Rudy Youngblood's website says he is the son of Preston Tahchawwickah. (March 30, 2007, to date.) Now he has admitted (to the LA Times) that this is not true. Jolene Schonchin, apparently self-appointed 'spokesman' for the Comanche Nation, affirmed to the LA Times that Rudy is Comanche, from his father's side, and his father is Preston Tahchawwickah. So much for Jolene's reliability. Now Rudy is saying it is his mother who is Comanche. So much for Rudy and his mother in this new collaboration of illusion, this new conspiracy of identity.
Rudy, as the Afroid wonder, with a physique that won him
the part in Apocalypto. It just wasn't an Indian physique.
The story is actually worse, in Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is a faultless resource always, but early on, there were people who said Rudy's mother was half black (African American), and that her name was Roberta Rangel. Rudy's real name was Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez. Now, Wikipedia is open to the public, and people can indeed enter lies. There are professional editors who, when they become wise to nonsense, step in and control the articles. But, in the mean time, liars are free to lie. Currently, Wikipedia is using material taken directly from Rudy's website, and thus Wikipedia is affirming the false information about Rudy's father.
We don't know who Rudy's father is. We don't really even know who his mother is. Rudy will provide no evidence.
Why should he? For the simple reason that he is claiming to be American Indian. Traditionally, the first thing an Indian does is identify himself by family. In this day and age, in this social, historical reality in which we live, being Indian still requires that you name your family. Family is the most important thing. Rudy can't (or won't) name anyone, yet expects to be accepted as Indian. He has clearly lied about everything. This isn't being Indian. The stakes are high today. Indian identity is under seige. Rudy is an enemy.
The argument that he is "accepted," by the Comanches is completely false. No one Comanche, nor group of Comanches, represents the Comanche nation. We're forced to elect leaders, due to the 1934 imposition of the BIA constitutions. Our presente leader, Wallace Coffey, threw a photo op party for Rudy back in December (2006). If one wants to consider this national recognition, so be it. No blood members of the Tahchawwickah family recognize Rudy. Doesn't that mean anything to anyone? It does to any Indian concerned about honor.
A real, Texas Tachawwickah family. They never heard of Rudy until
the movie. Left to Right, standing: Neal, Nick III, Nicholas, Nathan;
father, Nick II, sitting.
The LA Times noted that Rudy has claimed descent from warriors of Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee. Among the Sioux, these are among the grandest 'medals' of honor known. That Rudy would make such a claim, without even so much as naming either of his parents, is truly outrageous. It is the voice of a reckless, lying youth, supported by another apparently reckless youth, his manager, Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk"), who, of course, can only deny the obvious at this point.
Rudy's behavior has insulted every tribe he has named. He insults the very claim to be Indian. That's what is happening here.
Now, the accusations of me, that I am not Indian, are as false as Rudy's claims to be Indian. I provided the LA Times with everything from historical records and photographs to birth certificates. I am exactly who I say I am. Reporter Robert Welkos cruelly refused to acknowledge this--after requesting all the information. He apparently did not make the same requests of the other "Indians" involved in the interview. He has assured me that my response to this matter will appear in a Letter to the Editor. Look for that tomorrow, Saturday, in the LA Times calendar.
I'm not on line on Saturdays. I try to observe the ancient Hebrew Sabbath. It's a tradition in our Comanche family. (We're the "good" Indians. Ha, ha!) But, do I claim to be Jewish, since I'm following an ancient Jewish tradition? Of course not. I'm not Jewish. What I believe just makes me a believer. It doesn't change my blood. Rudy 'believes' in Indian culture. That doesnt make him Indian.
As the LA Times article says, he doesn't want to play Indian anymore. So, give him some Mexican parts, some African American parts. Give him a part that suits him. In one of the past Wikipedia entries, it was stated that Rudy is going to play the young King Tut in an up-coming movie, but no details are given. Egyptian? Fine. Let Rudy play anything, even Indian. Just don't let him say he is Indian, when he most clearly is not. And why would a real Indian want to play something he isn't? How could he? Could Adam Beach play Lech Walesa, the Polish leader?
Adam Beach, Candian Saulteaux Indian.
Robert Welkos, of the Los Angeles Times, has published an article about Rudy "Youngblood," the star of Mel Gibson's movie, Apocalypto. The Welkos article is called 'Apocalypto' actor's ancestry questioned.
The story of how this article came about is something I will reveal at a later date. For now, my "enemies" may rejoice. In the name of equality, Rudy No Blood has been given the same status as myself. That is to say, I have been officially questioned, once again. And my pestilential detractors got the names of their ursurpative little web sites mentioned.
At this juncture, however, I would like to say this: from the article itself, one can perceive Rudy No Blood to be a liar. I shall make the point of this present Bad Eagle Journal entry to simply expose this. (Matters pertaining to the generation of the Welkos article, and disputed elements therein, again, I reserve for a later date.) From the Welkos article, we quote:
1) "my Native American heritage"
Rudy has not provided one single piece of demonstrable, historical evidence of his immediate family name. He has not named his father, mother, or any blood kin of any kind. His word therefore cannot be accepted on any legal, or even rational basis. It is a wild claim, which has won him undue advantage.
2) "Youngblood said he can't understand why Yeagley has it in for him."
If asking for the truth from a liar is "having it in" for him, then Rudy has legitimate concerns. He takes the position of an innocent victim, as manager Michelle R. Hall "Shining Elk" has apparently instructed. Yeagley is the bad guy for merely asking for Rudy's heritage, like family names, dates, documents, anything. (By the way, the Welkos article cites new managers: "Younglood is represented by Gibson's agent Ed Limato and Jim Osborne at International Creative Management," at least for a new movie up-coming.)
Rudy No Blood, the non-Indian "Indian."
3) "Jolene Schonchin, a spokeswoman for the Comanche Nation in Lawton, Okla., said Youngblood "is not on our tribal rolls, but he does have Comanche blood. His blood comes from his paternal side. His father was a full-blooded Comanche and a prominent member of the Comanche tribe, Preston Tahchawwickah."
Ms. Schonchin is not a spokeswoman that I have ever heard anything about. She works for the Comanche Nation News, a small monthly tribal newspaper: "assistant editor, reporter, and photographer." Her testimony is greatly mistaken, and contradicted by Rudy's own confession. Her credibility as a reporter is severely damaged by this. She apparently did no research, but relied on the word of others. She should be most offended at Rudy himself.
4) "Youngblood told The Times that Preston Tahchawwickah was not his biological father but his ceremonially adoptive father. Regardless, Youngblood said, 'I am Comanche. I'm not going to go into names. My tribe knows it. That is all that needs to be said.'
This is the most obvious prevarication to date. Welkos quotes Rudy's website, about being the son of Preston, then presents Rudy's own contradictory words. This is the tell-tale confession. Preston is not, again, not, the father of Rudy. The Comanche people are simply not Rudy's "tribe." He doesn't have one. He's not Indian. We're talking about blood, not private feelings, conversations, or heretofor unmentioned "ceremonial" adoptions. This latter bit is a new piece of Rudy's story, but it is still a confession of the fact that he has lied about his background, completely and thoroughly. Now any group of Indians can allow anyone they want to hang out with them. This does not magically create blood, however. It is a day of blood. Blood must be honored and preserved. Rudy insults all American Indians with his false claims.
