Archive for September 26th, 2005

A Great Northern Neighbor

I like it when people appreciate my humor. So I’m not COMplaining, I am EXplaining

Some time back I wrote a piece about how I wished America had a Great Northern Neighbor the way Mexico does. All of the commenters thought it was a joke.

It wasn’t.

Do the math.

Mexico is trying desperately to bring itself into the year 1900. Its Great Northern Neighbor is, technologically, wel over a century ahead of Mexico.

What if we had a Great Northern Neighbor who offered us the tecnolgy of 2100 AD today?

Mexicans seem to HATE that.

I wouldn’t.

If a Mexican can steal his way across the border of Mexico’s Great Northern Neighbor, he can increase his income TEN TIMES.

So if I were an entry-level American worker and I could steal across the porous borders of MY Great Northern Neighbor, my minimum wage would be forty dollars an hour!

If there is a threat, like Communism, my Great Northern Neighbor would protect me from it.

If there is a disaster here, my Great Northern Neighbor would pour in help beyond my wildest dreams.

Consider this: That Great Northern Neighbor would be a century ahead of us in medicine. Think of the diseases the average Mexican contends with today. Think of how it would be if they did not have American and white discoveries in medicine.

Then do the math.

What would OUR health be like if WE had Great Northern Neighbor which lived in the next century in medical advances?

Oh, goodness gracious, but this Great Northern Neighbor, who were Nordic as the snow compared to us, would LOOK DOWN on us!!!

Oh, the pain, the humiliation!

This Great Northern neighbor would EXPLOIT us by sending us industries that paid only five or six times the wages we could normally get.

Oh, the pain, the humiliation!

That’s what the average Mexican thinks about.

I am NOT the average Mexican.

I want a Great Northern neighbor.



1 Comment

It Didn’t Go Wrong, It Just Went Ahead

In a recent article National Review talked about how liberals fought for righteous causes until about the middle 1960s. National review was saying that National Review was wrong to fight liberalism for the first ten years of the existence of that publication.

National Review says that National Review should not have been founded in 1955 as an opponent of glorious liberalism. National Review says that the people who founded National Review were on the wrong side.

In the 1950s all of us redneck segregationists were saying that integration, which is now The Holy Grail of conservatism, was wrong and would lead to disaster.

No respectable conservative today would dare even hint a suggestion that integration, the final solution to the race problem, which means the final solution to the white problem, is anything less than holy.

When a white country becomes dedicated to the proposition that the white race must go, it is a very sick society.

Everything we predicted for integration came true. But nobody who wants to be on the national media could even allow that fact to cross his mind if he wants to keep his job.

So everybody in the spokeman business agrees that integration was glorious, progressive, inarguable and holy.

How do they explain that every single disaster that us rednecks and most of the founders of National review predicted is now a fact of life?

They say the only thing they CAN say:

“All that progressivism was right and wonderful and us old reactionaries were just evil. We right until about 1970 Then all of a sudden, something went WRONG with liberalism.”

That is the doctrine of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives say were right when they were liberals and they are right now. National Review agrees.

I say liberalism did not GO wrong. It is obnvious to me that all those “progrssive ideas” went on to their natural conclusion.

Which is the natural conclusion I was predicting as a teenager.

Once the Holy Grail of Integration and the other ideas liberalism fought for were estalished by 1968, we were headed for the disasters we are experiencing right now.

Nothing suddenly “went wrong.” Progressive policy just went on to its natural conclusions, the ones we predicted, with uncanny accuracy, fifty years ago.

This realization is critical. This is the sine qua non (without which nothing) of a sane society.

If we are to recover, we must reject the insanity entirely and go back to basics. We must get “simplistic.”

If you are totally involved in today’s latest revelation about Iraq or Bush’s foot odor, you can miss this overriding, critical historic fact.

A lot of people are wrapped up in the realization that the official spokesmen for neoconservatives, the people National Review worships, are Jews.

That is true, and that is important in the present war for Israel we are fighting in Iraq. But in the long run, that is not the essense, the real meaning, of the neoconservatism today’s entire conservative establishment adheres to and worships.

I just wanted to remind of you of what, in the sweep of history, neoconservatism really means.

You may now return to frantically e-mailing each other about Iraq.



Doctrinal Infallibility

Our established religion of Political Correctess has a docrtine of infallible that makes Papal Infallible look like minor league stuff.

Liberals have stopped talking about many of their silliest declarations, but they NEVER admit that thoss doctrines were dead wrong. They just don’t discuss them any more, and any conservative who wants to be on national media never reminds them of their nuttsiest statements.

A conservative who remembers what liberals once required people to believe to get a college profesaorship. Liberal dogma that could not be denied on campus has been quietly forgotten.

If liberals were reminded of their track record they would laughed off the public airways.

So any conservative who reminds liberals of their track record loses his respectability and his livelihood.

A professor who does that loses his livelihood. The token conservatives on campus are as carefully respectable as media conservative spokemen.

One example of PS Doctrinal Infallibilty appears inteh New York Times and then in all the local newspapers belonging to national syndicates regularly. It goes like this:

“Crime has dropped dramatically, BUT the prison population keeps rising.”

This shows that the idea that punishment is a cure for crime is wrong.

What if New York Times in 1950 said, “Deaths from infectious diseases have dropped dramatically, BUT the use of pennicilin keep rising.”

Even a lot of the brain-dead reader/worshippers of the New York Times would have laughed at that.

No respectable conservative would have, of course.

Obviously the growing rate of incarceration is the REASON crime is dropping.

Years ago some of us noticed that most crimes were committed by career criminals. When a store was robbed or a child murdered, the news story would recite the violent acts the perpetrator had commited previously.

So we said, “Lock the career criminals up and throw away the key.”

Liberals denounced locing them away and throwing away the key as “simplistic.” They said that the only way to reduce crime was “to get at the root causes of crime.” They said that the cure for crime was the same one Political Correctness has for ALL social problems” more expensive programs planned by professors.

Professors recommended this so the New York Times accepted it without question. “Getting to the root causes of crime” was the doctrine, and any professor who disagreed put his job in danger.

But there is on consistent theme here. Political Correctness, as backed solidly by professors, ALWAYS demands that the policy adopted be the produce of professors and give power to the professors.

So the New York Times and all its little mental satelites insist that if you “get to the root causes of crime,” both crime and the number of prisoners will decrease. The fact that you dealing with crime by punishment obviously WORKS means nothing to them

As the Pope said about Galileo, heretics CANNOT be right, no matter what the facts are.

This is exactly like an


1 Comment