Wednesday, November 6, 2024

Why Kamala Harris Lost the Election

First of all, the closeness* of the election indicates that Harris and the Democratic Party could have won if they had done things differently: *Harris: 68,097,896 votes (48.0%) / Trump: 72,754,011 votes (51.0%).

1. Fear and Loathing Voters.  Most of her voters were probably fear & loathing  anti-Trump voters. And a good portion (not all obviously) of his voters were fear & loathing anti-Harris voters. So basically the their fear & loathing voters were evenly matched. So why did Trump pull off the victory and she didn't? The following is an attempt to answer that question.

2. He played to the American yeasayers; she played to America's naysayers. And as it turned out there were more yeasayers than naysayers. Many American voters wanted an uplifting, exciting, and hopeful message for America. Trump's rhetoric was better at conveying that message.

3. Two MAGA mottos. Trumps: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Harris: MAKE AMERICA GO AWAY. Trump expressed confidence in Americans. Harris as a candidate said that Americans are a lost cause, and what is needed is new blood: poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse, the homeless, tempest-tossed from ramshackle nations.  Don't ask what America can do for you or what you can do for America. Ask what America can do for outsiders. His message was how can America become greater, not how America can rescue the powerless, needy, and desperate.

4. She was toxic going into the race. Thus, she shouldn’t have run in the first place. That was the fault of the Democratic Party. Apparently, the party forgot that it barely beat Trump the first time around when Trump was the toxic candidate. This time the Biden-Harris team made the Democratic Party toxic as the Anti-America Party, perhaps for the first time for the Democratic Party. 

5. As the child of immigrants, she was chosen to promote the New Democratic Party’s multicultural agenda (revolution?) for America. And to highlight her as Wonder Woman for immigrants, they saddled her with an invisible running masculine mate whatshisname. This decision was based on the naive assumption that a Democratic win was a slam dunk. It wasn’t. Instead of promoting an unpopular political agenda, they should have focused on defeating Trump.

6. Lack of personal appeal. Harris has an uninspiring, lackluster, boring personality. Like him or not, Trump has an engaging personality, often outrageously so. He spoke with conviction. She didn’t. He spoke from the heart (or at least appeared to) and with a fire in his belly. What she had to say seemed scripted. Trump could never stay on script, so he seemed genuine even if he was just being the salesman.

7. She was a decorative candidate for the Democratic Party—a black woman & child of immigrants. Substance and commitment, however, were lacking. She was supposed to win just because she is black, female, & child of immigrants. Instead of choosing a candidate who had a chance of beating the political juggernaut Donald Trump, the Democratic Party chose the lackluster Harris to further its ideological multicultural agenda. As a result, she and her party were crushed beneath the wheels of the Trump juggernaut.

8. She was committed to causes rather than to the country. She was an advocate for illegal aliens and other leftist policies (some very good; I love tree and wildlife) but often promoted them in a way that condemned nation as an evil empire. Whereas Harris came across as unAmerican, Trump came across as a defending rather than denouncing the homeland. 

9. She was a toxic candidate from the very beginning. Her support for the burning of cities by Black Lives Matter and Antifa and for Biden’s open border immigrant tsunami initiative made her seem unAmerican. 

10. Her chances of winning were sabotaged by President Biden. Late in his presidency Biden initiated his open border policies that allowed tens of thousands of aliens to enter the U.S. Then he assigned Harris as “border czar,” at which she failed, but the task was never hers but his. But her failure was toxic to her chances of winning the presidential election. He created a sea of trouble, gave her concrete shoes, and threw her overboard. As he abandoned her he waved his sombrero—a gift from Mexico. 

11. Time to get back to completing Trump’s wall. After Biden’s open-border snafu that allowed in a tsunami of immigrants, undecided voters, even those who feared or disliked Trump’s erratic behavior, thought that perhaps Trump should be allowed to finish his wall—for our good, for America’s good. And Biden’s open-border policy and Trump’s wall sum up the differences between the two very different political campaigns: Trump’s as defender of Americans and their homeland & Biden-Harris as defenders of immigrants and promoters of a multicultural America in which traditional Americans would become just another minority. 