5) "Youngblood said his biological mother is Comanche and his biological father is Yaqui, but he declined to identify them further, citing concerns for their privacy."
Entirely new claim now! Rudy's mother is Comanche! Of course, not enrolled, not named, and heretofore identified as Roberta Rangel, a hispanic (Mexican) woman. Rudy is obviously desperate. Biological father? Rudy knows who his biological father is? No one else does. What is there to be private about? You cannot be private when you claim to be Indian. If Rudy knew anything about being Indian, he would know this.
6) "When contacted by phone, a woman in Belton, Texas, who identified herself as Youngblood's mother said that she is Comanche and that she finds the debate over her son's heritage 'hilarious.'"
This woman is obviously a liar also. Perhaps this is where Rudy got the habit. Mysterious, unidentified people, all just like Rudy. Welkos is obviously uncertain that the woman spoken with was Rudy's mother.
7) "He said he has also used the name Rudy Gonzales, which he said was his stepfather's name."
I know for a fact that "Rudy Gonzales" is the name on his social security card. "Using" a name, is it? Is this an attempt to becloud his identity the more, so that somehow it will be more likely that he can be accepted as an Indian? If Rudy's words are to be taken seriously, this means we really don't know what his name it at all. He has never provided anyone with any birth certificate.
8) "The bottom line is, we don't need to explain anything to him," said [Michelle R. Hall] Shining Elk.
Wrong. Rudy needs to explain everything to everyone--if he expects to be recognized as an Indian. Michelle supports a fantasy, and is therefore guilty of the same scheme. We would have expected her to know better. When she realized Rudy was lying, she should have disassociated herself from him. She was evidently in too deep to back out. She commited herself to the lie.
9) "We went back and forth, and we believe him to be who he says he is," she [Talamantes] said. "We've talked to family members and community members who will vouch for him."
What family members? Only one has tried to assert the 'adoption' bit, and that was Lance Tahchawwicka. Talamantes is practically lying here herself. "Community members?" Who? Comanche tribal members? Who? The article clearly says that Tahchawwicka family members don't know Rudy. "Vouch for him?" Is this a new concept of being Indian now? What would motivate other Indians (if they were Indians) to lie? Money? Fame? What kind of advantage?
Rudyard Kipling's famous poem of 1899, "The White Man's Burden," echos with clarion majesty today, in the Persian Gulf. Iran has twice now snapped at the heels of Great Britian, and London seems unready to respond with resolve. Historically, Britian created the modern shape of the Middle East, however misanthropic it may appear now. Western industry developed the deserts into "countries," however improperly or unwisely they may have developed afterwards. Without the West, the deserts would still be deserts. There would be no natural resources known, let alone available to the world.
Peter O'Toole, as "Lawrence of Arabia," 1962.
But now these Middle Eastern countries are all in a state of piquant and cocky rebellion, more than willing to bite the hand that fed them. With their maniacal religion, Islam, they have a cause now to rebel, to assert themselves, and to create havoc in the world. T. E. Lawrence of Arabia experienced the depths of frustration known to all who try to uplift the 'underdeveloped.' The ingratitude returned, and the irony of being hated by those whom you've tried to help, and even the apparent betrayal of your own country in the process, all this is practically standard. It is to be expected. It is human nature, indeed.
Perhaps it therefore should be considered something to plan for. The socio-psychological dynamics of such a scenario must be anticipated carefully. There are always "native" leaders who are accused of taking selfish advantage of western developers, governmental or private; the "native" people will always in time rise up against the foreign investors and against their own "native" leaders who were created by the westerners.
Iran itself is a classic example of this very socio-psychological process. The United States made modern Iran, through the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavai. He was brilliant enough to move forward. In time, however, the nation rose up to declare "independence" for itself. And now the mullahs of Tehran think they can control all the Middle East. They certainly have no fear nor respect of Great Britain. That is abundantly clear.
England is content to "talk" about the most recent defiance of Tehran, and the abuse of British military personnel. (Yes, being kidnapped, taken prisoner, and held captive in secret quarters, and denied communication with British officials, is "abuse." There is no war between England and Iran.) The BBC has suggested that the British government has limited options in this situation. Tehran newsman Dr. Ali Pahlavan admits too that this is a political, 'reactionary' move on the part of the government in Tehran. The mullahs don't want to be told what to do, by the West, the world, or anyone. They assert themselves whenever possible, to demonstrate their 'power.'
For all the natural elegance and class and civilization in Iran people, however, the mullahs of Tehran represent the Arab barabarity of the 7th century. This is indeed the biggest disappointment in the Middle East. The mullahs, and their mascot Ahmadinejad, act like tribal drug thugs, and delight--with juvenile delinquency--to take hostages, to intimidate the prisoners, and to threaten everyone. This kind of behavior is so primitive, stupid, and dangerous, that Tehran will not succeed in its designs of ascendency. The Islamic arrogance will prove crippling to their natural Persian intelligence and vision. Islam will cause the downfall of Tehran. The Muslim faith will destroy the mullahs.
The modernity brought to Iran by England will, in the end, survive, and excell. The people of Iran are simply not like their government. They only tolerate their government. The question is, How far will they let their government go down the path of self-destruction? Indeed, this same question must be asked of British people, and indeed, American people. How far will we let our governments go? Or, as Kipling put it,
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Indeed, beware the judgement of your peers. Children do tend to grow up. They will challenge their fathers.
The government of Iran is trying to tempt all civilized governments to war, but the latest act against Great Britain is the greatest temptation thus far. It is clear that the mullahs of Tehran have no respect whatsoever for England. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, near the close of his administration, is now faced with the most insulting, denigrating apsect of all. He may chose to deal with it patiently, that is, ineffectively, or he may decided to be as severe as possible, thus doing the world a big favour.
British Prime Minister, Tony Blair: What
will he do?
Last week Iranian forces seized 15 British navel personnel, and took them to Tehran, claiming the British sailors had violated Iranian waters. Tony Blair says this is absolutely false, that the sailor were simply not in Iranian waters. "This is a very serious situation and there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi water; it simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters,” he said. “And I hope the Iranian government understand how fundamental an issue this is for us. We’ve certainly sent those messages back to them very, very clearly indeed."
Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, the mullah's mascot.
Some years ago, (1982) another British Prime Minister was not quite so cordial. Margaret Thatcher sent the Royal British Navy to the Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina. Argentina had suddenly claimed the islands, invaded, and occupied them. The Islands were a British protectorate, and Margaret Thatcher was prompt to "protect" them. Though no war was declared, in less than a month, the bombs were dropping. Within three months, it was over. The British had reestablished their presence and control, with a new safety zone, Falkland Islands Protection Zone (FIPZ) of a 150-mile perimeter.
It was a strong showing of British pride. Is there any left?
England is overrun with Middle Eastern Muslims. Certainly, any stark hesitancy to react to Tehran's arrogance is due to fear of repercussions on the "home" front. This is the price one pays for its Muslim population. Muslims weaken the country, deeply, and dangerously. The current crisis is a clear example.
Muslims are colonizers, not immigrants. They design to change the world into an Islamic world. That is their stated, organized, and determined purpose. Englands reaction to this current outrage will demonstrate tha ultimate resolve of the country. England has stood up against tyrants before. Not that Iran is comparable to Nazi Germany in strength, vision, or even concept, but, England is still in a position that demands the same kind of resolve that Winston Churchill showed.
