'll start by examining the very title of the book.
At the moment, (Friday, 11:21 am, October 6, 2006) I am writing from a hotel in Washington, DC. I'm being feature as one of the American Indian classical composers in the programs presented by the National Museum of the American Indian. However, I was in Denver earlier this week, and I want to present an up-date on the events.
Here are some links to news articles and a video clip.
Columbus Day, Channel 7 (use search column on right, scroll down to "American Indian Speaks...)
Columbus Day "Diversity" by Paul Tiger
High Hopes for Columbus Parade (Al Knight)
Protest vowed for Columbus Day fete (Mike McPhee)
There is more, but, I will have to post other links later. For now, these are some basics. Of course, the blogosphere is alert to all this.
Anne Coulter of the native world
There's more. I must say, the "diversity" of my own educational background is hard for the news media to handle. When you say "doctorate," that means "Ph.D." to most people. I hold a Doctorate of Music Arts (DMA) which, in my opinion, is a higher form of a doctorate, because not only must you write a doctoral thesis, but you must perform at least four public recitals on a musical instrument. Pardon me for being "Greek" about it, but, philosophically, Plato and Aristotle, for instance, considered music the highest form of human experience. Intellectual as well as "emotional." And of course, those who are averse to me certainly wonder what a Comanche with a music degree (as well as degrees in religion, literature and history), is doing supporting the Columbus Parade! I'm sorry for the confusion of my image, but, I am a broad minded person, with a broad education, and I speak my mind.
There are two more radio interviews planned. I cannot presently give the times, but they are Denver radio stations. KHOW (Caplis and Silverman, we hope) and 850 KOW.
I must tend now to things at the National Museum of the American Indian. This is an entirely different story, which I will report on, in full, shortly. Suffice it to say, it has been a good thing to meet other Indians in classical music. I know the composers already, but meeting the performers has been wonderful. Classical performers!
So, I maintain that the Italians have a right to have a parade, unharrassed. Columbus has nothing to do with American Indians. The law now prevents protesters from disrupting funerals, at least in Frankfort, Kentucky. This law will spread. I think there should be laws about parades, too. Protesters must not be allowed to disrupt parades. If you don't like what the parade stands for, make a different parade, a different day.
But decency and civilized decore has never been the strong point of Leftists and liberals. Oh, yes, for those who consider "commie" a name-calling incident, (I was accused of that in Denver), I say, Communism is an ideology. When someone manifests this ideology, he is properly identified as a Communist, no? Lefist, liberal, Marxist, progressive, these all stand for the same ideology. "Commie," an abreviated form, can't be offensive, can it? Why should it be? Are communists like American Negroes now, changing there name every five minutes, being "offended" at this or that? I suppose so. We have now the "C" word. You mustn't call anyone a "commie." That's offensive. That's hurtful. That's demaning. So, do we call our enemies our 'friends' so that they can destroy us?
Funny, at the Denver press conference, there were no Indians. AIM forces (if that's what they were), were represented by a Jew, an Italian, and a Greek. Imagine that. Yes, I referred to Mr. Cohen as a "commie liberal." He articulated the quintessence of the ideology. To identify it as such--was this offensive? Guess so. Well, I'm pleased to identify the truth, but I'll also note that these pretenders really try to hide their identity in the most cowardly ways.
This will be a busy week for Bad Eagle and associates. First will be the encounters in Denver, Colorado with the Columbus Day Parade officials, then later in the week, the National Museum of the American Indian. It seems that the pursuit of truth and freedom require a certain willingness to live with controversy.
In any case, here are a some talking points I have offered the Denver media. (The Denver Post has already announced my visit). The major press conference is scheduled for Monday afternoon, 2:00, at the downtown Masonic Hall. Other individual media engagements are scheduled separately, Monday morning and possibly Monday evening.
COLUMBUS DAY Talking Points, 2006
Denver, Colorado
Is it rational to protest the accomplishments of half a millenium of civilization?
Is it an honorable legacy to teach young people to hate 500 years of world history?
Did the Pilgrims use Columbus' maps to get here?