12. Biden’s Americans = garbage snafu. That seems to have always been his opinion about Americans, that they were garbage and in comparison immigrants who are fine and noble. This arrow shot at Americans hit Harris in her Achilles heel. In defense of Puerto Ricans, President Biden suggested that Trump supporters are “garbage,” and by doing so he ignored Churchill's warning that “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” In his arrogance he ignored Churchill's warning that “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” One recalls Hillary Clinton’s calling them “deplorables,” and then she went on to lose the election. About Puerto Ricans Biden said, “they’re good, decent, honorable people.” And they are, but so are most of Trump’s supporters. The Republicans of Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Kansas, Utah, West Virginia,  Idaho Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska ARE NOT garbage. 

Let’s hope that during the coming four years that Trump proves himself the right choice not only for America but for the free world and the values of Western Civilization. They are worth defending. This means that when Putin said to Trump that "Moscow was ready for dialogue with the Republican president-elect," Trump must be sure that he is not taken in as Faust was by Mephistopheles. Unlike Putin, Trump won a democratic election fair and square; thus, as a politician he deserves a black belt. Putin doesn't win elections but steals them by having the other candidates assassinated; thus as a politician he deserves the yellow belt of a novice. And I doubt very much if he ever won a black belt in judo because his better opponents allowed him to win to avoid being poisoned after the match.


Monday, November 4, 2024

Immigration: Monster Maker

 Prelude

The Players

How immigration creates political monsters is quite simple. First of all, three classes of citizens are necessary: homelanders (patriots), ideologues, and Judases. Homelanders  consider their nation their homeland, fatherland, motherland, etc. They don’t want it invaded by foreign, alien cultures. Their concern is less with the immigrants themselves than with the cultural fragmentation of the homeland. Immigrants that share the same language, values, and historical origin are considered cousins rather than aliens. British, Irish, or Canadian immigrants are not considered members of an alien culture. And that pretty much true for all immigrants from European nations. Clearly, homelanders are nativists. The allegiance of ideologues is to an ideology—Marxism being the biggie and most influential. It’s attitudes toward the homeland is negative. Religious ideologues are more devoted to their religious ideology than to the nation. Being a Catholic, for example, is more important to the Church than being an American. Judases simply value money/profit above all else.

And who are the monsters? They come in three forms: politicians, political groups, and political decisions. The politicians or political agendas that divide a nation into two major hostile groups that threaten the stability, integrity, and culture of the nation are monsters. For example, in the U.S. Judases first welcomed illegal immigrants as sources of cheap labor or as consumers. They were not interested in the immigrants or the nation but profit. Illegal immigrants were treated as voluntary slaves. They worked for low wages and no benefits and if they complained (they rarely did) they were reported. Then came the leftist ideologues who considered immigrants a new proletariat that could be used as a weapon against capitalistic America. This demographic revolution needed funding, and received it from churches, corporations, leftist organizations, and the great nihilist George Soros who operated as a kind of modern-day Satan, a destructive force having no loyalty to anyone, anything, or any idea. 

The Monsters

The immigration invasions, and that is what they were, angered the homelanders who aggressively pushed back against their politicians’ immigration policies. The ideological left always had violent revolutionary tendencies, but they were galvanized and set in motion by the homelanders’ push back. Of course, they took the side of the immigrants, not out of sympathy but ideological usefulness. The Judases watched from the sidelines throwing money at whatever side that might be most profitable to them. These, however, were not the monsters but the conditions that brought them into being. A few examples of monsters. In France inept immigration polices created the Le Pen dynasty that divided the country into hostile ideological factions. And Marine Le Pen is a big fan of Putin’s. In the U.S. inept immigration policies gave rise to two monsters. Open-borders Biden is one who sided with the leftist ideologues. Let’s-build-a-border-wall Trump was the other monster who sided with the homelanders, not out of love for the homeland but as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. (Like Le Pen he is also a fan of Putin’s.) In Germany Angela Merkel (also a good friend of Putin's (the man is a disease that preys upon the dull-minded)) invited a million Muslims into her Christian/atheist nation. She could be considered a monster, but the real monster is the far-right extremist groups her immigration policy created. This scenario has occurred in a number of European nations as a result of inept immigration policies. In Great Britain the monster isn’t a person but an event: Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. A sad event, a separation of old, glorious friends (and at times enemies) defined by the foundational culture of Western Civilization. And what caused the wreckage? An influx of alien cultures. Not bad people, just people alien to the homeland culture.