Do you stand by and let Iran dictate reality in the Middle East? The British navy personnel are essentially hostages. That's what this situation is. Blair could immediately 'impound' 15 Iranians living in England, or better, in France, or Spain. The analogy would be accurate enough.
It is time to stand for Western Civilization. So far, Bush's attempts to introduce some kind of democracy in Iraq is the only serious modern attempt to resist the accursed influence of Islam since the establishment of Israel in 1948. Other than this, it has been a constant capitulation to the arrogance and disgusting intrusions of Islam. The world had bowed, in the name of civilization, kindness, tolerance, and other forms of weakness. Islam has made steady inroads, steady, pestilential rotting throughout the Western world.
England, show us your stuff! Show us your nationhood. Show us your pride. Show us your strength. If you lose that stiff upper lip, for which you are famous, the world is going to get a puch in the face from which it may ill recover. England, you're on. You're up at the plate. It's your turn.
Can you believe it? David Ehrenstein published in the Los Angeles Times entitled Obama the 'Magic Negro.' The LATimes. The Liberal Attitude of the Times. Something like that.
Rush Limbaugh has an interesting commentary on the interesting article. It's all about black authenticity, and it is the Liberals who are making this the issue. Ehrenstein tries to condemn whites who support Obama as racists! Why, Obama isn't "black" enough, in his life experience, in his blood, and even in his looks. He is a "magic Negro" because whites can vote for him, and feel better. It's all about assuaging white guilt. Obama's success is the result of the white guilt. Radical Democrat internet Media Matters was pleased to post Limbaugh's commentary, and the audio.
Senator Barak Obama
Without getting into all that, I must simply admit, I resent the term "Negro" being used in this way. I have reserved the word "Negro" for most serious, majestic name for the race. "Negro" has historical grandeur, global dignity, and clear identity. Negro is not a derogatory term. It is not belittling, nor insulting. To hear it used as some cartoon fantasy, in some spoof or lampoon, I find tragic. It takes away the one serious title, the one legitimate name of the race--at least in the English language. ("Negro" does not mean "black" in English, as negro in Latin, and in all the other Latin languages. Thus, is wholly innocent of any but historical association.)
The Rev. Al Sharpton
The parody, or the satire by Paul Shanklin which Rush Limbaugh featured--a musical song ("Barak, The Magic Negro" sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon"), is hilarious, of course, but, as long as everyone remembers that the song makes fun of Al Sharpton, not Barak Obama. The song is not about Obama at all. It is Al Sharpton, singing about Obama. Sharpton has raised a lot of issues about Obama. I can't say I ever anticipated agreeing with Sharpton on anything important, but, in this case, I do agree with him. Whatever Obama is, he does not represent the American Negro. He just doesn't. He does not have the experience, the social identity, the history, or even the looks. He is a Negro, yes, but not an American Negro. He is an African Negro.
For what it's worth, I do protest the comical use of the word Negro, only for the reason that it robs me of the one word I thought carried respect. Of course, lampooning is what American politics is all about. I will still use the word Negro with respect, but now I'll probably always have to stifle a laugh that comes with it, now that it's been used in sport, rather hilariously. Rats. Humor is so powerful! Wholly hilarity, Black Man!
The Shanklin song is features on Limbaughs site, at least today, March 22, 2007. I don't know how long it will be available. "Barak, the Magic Negro."
Is it ignorance, or dishonesty?
Senator Patrick Leahy et al. are hysterical about the White House dismissal of eight attorney generals across the country--despite the fact that it is an absolutely legal, executive, presidential power exercised by President Bush. Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton fired all attorney generals in 1993 (through Janet Reno, then Attorney General of the United States), and that nary a word of protest was spoken. Hillary Clinton is now demanding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign. This is the apogee of hypocrisy and amorality. This is the behavior of an abandoned soul.
Democrat Senator Patrick J. Leahy
According to the United States Constitution, the Senate has absolutely no business interfereing with this Executive power (Article II, Section 2.) What Democrat Senator Leahy et al. are doing is wholly unconstitutional, and actually illegal. Senator Leahy and his cohorts should be prosecuted!
Of course, Democrats are not know for honoring the Constitution. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has long called for a revisions and referendums on the Constitution--(though lately she's trying to using the her interpretations of the Constitution to support her anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-Right positions.) In fact, if Hillary were to become president, it would be a definite change in the Constitution. There is no "he or she" provision, historically. "He" means male, not female. In other words, the Constitution does not technically provide for a female president. Of course, women did not vote in those early days, either. And guns were used to hunt food, as well as to defend. There are a lot of circumstances to day which the Constitution does not appear to address.
But it does address the separation of powers, between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The appointing and dismissing of attorney generals is an executive responsibility, and the Senate has power only to advise and consent, "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Furthermore, "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." Apparently, Congress opted to give the president power alone to appoint the attorney generals. Clinton did it. The objection to Bush is total fantasy. It is political posturing, and wholly improprietous on the part of the Democrats, as we have come to expect.
Such professional fraudulence of purpose, on the part of our highest trusted officials in the country, has a devastating effect on the morale of the nation. American people are weary of fraud. The Clintons wore us out. And now the Democrats are continuing the same established pattern of moral fraud, of pretense, of mean-spirited illegality.
They call it politics by "investigation," not by legislation. To call an investigation has more political influence than writing a law and trying to get the votes to pass it. An investigation is instant, dramatic, and provides utter delight to media artists. An investigation--especially one in which subpoenas are issued before those to be questioned have even been informed of the investigation--automatically smears if not condemns those named in the investigation.
Thus Democrats wear out the meaning of words, and make them powerless. Fraud rapes words. Fraud creates chaos. Words are all we have, at heart. The disatrous effects of this Democrat defilement of language will be far beyond anything they imagined. Indeed, the moral decline has long begun. The Democrats have invited and supported the lowest, most vile criminals in the world to come to America and to rob and murder American citizens. Citizenship has thus been ravaged of its honor and meaning.
The show's just getting started however. Much, much worse is soon to come.
There was certainly a time in American history when almost everyone thought of Mexicans the same way. She was our neighbor, the girl next door, and she was beautiful. (To this day, Mexico is still the most romantic country in the western hemisphere.) But things have changed. Her image has become dirty, offensive, and unwanted.
A year ago January, I wrote a piece for Peter Brimelow's VDARE.com entitled, "America's Unending Romance." Mexico was America's first girlfriend, I said, but now she's fat and pregnant, and she wants to move in. With her charms she cast such a spell over America that we haven't had the self-discipline to put her out. But that baby is not ours. It's her own. We have no responsibility for it, or for her.
Her child is from the deep south of Mexico, from the heart of poverty, and her own whorish irresponsibility. What's coming our way is an ogre, a lusus naturae, a misanthropy. The people that are making the mass trespass are illiterate, diseased, unkempt, and bring every species of vice, denigration, and illigitimacy. The children are bastards, the baby-makers are utterly irreseponsible, and iexemplify the emotional meaning of the word "bastard." This is a giant waste movement coming up from the south.
The romance is fast becoming a mere psycho-political ploy in the American people, and used ever so adroitly by American politicians. America has no historical resentment toward Mexico. America has no deep, abiding animosity. As I said, Americans have always tended to feel good things toward Mexico and Mexican people. It's just no longer true. Masses of low-down scoundrals have crossed the borders, and made a mockery of that romantic historical image. Soon the majority of Americans, if not already so, will think of Mexican people as the great whore from south of the river, and not the once beautiful neighbor.