Protesting the Columbus Parade is based on academic braggadocio--a giant, phantasmal scheme of anger designed for media show, in the otherwise private 'tea pot' world of the university. It may impress the ladies, and the immature, but it doesn't impress real men. Real men appreciate greatness in other men. Warriors honor the courage in other warriors. I see no courage or warriorhood in protesting the Columbus Day parade. I see rather honor in recognizing recognizing a man who was willing to go where no man had gone before--at least as far as he knew.
Columbus didn't threaten American Indian identity. He was trying to prove the world was round, and to find a short rout to Hindustan. The people who threaten Indian identity are people like Ward Churchill of Colorado AIM, and Skip Hayward of the Mashantucket-Pequot club.
Protesting the Columbus Parade is racist. It pits all the indigenous of the Western Hemisphere against the white European Christians. It denies the individual nationhood of each American Indian tribe, none of whom ever met Columbus.
Through protesting Columbus, anti-American Leftists are trying to make racists of all non-whites, denying all differences between the Coeur d'Alene and the Seminole, between the Sioux and the Cherokee. Protesting Europe does not mean the Comanche are the same as the Hawaiians. This is that same Communist ploy to erase all nationality for some academic ideology.
Columbus had a lot more nerve than any Leftist who opposes him. They're trying to prove the earth is flat again. That's a stage act, not courageous exploration of the world.
Indians never united against any foreigners before. Why now, 500 years too late? We weren't racists before. Why now? It is the Leftist ploy of common plight. All victims unite! Nothing could be more degrading.
It ill becomes a man of spirit to lament past losses in the name of "historical justice." Leftists make cowards of Indians.
Blaming Columbus for all that followed him historically is like blaming Thomas Savery (inventor of the internal combustion steam engine in 1698) for all the air pollution that followed. This is Leftist globalism. This is grand mal history.
No great thing was ever accomplished by resentment. No positive achievement is possible through anger or outrage. Where are the grand psychologists of the campus? Why haven't they asserted their 'sacred' theories of human behavior, and reminded these protesters of the true nature of their enterprise? It takes no courage to protest Columbus, but intellectual pretense, and impiety of soul.
Freedom is the basic issue. Italian Americans have been celebrating Columbus Day since 1866. Roosevelt declared it a national holiday in 1937. No one ever protested before. Were scholars ignorant? Were Indians cowardly? Why now? Why protest now?
If the Columbus Parade in Denver can be trashed by political imposters, then every parade in America is under siege. If the historical rights of any group of Americans can be viciously denied with impunity, on the basis of prejudice, then the Civil Rights movement is at last an ineffective sham, a shame, and utterly insincere. The Civil Rights movement is then seen to be a racist movement itself--racist against white Europeans.
The university Leftists are not the judge of what's right and wrong. The Liberals do not define justice. Will they make a parade for Joseph Stalin? Will they replace Columbus with Mao Tse Tong? or Pol Pot? Is this their idea of a hero--a mass murderers? Columbus was an explorer, a scientist of sorts, not a politician.
Finally, I hope that Indian people can shake free of the foolishness of anti-white white people (Leftists and Liberals) who are trying to use Indians to further their anti-white, anti-American political schemes. Let all the liberals go to Russia, or China. Better, to Baghdad. Let them shout, "Free Saddam." America doesn't need them. America doesn't want them. They protest for show, complain for pay, and mislead youth for the perverted pleasure of it.
I may not have ready access to a computer this coming week. I shall try to report what I can, and follow what I can. Look for local Denver media outlets. We'll see what happens. To me, it is worth it to at least try to open some alternative thought on this matter of the Columbus Day parade. Professional Indian protesters do not represent Indian people. Nor do I. I go, not as a representative of any tribe, any race, or any religion. I happen to be Comanche. I happen to be American Indian. And I happen to have faith in positive, hopeful, futuristic thinking.
From the Italian Heritage Parade
web site. This is an unidentified
picture, but there appears to me to
be an Indian on the right. Anyone
know anything aboutthis event? I
know it was taken from the San
Francisco parades, in recent years.