So, today many nations are at war with themselves as a result of inept or self-destructive immigration policies. Now let’s bring Republican Judge J. Michael Luttig into the discussion. His concern is that “Many Americans–especially young Americans, tragically–have even begun to question whether constitutional democracy is the best form of self-government for America” (“Exclusive: Conservative Republican endorses Harris, calls Trump a threat to democracy,” CNN). The reason many young Americans feel this way is because they feel American democracy has failed them, and it has, beginning with LBJ and the Vietnam War. Homelanders point to the mishandling of immigration policy as an illustration of a failed democracy. Democracy’s failures are illustrated by the cases mentioned above. The decisions—like those of Merkel and Biden—were made autocratically by chancellors, presidents, etc., but not by the people. And now, and most ironically, the desire for autocratic leadership is shared by both homelanders and the ideologues. Their heroes are Russian—Putin or Stalin (both of whom failed the Russian people). In the U.S. a political civil war is raging, led by monsters created by inept immigration policies. 

A Synopsis of the Immigration Problem by the Fictional Mr. Thomas 

In this age of political correctness mainstream publishers shy away from books like Mr. Thomas’ that are strongly critical of illegal immigration and the open-borders philosophy. Publishers do not want to be seen as promoting racist or hate literature. Besides, immigrant populations represent a large segment of their readership. It is simply good business not to antagonized them. This wall of silence appears to be a worldwide phenomenon, because my research indicates that foreign publishers are even less likely to publish such works out of fear of being prosecuted by their governments. Personally, I believe Mr. Thomas’ concerns should be made public because they represent, for better or worse, those of a large segment of the American population.

Based on my conversation with Mr. Thomas, I believe he would say that the publishing industry’s motivation is monetary or politically self-serving rather than ethical. On the other hand, governments seek to avoid antagonizing immigrant populations which they now fear. Such attempts at appeasement, he would say, are both pollyannaish and in the long run self-defeating.

Though Mr. Thomas praised the philosophical, scientific, and literary accomplishments of other cultures, one has to conclude that he was at heart a tribalist. He was called a racist. He called himself a culturalist, yet he did not believe his people (Western Europeans) were superior to all other groups, though he certainly believed that they were superior to certain cultures because of their inferior intellectual and moral development or because their way of life was morally and intellectually degraded. Judging from his class lectures, two peoples he admired and respected were the ancient Greeks and Native Americans. What he respected most about the European tradition was its philosophy and science and its goal to create a society based on the principles of law, equality, and respect for individuals, especially women, who have only recently achieved the economic opportunities, political rights, and legal status accorded to men. However, he also understood that the behavior Europeans and Americans displayed toward other peoples has been immoral and criminal. Though an atheist, Mr. Thomas had a great respect for Eastern religions, especially for what he called the godless religions of Buddhism and Taoism. It is ironic that as a tribalist Mr. Thomas was most critical of his own people—Americans. Nevertheless, his view of other cultures was ethnocentric, though more Western European than American. If I had to choose one country from Europe that represented Mr. Thomas’ ideal, it would be France, a nation he believed aspired to the universal embodiment of reason and beauty.

That brings me to the question of what was his belief concerning different cultural groups and their relationship to one another. As far as I can determine, he believed that every culture had a right to preserve its ethnic and cultural identity. Every citizen deserves to live in a place rooted in the earth where he or she feels safe and secure and culturally at home. That to live among one’s own people is essential to feeling at home in the world. This is especially true for ordinary people. Wealthy elites may not feel a need to live among their own historical people because they belong to a subculture that transcends ethnic and national identities. Such people might consider themselves cosmopolitan even though they socialize mostly with others who share their affluent lifestyle. Thus, I would expect them to be more accepting of multiculturalism as long as their primary group is not threatened. They are cosmopolitans who are free from national ideas, prejudices, and loyalties and for the most part remain aloof from any particular national homeland, history, or identity.