The once beautiful Mexican girl, America's charming friend, turned enemy?
It is a sad thing. A historical tragedy, really. The Mexican government is so indescribably corrupt, (and almost always has been), that Mexican people have turned out to be desperados--to the man. This is what illegal immigration has done.
BadEagle.com has decried all this for some time with many journal entries and op/ed articles. Nothing has improved, and has only changed for the worse. It is the American government's responsibility to deal with the plague, but the government refuses to take that responsibility. Yet, that same US government will imprison anyone who attempts to take it.
And no, the mass Mexican trespass is not comparable to any other kind og migration American history. It is not comparable to the Irish immigration, the Italian, or even the current Muslim immigrations. Why? No one made any special provisions for the historical immigrants. They were on their own. (Indeed, that's no doubt why they developed organized crime, in the form of gangs, neighborhood political syndicates, police forces, and public politicians). The European immigrants, be they from Poland, Germany, Hungary, or Italy, all had to learn English on their own. Nobody printed anything in Polish for them; no law made public services to be printed in German or Italian. These people all made it on their own, and they did nothing but work. American wasn't built on the backs of African slaves at all, but on the backs of the Irish, the Scotts, and the Italians.
America was indeed in the contruction stage, when these people came. We're not in that stage now. The country is long established. Mexicans are basically economic free-loaders. They've been taught to think that everything is owed them, and if they will work, America is theirs for the taking. Imagine, conquering the country by planting onions. Masters of the land, by picking lettuce.
Essential and significant American citizens, by the will of anti-American Democrats and morally abandoned Republicans. That's what Mexicans have become. The new Mexican is a traitor to his own country, an alien in this country, and willing to be used and abused by both. But he knows whatever he can get in this country, it is far, far better than what he has in Mexico. So, he hires himself out. It seems like the logical thing to do.
But it is the cowardly thing to do. The Mexican is a moral slob. Why? He should be revolting against his own government. He should be a man, not a fugitive. Where is Zapata? Where is Pancho Villa? I have asked this question many times. There is no answer.
At the end of the 1952 movie, Viva Zapata!, after the federales cast down the bullet-ridden body of Emiliano Zapata on the village fountain, the old men gather around it. "How do we know that is Zapata?" one said. "It could be anyone, shot up that bad." Then they all caught a glorious vision. "He's alive. He's in the mountains. He'll be there when we need him."
Would to God it were true. Now is the time.
Who would say such a thing as "Death to Illegal Immigrants"? What might that actually mean? What would occasion the thought? Death to traitors? Who'd a thunk it?
Everyone's 'thunk' it, and has been thinking it for thousands of years. It's called history.
Today, I have the distinct impression that America is being invaded by an enemy, and that enemy is being aided by Americans. I recently published several Bad Eagle Journal entries on illegal (Mexican) immigration: Death Dishonored; Mexican Sewage Headed North; The Mass Trespass; and one entitled "Illegal Immigrants Must Die." That last one, "Illegal Immigrants Must Die," was alarming and offensive to many people. Of course, liberals and other enemies of America seize upon the title, and without so much as reading the first sentence of the article, denounce it as, shall we say, 'mean-spirited.'
Well, every journalist knows, you only get so many words for a title. If I could have used a 64-word title, it would have run something like this:
"Illegal immigrants, who knowingly, willfully risk their lives to commit an illegal act of trespassing on a foreign country's land and find themselves starved, burnt, or shot by other illegals committing the same act of trespassing, do not deserve to be rescued by American medical services, should be allowed to die where they fall, and America has no responsibility whatever to bury their bodies."
This is about equity, compassion, and justice. I explained all that in the article. But, let me address any adverse reactions to the original, short title, "Illegal Immigrants Must Die."
This is not a death wish. And it is more than simply a plea for compassion and justice. This is about nationhood. The mass trespass is essentially a foreign invasion. The Mexicans are here as robbers and theives. That is the technical effect of their presence. They are here to take what America has, for themselves. That is called robbery.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
uses non-union (i.e., illegal) immigrants
to work her Napa Valley vineyard.
Now, Americans that assist them in this are properly called traitors. There was a time in American when traitors were hung. They were exiled, they were imprisoned, and yes, hung. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. We need to reconsider that concept. Treason against one's nation cannot be tolerated, else treason becomes a business advantage for all and any, and the nation quickly dissolves.
So the point again becomes nationhood. What the world and its Communist (liberal) leaders have managed to make everyone forget is the fact that nations are ordained. They exist, and the health of the world rests upon their proper management. And no, Communist regimes in the world have never been true nations, but only race-based dictatorships, with thugs at the helm. Nobility and good will were never part of the Communist regimes of China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, or Vietnam or Cambodia.
True nationhood is not created, but ordained of nature and of nature's Creator. Therefore, the invasion of Mexico into the United States is criminal by every description. It is not a migration. It is an invasion. Failure to recognize it as such continues to result in the abuse of American citizens, and the mockery of American sovereignty. The businessmen and leaders who continue to permit and encourage this invasion are in fact traitors. This is indeed a war of nationhood, and they are proven in sympathy with the enemy.
There is such a thing as war in this world. The enemy must be destroyed, one way or another. His aggressions must be made to cease. Atomic bombs ended WWII. But the ceaseless smaller 'road side bombs' in the world have continued to grow, like an uncontrollable plague. Violence is a great ego boost for the morally abandoned peoples of the world. Unfortunately, in this kind of world, it has to be dealt with--by supreme violence. That is the lesson of history. The refusal to overcome violence with superior violence is perhaps a reflection of America's enemies within. Their liberal sense of morality is simply a self-righteous, self-congratulatory illusion of morality, with no thought of respect for the country, no concern for the preservation of the nation. Their righteousness is a self-indulgent, self-glorifying fraud.
They don't presume America will stand forever. In fact, their plan is to change America into something it never was before, and was never meant to be. They are using America for their own ideology. They simply do not love America. They love their own power.
Their continual dispersions of contradiction and intense confusion, through media, make everyone less able to recognize the truth, and less likely to espouse it. The confusion of language, culture, values--pluralism to put it frankly, works to their advantage, they think. But instead, such confusion actually opens the doors to more violence, more mass murders, more social unrest, and more problems. Thus, the Mexcan invasion suits all their purposes, and they are determined to support it.
In this case, Republican leadership has chosen to support business itself, rather than America. They have decided that business is America. Thus, they have abandonded the star-spangled banner. They see only dollar signs. To them, America has become a used car lot, where Old Glory flies freely. This is a tragic day in America.
The art of insinuation is a fine-tuned tactic of Leftists, Liberals, Democrats, and other serpents. Their efforts are renewed and refined with a satanic zeal it seems almost every week.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Democrat Patrick Leahy, authorized the use of subpoenas in the pursuit of (we should say political persecution of) Bush adminstration officials involved in the dismissal of eight US attorneys.
Patrick Leahy (L), consulting with Ted Kennedy (R). A classic posture.
Of course, a subpoena is a legal coercion used after a witness refuses to be deposed or to testify, or to be involved in the investigation. The problem here is the those who have been subpoenaed--haven't been asked yet! This is called "preemptive" authority, from an obviously hostile source. Preemptive accusation, preemptive guilt-throwing. But this is a situation in which the truly guilty are acting super-authoritative, to make an appearance being morally superior, when everyone knows they are themselves abundantly guilty--at least of outrageous, lying hypocrisy.