It is clear that Mr. Thomas believed that American culture had been defined by and consisted of three dominant groups: American Indians, African American descendants of slaves, and European Americans. There are other groups in the country—such as Asians, Hispanics and Jews—but he considered them ethnic and cultural outsiders who live on the margins of American history and culture even though they may play an influential role in contemporary America. He believed that America is unique in that it defines itself as a nation of immigrants, but he also seemed to believe that though the country was built by immigrants, at some point in its history its ethnic-cultural identity crystallized. From that time on, certain groups of immigrants violated America ethnic-cultural integrity, especially when the new immigrant cultures are ethnically and historically other than the three main cultures America evolved from—Native Americans, Europeans, and the decedents of American slaves. As far as I can tell, Mr. Thomas believed America is trinity society consisting of the three unique ethnic-cultural groups, each of which seeks to sustain for itself homogenous regions but also shares with the other two a common history that is the sacred substance of America.

Is he correct that most people prefer to live among their own? Perhaps the answer is to be found in how well the melting-pot, which is contrary to tribalism, has worked in America. Native Americans have resisted attempts to force them to integrate into the American mainstream and very much prefer to live among their own in spite of the social costs of doing so—high rates of poverty, alcoholism and drug abuse. European Americans have sought to maintain their ethnic-cultural homogeneity. Black leaders have complained about segregation, but since the end of segregation most blacks have not abandoned their communities in order to integrate into white communities. Their main complaint seems to have been that the policy of separate-but-equal segregation has limited their access to jobs and education, as well to private establishments such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, and so on. Segregation was separate but never equal. In other words, blacks want institutional integration. They want to be able to work where whites work and to attend college where whites attend college, but do not necessarily want to live apart from their own ethnic-cultural group.

Thus the desire of black Americans to integrate into white communities seems to be motivated not by wanting to separate themselves from their own people but to live in an environment that is safe and wholesome for themselves and their children. Whites, on the other hand, see black culture as a threat to their own values. Thus, it seems the two cultures are distinct and to some degree incompatible with one another.

What of the immigrants that have come to America during the past century? They come for the benefits America offers, not to dissolve in the melting pot. As Mr. Thomas says, they come to work, shop, and play and to create ethnic-cultural enclaves. This has resulted in discarding the melting pot idea as well as what it means to be an American. It seems that being an American today is more about having official status, such as citizenship, than about history, language, or culture. Native Americans, black Americans, and European Americans share a common historical experience that has woven them together into a single fabric. Any member of one group can see in the other groups the historical role their people played in the creation of America. The building of America was a tragic affair for Native Americans and black Americans, and it was not easy for white Americans. But the tragedy and suffering they endured during the building of the nation bind them into a single culture. According to Mr. Thomas they are the only true members of the American family.

The new people are interlopers, outsiders. Most are indifferent to American history because their people have their own history. Some, such as the Mexicans, are hostile to it. The Mexican-American War, which resulted in America’s appropriation of a large part of Mexican territory, continues to cause Mexicans to look upon America more as an old adversary than a friend. It does seem that an undeclared war between the two peoples continues today. The immigrants from Europe share with white Americans a common culture. The Europeans established the first colonies in what would become America and defined the American worldview. Mr. Thomas was troubled most by what he saw as an assault upon America’s ethnic-cultural integrity. He feared the emergence of a multicultural melting pot in which Americans would become just another ethnic minority. He would say that today what is being dispersed by the influx of alien cultures is America’s cultural soul, formed over the centuries but now disappearing from the scene, soon to be relegated to the history books as something that once was but is no more. He believed America was becoming a nation without a soul, a place where various cultures gather—some hostile, most indifferent to one another. They come to set up shop and to do business with one another. They are not creating a new nation but a mélange of many cultures, which multiculturalists see as having a beauty similar to that of a rainbow, but which tribalists like Mr. Thomas consider to be a defilement of a national work of art created by Americans’ ancestors.