"The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions." The Observer, March 15, 2007.
The official Democrat document, issuing from Democrat Leahy's office, reads that the subpoenas were issued "to 11 current and former Department of Justice officials as part of the panel’s ongoing investigation into the unprecedented firings of eight prosecutors last year."
"Unprecedented firings?" What about when Democrat Bill Clinton (through Janet Reno) fired all 93 US Attorneys across the board, in one fell swoop? I'd call that at least some kind of precedent. But Leahy says Attorney Gonzales' firing of the eight is "an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country and the trust of all Americans." "Mass firings," he calls the termination of eight. (Apparently, some time ago, the Bush White House did consider firing all 93, just like Clinton did. The President has the power to do it, but Bush decided against it.)
This is Leahy lying, yes, but it is more than lying. It is the art of distortion, or propaganda. It is beyond lying. A lie is too simple to cover the meaning of what happens when Democrat leaders lie like this. It is a kind of 'house of lies.' It is a cluster of falsehoods. It is a weighty swoon of reality. It is extremely unhealthy for society to be continually subjected to this. Whatever reality is, society should be subjected to that, not obvious fabrications, motivated by mean-spirited individuals in high office.
But, like USMC General Peter Pace, the Republican adminstration seeks to pacify, to mollify, indeed, to apologize, to quiet down the hysterical Democrats and the irresponsible press. "Mistakes were made," proclaimed Attorney Gonzales, as well as President Bush himself.
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
attempting to be civil before the irrational.
What mistakes? Mistakes that the wrong people were fired, or was it the way in which they were fired, or was it wrong to fire anyone? This is the most ludicrous, insincere rape of political language Democrats have made to date. They are linguistic criminals, abusers of language, and the chaos of thought they are creating will surely have an adverse effect. As always, we can only hope to see it return upon their own heads.
In the mean time, their corruption of soul is egregious and obvious, their malicious intent on display before the world.
Disappointingly, but predictably, USMC General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has begun his back-tracking. He said he believe homosexuality is immoral, and that it should not be condoned or encouraged by the United State military. Now he says he regrets having said that.
The new US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, was among the first to express offense at Gen. Pace's remarks. In an interview on the Pentagon Channel, Gates declined to give his opinion on the current military policy: "Personal opinion really doesn't have a place here. What's important is that we have a law, a statute that governs 'don't ask, don't tell." "That's the policy of this department, and it's my responsibility to execute that policy as effectively as we can," Gates said. "As long as the law is what it is, that's what we'll do."
USMC General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joing Chiefs of Staff: "Homosexuality is immoral."
Of course, General Pace had characterized his own remarks as "personal opinion." Now his is saying he regrets having expressed his personal opinion. Issuing a written statement, he said "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views." But on the homosexuality issue itself, his senior staff members said he was expressing personal views and did not intend to apologize.
So, does this mean that no one is allowed to express personal opinion? There is no longer a 1st Amendment?
There was nothing in Pace's tone or demeanor that bespoke hate speech, arrogance, or anything demeaning, belittling, or in the spirit of denigration. It was a personal testimony about morality. Is there no place for such testimony in public office? In the military? In the world? Is this what homosexuality has done--destroyed the 1st Amendment?
Homosexuals are banned from homosexual acts while serving in the military, but they are not banned from serving in the military (contrary to Nacy Pelosi's complete misunderstanding, as reported by Reuters anyway). No, the media has not made a story out of the evidence that homosexuality weakens the troops, or the military effort in general. We are not given information about why homosexuality is unwanted in the military. Thus the media would have us believe it is based on personal bias alone, personal aversion to homosexuality. That is the bias of the media. All manner of research and reporting should rather give the reasons homosexuality is unwanted.
The fact that it is obviously unwanted is perhaps reason enough. It is a distraction from the highest level of personal displine and focus demanded of military personnel. The military is not a showcase for liberal political and social issues about self-indulgence and "rights." Of course, the liberal cause makes a stage out of every circumstance, and that is part of the secret of its epidemicity.
The perhaps psychologically tottering elder Republican Sen. John Warner said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral." Thus he declares that his preference of some non-American, non-Western, non-Biblical concept of morality.
Interestingly, the Pentagon still holds the Freudian position on homosexuality--it is a mental or psychological disorder, despite the fact that political and financial pressure of liberals and homosexuals succeeded in expunging homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1974, having pressured it out with a vote by The American Psychiatric Association. So, at this point, STDs alone (i.e., sexually transmitted diseases, like AIDS and the HIVs) can be the strongest argument against the promiscuity associated with homosexuality.
But the real issue is on the field of battle, not in the office, or on extended peacetime assignements in the same place. All human relations are strained in the service. It is not a place designed for romance of any kind. I think practical considerations here, common sense, and the safety of all, are the chief considerations. The Democrat and liberal argument that we are short on troops so therefore homosexuals must be allowed to serve freely, as practicing homosexuals, is the quintessence of insincerity and hypocrisy, toward the troops--whom they wish to see defeated, humiliated, and aborted, and also toward homosexuals--whom they are using to accomplish their anti-war, anti-American social values. Of course, without pride and self-respect, homosexuals can never see that.
Oh, yes, just as a reminder, pride and self-respect cannot be legislated. They are the real personal choices.
United States Marine Corps General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pronounced homosexuality as immoral. I suppose that's what it takes these days, a Marine, to tell it like it is, or at least like he thinks it is. He didn't say "faggot," so he won't go to rehab for that. He said adultery was immoral also. These things should not be tolerated in the military, he believes.
United States Marine Corps General Peter Pace,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In a March 12 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Pace said, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Amazing statement, seemingly so, only because of the great political power homosexuals have mustered in recent times--becoming hysterical when opposed in any way for any reason. General Pace just gave them the reason they are opposed.
Also interesrting is the fact that General Pace maintained the distinction between being a homosexual and committing homosexual acts. The "don't ask don't tell" policy of the 1993 Clinton law has it that homosexuals may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts (during their time in service). Their commanders may not ask about their orientation.
But as a result of this policy, a number of homosexuals have been ousted from the service, at a time when volunteers comprise the whole military force. "A 2005 government audit showed that about 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report. The U.S. military, like the nation's foreign service and intelligence community, faces shortages of foreign-language specialists."
So, how shall a homosexual be justified? What skill, what trade, what specialty will let them through? What will guarantee they are not a liability to the armed forces? And what is the evidence that they have been? Dare we ask?
In any case, reading into the depths of the article, we discover that the timing of this new homosexual surge matches perfectly with the Democrat call to remove troops from the Middle East. It is almost as if it is a Democrat, liberal design to get more rights for homosexuals. It certainly seems opportune for the homosexuals. Perhaps this is why General Pace is using the strongest language he can use. Demcrats accuse Bush of spreading the military too thin, so homosexuals must be allowed to serve as openly homosexual military personnel.
Joan of Arc, advising the soldiers against immorality
But sin weakens the forces. Joan of Arc said so. In Ingred Bergman's portrayal (1948), Joan admonishes the soldiers to abstain from gambling, swearing, and sexual immorality. She said God could not bless their efforts if they were but willlful, common sinners. It was an interesting moment, one that bears reconsideration, if one takes USMC General Peter Pace seriously. His is not a frivolous, personal fancy. It is a historical precedent of the most significant magnitude. Indeed, the Biblical evidence for the same position is unquestionable.
Well, the political positions of Democrats are not known for morality. Are these the people we want leading the troops? Are these the peopel we want leading the country?
Adolf Hitler did not love the white race. Hitler did not even love German people. Hitler loved power, and power loves no one. Ever. Hitler merely used Germans, then tried to use the white race.
As a result of his mania, nationalism was branded. Nationalism was given a bad name. And yet Hitler's Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party) had nothing to do with true nationalism, or patriotism. It was all a facade for his own ambitions in world power. It was all a giant misanthropic misconception. It used and abused the natural feelings of human beings for nationhood and ethnicity. It was a swindle, nothing more.
The Pretender: "Hitler loved power, and power loves no one."
The German people of modernity have been characterized by extremes and various "hysterias" (as Friedrich Heer would say, in The Medieval World, 1961, p.358), but, every people has a natural sense of its own identity. This is to be honored and preserved. What Hitler did was to pervert it, to suit his own frustration. He apparently had some sort of artistic nature as a youth, but it became thwarted or squelched, then he expanded it to some kind of wild assault on the world. His ambitions were not for the good of German people, really; and they were not for the salvation of the white race, either. Coercion never achieves it's desired ends. It is merely the exercise of power. But the human will, even the German "Will to Power" (expressed by Friedrich Nietzsche) cannot effectively eradicate the human sense of freedom. Hitler's Nazi regime transgressed the most fundamental element of human nature. It was bound for destruction--its own, after it wreaked havoc on all else.
Yet Nazi thinking definitely still exists in the world today, and in an even more deceptive form. It's not in the feeble, uncoordinated 'white supremacist' clubs in the West; it's not in their juvenile and gross imitations of Nazi scare tactics. It's in the racism of whites Leftist and Liberals, like George Soros, who think they can united all non-white races of the world as a tool to oust the white Conservatives from power. This time it's not whites using whites, as in Hitler's case, but it's whites using darks--against other whites.
There are plenty of dark sell-outs, (often thin-blood darks) who are anxious to unite all dark races in this immature, hysterical tide of resentment toward all things Western. There are blind and pathetic Communists who are even unaware of their own identity, political origins, and historical place--yet who are first in line to profess "social justice." They are among the loudest to decry history--as they are blissfully ignorant of their own place in it.
Race power. That's all Nazism is today. That's all it ever was. And it's just as deceptive, erroneous, and doomed to failure as it was before. Everyone is sensitive to race. It is a deep conditioning in human consciousness. Sex, race, and religion are the most powerful motivations we know. To pit one race against another, one gender against another, or one faith against another--this is the work of Nazis. Their work is rampant in the world today.
Perhaps even more pathetic is the after-effects in Germany today. The whole attempt is to break the horrid stereotypes of the Nazis. It's well suited to German Leftists--who are anxious to destroy nationalism under the pretense of rising above Nazis or being something other than Nazis. (Indeed, even a German Pope can't help them straighten out their thinking this time.)
Recently, a Leftist attorney, Dr. Endrik Wilhelm, has defended an incest case to the highest German federal court in Karlsruhe. A brother and sister lived together, had four children, and broken law by so doing. But, Dr. Wilhelm says,"This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights. Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime. This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable." (We can only hope this isn't the same Dr. Endrik Wilhelm, President of the Dresden soccer club. That would be too much!)
All this, to overcome the Nazi stereotype of genetic engineering, and the designs to create a super race. This is Leftist thought at its deepest, most distorted level. To take advantage of the horrid and false Nazi notions of nationalism, the German Leftist will advocate total abolishment of the most basic laws of nature. Incest brings at minimum of 50% chance of irreparable birth defects, but, that is to be encouraged for the sake of undoing nationalism--rather, the false fronts of nationalism created by Nazis. All this to destroy race.
This is the legacy of Hitler--the destruction of nationalism--the very thing he professed to advocate. This the power of deception, of perversion, of power itself. Dissembled motives mean destructive results.
And there was a lot more than "hate" going on in Germany when Hitler ruled. The swastika is not a symbol of hate, but of power. Coercion. Force. "Hate" is a weak moralistic term Leftist use to disguise and advocate their own hate. They are in fact the haters. They hate nationahood, nationalism, and ethnicity. They hate religion, and they hate race. This is what the races don't get. Leftists like George Soros, Communists, Liberals, and the like--these all hate race! Beware of them, I say. Don't associate with their schemes to unite the darks against the whites.
Hitler lives, through the Left--through people like Soros
That Sundance Institute should use "Native American" as a term to include Pacific Islanders, Asians, Africans, and homosexuals, is pure Nazi thinking in disguise. American Indians should shun any such association. People like Redford and Soros are anti-Indian. Rudy "No Blood" Youngblood is anti-Indian. Anyone that uses Indians to unite all dark races against white races is anti-Indian and racist. Anyone who seeks to confuse or blur the meaning of being American Indian is a Nazi racist. Any Indian who unites with other races in protest against whites plays right into the Soros/Nazi plan.
There will never be a black president. There will never be a brown president. There won't even be a woman president. Nor should there be. The White House of the United States is forever white male.
And rightfully so. The white male built the country. It was his ingenuity, his sweat, his bravery. The Great White Throne is his. He made it. He is under no moral obligationi whatsoever to give it up to someone else.
For the weak to demand a place on that throne is preposterous. For the liberal, Communist "you owe me" crowd to think they have any right to that throne is absolutely delusional. For that which was built by strength to become the "right" of the weak is so irrational that the emotional fury behind such a improprietous quest is virtually satanic.
As an Indian, I don't want to see anything but a white male on that white throne. My sense of pride tells me that throne is not mine. I have a relationship to it, but I did not create that throne. Why should I want to sit in it? How devilishly juvenile. How utterly depraved. Those who think they have a right to something that isn't theirs are nothing but robbers, thieves, and liars. Peevish children. Greedy little urchins.
That about sizes up the world at this point. Everyone thinks the white European was morally wrong for what he has done in the earth. The Leftist Commies have all the darkies in the world thinking European Judeo-Christian civilization was all a mutation, an aberrant enterprise, or a colossal mistake. The protesters and detractors present a tireless (and meaningless) moral condemnation of the West. The professional trouble makers effect an indefagitable affront on strength and achievement, claiming they have the right to that which is not theirs. (By the way, that's "indefatigable," not inde-faggot-able. Indefatigable means not fatigue-able, or, tireless. In case any ignorant and hysterial PC police are reading. It doesn't mean anti-homosexual.)
Moby, the great white whale, will survive all attacks. He is from the deep. Moby is the mascot of the deep. All the attacks on him, though they leave scars, cannot destroy him. He is a mystery, not a game plan. He is a fundamental force, not a contestant.
Moby survives all weapons forged against him. He survives even the liberal white/Arab cartels, you know, the multi-national oil corporations. It's like, "A-hab, the A-rab," so to speak. But big oil itself will not stain the whiteness of the throne. Though big oil hurls its harpoons into American ideals, Moby will shake them off. Whatever distorted, wrested writhings out there in the business world, I believe Moby will survive them all.
Ahab gives Moby the spear, in utter vanity. (Gregory
Peck, in Moby Dick, 1956).