As Dr. Yerkes says in the memoir, the new aliens retain their ethnic-cultural homelands. Mexicans have Mexico; Chinese, China; Vietnamese, Vietnam; Iranians, Iran; Jews, Israel; and so on. Only Americans lose their cultural homeland. Mr. Thomas discusses numerous times black Americans and white Americans being driven out of their communities by invading newcomers. On their reservations, only Native Americans are safe from invasion. Invasion is one of the central themes of Mr. Thomas’ nightmarish view of the demise of the old America. Unfortunately, the invading other people’s homelands is a universal theme of human history, quintessentially described the Biblical Book of Joshua, which describes the Jewish conquest of Canaan and the destruction and ethnic cleansing of Canaanite populations. Europeans and Americans did the same to Native American populations. The Romans dispersed the Jews living Israel and European Jews reinvaded the Palestinian homeland in modern times. Invasion has been the humanity’s most self-destructive behavior. Invasions have ignited the ire of Muslims against America and Europe. Americans forget that Afghanistan has been invaded and occupied by the British, Soviets, and now Americans. There is not a single homeland in the Middle East that has not been invaded and colonized by Europeans. Many of the old European colonies achieved independence only since the end of World War II. In many parts of the world the colonization became permanent—North America, New Zealand, Australia, Tahiti, Hawaii, South Africa, Palestine, and elsewhere.

Bin Laden and Mr. Thomas share the same view of the importance of homeland: that the ethnic-cultural homeland is sacrosanct. Europeans fought wars into the twentieth century to protect their homelands from one another. Today their nationalistic patriotism seems to have waned, and for reasons of economics or guilt they have allowed their nations to be invaded and occupied by millions of immigrants whose cultures are dissimilar, incompatible, and even hostile in relation to the European host cultures. Mr. Thomas finds it ironic that as former British colonies seek to purify their cultures by purging them of reminders of their former colonizer, Britain itself has opened its doors to the peoples it once colonized, a process called reverse-colonization. Apparently, it was assumed that the alien cultures would eagerly assimilate into the European host culture, but Mr. Thomas would say that assumption was based on naiveté and cultural arrogance.

He would have immediately given the example of the Native Americans refusal to adopt the European-American lifestyle. Americans considered the life of the Indians to be harsh, primitive, and lacking the benefits provided by industry and technology. He would say it was absurd to believe the Indians would have wanted to give up a way of living that was so much a part of the primordial world of nature in order to live in suburban track homes or city apartments. The resistance to the modern way of life has in fact been a central theme in much of America’s art and literature. Can one imagine Daniel Boone or even a modern-day cowboy wanting to trade his rough-and-ready existence to work in an office and live in the suburbs no matter how affluent that way of life might be? To do so would be tantamount to selling one’s soul, surrendering one’s spiritual self for another that is designed and constructed from the commercial marketplace of consumer goods and popular forms of entertainment. A way of life is replaced by a commercially acquired lifestyle.

It may be inappropriate to speak on my own behalf in Mr. Thomas’ story, but I am not simply the editor of his memoir. I was his student and after having spent months reading and preparing his manuscript for publication I feel that I have been drawn into his life and way of thinking. Because Mr. Thomas has caused me to reconsider my beliefs concerning the many topics and issues he addresses, especially that of immigration, I believe it is not inappropriate for me to comment on the problem of immigration from my perspective, though within the context of what Mr. Thomas has said in his memoir. I will not speak for or against his position but only explore our different ways of seeing the problem. I am not sure, for example, that the high level of immigration that the U.S. has recently experienced is a problem per se. I suppose that will depend on how it works out in the future. The fact is millions of Americans like Mr. Thomas believe that runaway immigration has become a serious threat to the nation’s social and cultural integrity. The support he has received indicates that much.

So now I feel I must go beyond my teacher and offer a different perspective of the problem. I do this not to be critical but because of the series of events—his killing the Mexican, writing the memoir, and then being murdered in the facility, as he called the jail where he was incarcerated, have left me dismayed and puzzled. The question that comes to my mind is “What is happening to America?” I do not have an answer, but I can offer my own experience and thinking on the matter. I was shaken by what Mr. Thomas did and by what happened to him. And now I feel I must express myself, and I do so as his former student. In class Mr. Thomas always sought to get his students to express themselves. He could be very provocative, and he enjoyed hearing what students had to say on issues. He called the back-and-forth dialogue the dialectical approach to truth that Socrates favored. He said it is not the best approach for determining empirical truth, though dialectic discussion has always played a role in science by offering various perspectives on a theory. Ultimately experimentation and empirical investigation are the only reliable approaches for determining whether a scientific theory is credible.