The fact is, England and America created the modern Middle East. The White West drew the boundaries (quite unwisely perhaps), and drilled the oil wells. That these ungrateful nomads should think to bite the hand that fed it only shows their immaturity. The modern bedouin haven't the slightest competence in managment or science, and really Iran is the only country over there that has any sense of real nationhood. Iran in a way should lead the Middle East. But, as we have noted earlier, Iran has chosen the wrong religion to do so. Islam will never unite the tribes of the Arabs, let alone those of the world.
No, the Moby is forever safe. I for one feel safer for that reason. I don't want to see incompetence and weakness on the great white throne. The world will crumble otherwise. Yes, Moby puts on mantinees now and then. The Hillary/Obama show is just political entertainment. The leftists jesters have done there best to bring the "Turd World" into America, and to make America part of the big brown movement, but, it's all for sport. The Great White Throne cannot be bought or abandoned.
America is a wonderful place, the grandest place in the world. It is a privilege to live here, and Indians have been given a very high honor in this country, ironic as that may seem. Moby is the mascot of the deep, but the Indian is the mascot of America. This is remarkable, really.
But I'm just exacerbated that people can be so blind. The white European created the Throne, and now everyone else thinks its theirs! This is morally laughable.
Oklahoma has the right idea. The Indian, the only non-white race the White Throne has any moral relation with, indeed has a place. The place is on top of the throne, guarding it from all enemies.
The Guardian, by Enoch Kelly Haney, Creek/Seminole
The Indian, from the beginning, was the guardian, the host, indeed the savior. I don't see why this should not be the psychological goal of all Indians today. Indians crowded about the Oklahoma Capitol when "The Guardian" was raised to the top of the dome. Every Indian in the country should take pride in that moment. It's where we all belong.
Indian Honor Guard at "The Guardian" raising, July 7, 2002, Oklahoma City.
Who would deny these Indians? Who would deny Indians the place we hold in America? I believe some Indians have forgotten our rightful place, indeed. I believe some Indians want to identify with all the non-whites of the Third World. White Leftists like George Soros (funder of Robert Redford's Sundance Institute program, "Native American Initiative) encourage this giant racist cartel against the White West, Indians should remember that the real white throne is not the White House, but the white men who handle the money in the world. That's the Moby of modern times. He is untouchable. None need be deceived into thinking anyone's going to strike the heart of Moby. Moby sinks any such pretense in the whorls of history.
I say just acknowledge the facts of the immediate world in which we live. White European/American westerners made it. It is theirs. Their only contenders are whining whites among themselves who want to be on the Throne. These whining whites want to unite the brown world in a liberal lamentation of the whites in power, and by doing so the liberal, weak whites think they can gain the ascendency. But the brown movement will indeed be flushed down the toilet. It was a temporary necessity for the liberal whites, but, it was all in passing, so to speak.
Think of it this way: the whites build the throne. They are obviously superior. No one else built it. To be envious, to want to sit in it, is rather stupid. If you can't build your own thrown, then in all sincerety, shut up! To spend a life in envy is so undignified it is criminal. Social justice is a code word for jealously. Little more. I say let each man be brave enough to face reality. That's where courage meets the rode.
Go, Moby! I'll stand guard. (Don't make me have to throw a spear in you!)
Who rules the world? Or, who created the present world?
White men. European white men. Western European men. Christian men--at least nominally Christian, with Christian social values. That would include ancient Hebrew (Jewish) values. This should be obvious to anyone looking on the world from a historical perspective, and from a practical view of the present. Things could have gone Arab Muslim at one point, but the Mongolians prevented that, in the 13th century. From that point, Europe was on the rise. Europe survived the Muslim onslaught, and grew to dominate the world.
The seat of power, economic, military, social, ideological, is white. European white. Judeo-Christian, "Bible" white. This throne, in this world, will not change. It is secure. White man will not be de-throned. The position is permanent.
The issue is therefore not whether whites will rule, but which whites. They vie with one another for power. In the last century, the 1900s, the white divide became established and clear. It was merely a class struggle. The wealthy against the less wealthy, or the poor. Yet, even this is illusionary. The whites that vie with other whites for power are also wealthy. It is the wealthy against the wealthy. Nothing more or other. Conservative vs. Liberal, Republican vs. Democrat, patriot vs. communist, it's still white against white.
The strongest, the true creators of the present world, are the conservatives--the takers, shakers, and makers. Their competitors, the wealthy whites who somehow missed their power slot, profess to represent the weak, the poor, and the masses. Obviously, "democracy" fits right into their plan of attack. Votes, elections, and campaigning for the common man, this is their traditional mode. Today, they have been quite radicalized, with the tools of media, violent and semi/violent social disruption, demonstration, etc.
And finally, racial agitation--the use of non-whites as a force against the whites in power, this is their grand swan song. Racial agitation is the rues and throes of a desperate and dying cause. Wealthy whites who don't have the complete, dictatorial power they want, have resorted to marshalling the races as pawns against the other whites in power.
But be there no mistake, it's still the Great White Throne, and there will still be whites occupying that throne. There will never be a non-white President of the United States. There will never be a black president, a Spanish president, or an Asian president. The white liberals and leftists themselves will never let that happen. They toy with the idea, as a socially disruptive element. They use race as an emotional threat, as racial terrorism. Ethnic terrorism--that's what Barak Obama is all about. There is a certain mockery underneath this supposed "white guilt."
There is no white guilt. That is an illusion itself. There is only white power, and whites trying to use the races to intimidate the other whites in power. Whites threatning other whites with racial terrorism. That's all it is, and all it will ever be. The non-white races need not deceive themselves with some naive notion that the liberal whites care about them. They're merely using them.
But I propose the idea of guilt, alright. Only not white guilt. Indian guilt. American Indian guilt. That's right. The United States of America was shaped by American Indian encounters at every step, at every stage of developement. American Indians are responsible for whatever misanthropy exists in the United States government. We are the fathers of this country, really. We didn't ask for it, true, but it happened. We allowed the bastard child of Europe to grow up in our midst.
Heap Wolves, Comanche Warrior, 19th century
It is time we owned up to the responsibility which was ours. It's time we acknowledged our role. It's time we took up again the lead. We need to correct the wayward left, and rebuke his abuse of the races, his deceptive, lying fraud. The throne is white. The whites built it, and anyone who tries to deceive the races into thinking that throne belongs to all people is a psychological criminal, a moral thief, and an ideological terrorist. The best American Indians can do now is act as advisors, reminders, consultants. We actually helped shape that throne, by default, yes, but the reality is ours. And the responsibility is ours. We must partake in the American political process. We must let our voice be heard. We must tend to our wayward step-son, grand and mighty as he is. I believe he needs us, still.
The issue over guns is rising again. Whenever the US Government tries to ban guns from its citizens, it gets a rise from the patriots. The issue ranges in prinicple from no banning of private ownership of any kind of guns to banning of all firearms from American citizens.
The latest round is over HR 1022, a recent bill created by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (Democrate, N.Y. 4th District). The NRA calls it the most sweeping gun ban ever. (Note that there were no co-sponsors. It bans all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, rifes or pistols, from public ownership. It is a dramatic expansion of the original Clinton initiative. In 1995, even Nanci Pelosi voted against that! "Regulation by strangulation," she called it.
The great white hunter, Jim Zumbo
A critical player in the issue now is, ironically, one of the greatest proponents of gun ownership, Jim Zumbo. A great white hunter, Zumbo recently made most controversial comments on 'assault' (automatic) weapons. The occasion was the fact that some hunters had used machine guns (actually, M-16s and A-K 47s) to "knock off" prairie dogs and coyotes--quite pestilential 'group' varments that need a lot more than a single shot .22 to be effective on them. Zumbo reacted with vehemence, and said these guns were not hunting guns, and they gave a bad image to hunters. The clincher was when he said they should be banned from the prairies and the woods.
This cost Jim his professional relationship with OutdoorLife, which sponsored the blog in which Jim wrote his reaction to the automatic weapons in the hunting field. Jim was raked over the coals by Tom Gresham's Talk Guns radio show as well. Ted Nugent, famed rock star and gun advocate, took shots at Jim also. In fact, Gresham had Nugent on his radio show recently. (I heard the Sunday broadcast in Oklahoma City, but it was taped. I wanted to call in! Here's the tape of the February 18th show in which Jim addresses the reaction to his comments.)
The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear on the right of citizens to own firearms. There is no distinction made on the type of weapons, and certainly nothing is said about any distinction between self-defence and hunting. In those days, hunting was a way of survival for many people. Taking away weapons was taking away food. The thought surely never occurred to the writers of the 2nd Amendment. They were thinking about the need and right of people to protect themselves from foreign invasions, or from a corrupted, tyrannical government.
I have been an advocate of gun ownership from the beginning of my work in journalism. "Warriors and Weapons" was one of my first articles on FrontPageMagazine. I've wanted Indians to take more of an active role in supporting gun ownership. I mean, look what happened to us when we handed over our weapons!
I have defended the 2nd Amendment on various college campuses in the country. I'm scheduled to address the issue at Florida State University, April 10, (as well as the Indian mascot issue). As I see it, however, the NRA, Ted Nugent, Tom Gresham, and most other advocates, all leave out the real conflict within the American's psyche: Can a Christian pull the trigger? This is the title of one of the speeches I give on the subject of guns. Owing a gun, much less using it, presents a conflict of images in the minds of many. Is there some "Association of Christian Riflemen" out there? Is there a "Christian Gun Club?" Would the irony be unbearable?
I say this to Christians: you have a choice. You can be a free Christian, or you can be a persecuted, imprisoned Christian. If you want to be free, it will cost something. Historically, it cost the Revolutionary War. It was the price of creating a new country.
It is possible that more people would support gun ownership if they had a clearer understanding of the Christian's relationship to guns. They need to know the history of the country, when Christians were required by law not only to show up for church, but to do so with arms in hand, with led. Each man was required to be able to use the weapon effectively.
Today, Leftists and opponents of gun ownership like to dissemblingly use Christianity as a hammer to humiliate and intimidate "good people" from owning guns. Most people don't have a ready answer for such a heavy polemic against guns. The obvious lessons of history do not fair well with the overwhelming emotion of the do-gooders, that is, the Leftists, and their tyrannical psychology.
For now, the Indian voice in this matter is unheard. The Christian voice is unheard. Advocates of gun owership defend the position solely on the power of the 2nd Amendment. It is truly amazing that they have done as well as they have without the deeper perspectives.
Here are some blogs on the Zumbo controversy:
King's Outdoor World Blog
Zumbo in Hot Water
The Michael Bane Blog (contains the entire Zumbo blog)
Washington Post: Terrorist Remarks Put Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy
The original blog of Zumbo has been removed from OutdoorLife.com. The above reprinting on Michael Bane's Blog is the most accessible version presently available. On Quarterbore.Net forums, you can find part of Zumbo's apology. It has also been removed from various sites, apparently.
It is quite clear that the mullahs in Tehran, and their chosen representative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all share a genetic intuition of ruling the world. Or, at least the Muslim world. It's a Persian thing, ruling the world, you know. They did wield one of the largest and most humane empires in world history, full of inventive, cooperative management of vast varieties of culture. The Achaemanid Empire (538-330) will always remain a glorious example of creative leadership.
Cyrus the Great, 576-529 BC
However, Iran is cheating today. Why? The mullahs of Tehran think they can use the pre-existing Islam in the world, sway it all under their influence--all Muslims in the world. They think all Muslims automatically will see things the Tehran way. Ahmadinejad has said everything possible to inflame the Muslims world against the United States and Israel. In this way, he hopes to incite the Muslim world to unity--in the bonds of hate. It is a wonderful prospect, the Islamic world buring together in envy, hatred, and murderous design. It is a cataclysm of sorts, the climax of a frustrated, dirty world. But hate it the cheapest of all mortar. Resentment the weakest of all bricks.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
True and certain it is, Iran is not Arab, and in fact much more advanced socio-psychologically. Iran is also more technologically advanced that any place in the Middle East except Israel. Iran has, through hook or crook (mostly crook) carved out a dominant position. Though specific anit-American terrorism is a Saudi thing, Iran handles the anti-Semitic terrorism. Together, Saudi and Iran have the field covered well.
But Iran errs in the presumption that the world is theirs through subsuming Islam. For one thing, Shia Islam, or the Shiites, are hopelessly differentiated from Sunnis, as are the Catholics and the true Protestants. They will not submit to one another. And historically, the Sunni Muslims have the precedent. They are the intellectual heirs of the first four Caliphs (successors) who led the religion after Mohammad's death. They profess to follow the teachings, the sunna, of Mohammad. Competition for leadership set in early. Uthman ibn 'Affan, one of the four Caliphs, opposed Ali ibn Abi Talib--who was one of the four by virtue of his kinship (cousin) to Mohammad. Ali's following became known as Shi' at Ali, the Party of Ali, or Shiites. It was the archetypal division of authority by faith vs authority by geneology, truth or blood. This division was firmly established in Islam by 750 AD. The Sunni (Uthman's following) gained the ascendency and held it through the middle of the 13th century. All during that time, it was a military expansion machine, hording world wealth from every region it conquered. (In the mean time, Iran inherited the Shiite Islam, through the Savafid dynasty of Azarbaijan in the 16th century.) The Turks got a hold of the religion, and dominated the next phase, from 1299-1922. This was known as the Ottoman Empire. Islam truly was the world power until the European Christian civilization rose up to dominate.
Today, the remnants of Islam remain enormous, and the adherents are increasing daily. It is the religion of anger and aggression, indeed, and it attracks the poor more effectively than Communism. But, there is no reason historically for the Muslim world to look to Iran as the leader of Islam. Iran is aggressively seeking that position, but, only as a cover, only as a pretense. Islam is only a tool to the Iranians. The ancient Persian capacities are larger than Islam. They are objective about Islam. In other words, is it not entirely apparent that Iran actually believes in Islam. It is a sharp sword, but, success all depends on the management.
The Muslim world will not follow Iran. Persians are foreigners, converts, adoptees. Islam is Arab, at the heart. It will never be anything else. Iranians are mistaken to presume the role of world Caliph. It is a glorious vision, and most of the war-rhetoric tough talk is designed to ignite that vision, but, in the end, again, Islam is Arab, not Iranian.
And I think it a weakness that the Iranian management would chose Islam as the tool whereby to ascend to world power. Persians would do better to chose Christianity. It is a Middle Easter religion, and could stand a major remake at this point. Let's put that Persian talent to work through Christianity. Islam was a big mistake.
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