However, when it comes to beliefs that are not a matter of empirical fact, but matters of morality, aesthetics, and value, the dialectic method can be very useful. For one thing, its approach to issues is very democratic. Everyone has his or her say. That is what Mr. Thomas always wanted in class—for every student to have his or her say. So now I wish to have my say about the issue of immigration that so troubled Mr. Thomas.

I do not identify with Mr. Thomas’ tribalism. It is not that I believe his desire to preserve what he considered to be America’s cultural identity is wrong or misguided but because I do not feel what he felt. I grew up in a suburb that lacks a distinct cultural identity. It is just a place where my family and I live. The streets are indistinguishable except for their names and are lined with newish cookie-cutter houses. There are three schools located beyond walking distance so except for a few students who rode bikes we never saw students walking to and from school. Though the schools are considered quite good as public schools go, my parents sent me and my siblings to Fairmont Academy, an expensive college preparatory school. My parents are professionals who make enough money to put them in the upper middle class, but they have had to manage their expenditures carefully. Except on weekends our street was quiet and mostly empty of human activity. One would see joggers in the morning and late afternoon, a woman pushing a baby carriage, or a couple women walking together. Many of the families had children but they mostly stayed indoors or played in the backyard. A couple of miles from the house is a small, convenient shopping center consisting of a bank, supermarket, a Starbucks, and other franchises. Thus, the area where I grew up is a safe, comfortable, convenient living environment, though it is very much an automobile dependent community. I am reluctant to call my suburb a community or even a neighborhood. I suppose it is what is called a bedroom community.

The other place where I spent most of my time during the day was Fairmont Academy, which has a multicultural student body. The school constantly preached that its diversity was a great benefit to everyone. And I believe that aspect of the school appealed to my parents, though more from the point of view of practicality than cultural enrichment. Professionals—such as doctors, lawyers, or business people—are required to work with people who come from different cultures. My parents told me to take Spanish not for cultural enrichment but because it would be a useful language to know. My brother and sister also took Spanish because they were told the same thing. My sister also took French, not for its usefulness but for its cultural appeal. The school had assemblies that celebrated diversity and it was obvious that teachers were required to take diversity into account when designing their curriculum. Also, throughout the year there were days devoted to celebrating different cultures. There was international week, during which foods from different cultures were served in the cafeteria, performances from different cultures were given each day in school assemblies, and in-class presentations or discussions were devoted to the topic of diversity.

However, I always thought the agenda of the various on-campus celebrations of diversity to be a form of propaganda intended to promote tolerance. I do not believe all the preaching of the value of diversity made any significant difference in the way students thought about people from other cultures. Our parents had taught us to be respectful of others. And at school the students got along. Mocking someone for his or her ethnicity would have been criticized as being boorish behavior. Intolerant language or behavior would have been criticized more as a lack of self-control or dignified behavior than for its intolerance. In other words, for the most part students at Fairmont Academy treated one another with respect, but at the end of the school day each cultural group went its own way. And that was even truer during the summers. So what had been achieved by the time students graduated? They certainly were respectful of one another and most would consider expressions of intolerance as a lack of sophistication. Did the students have a greater appreciation of cultures different from their own? I would say that for most students the answer was no. The attraction to other cultures remained superficial—their food or music, for example. The old stereotypes remained but were less likely to be revealed except among close friends.

My college experience has been similar, though the administration does not preach diversity. It does not have to. The student body is made up of students from all over the world and from various ethnic and cultural groups. However, I would not say the cultural diversity enriches the environment, nor does it detract from it. Just as people do in the greater society off campus, students go about their business—attending classes, working, and pursuing a personal life.

I have really never understood exactly what the benefits of diversity are supposed to be for Americans. The benefit most often pointed to is the variety of foods available when dining out. That is hardly a profound benefit. I do appreciate other cultures, but they are most meaningful in their native environment. Here they are superficial, clichéd representations of the home cultures. The barrio in San Diego is hardly Mexico. Little Italy is hardly Italy. Little Saigon is hardly Saigon. They are nothing more than caricatures of the home country. Mr. Thomas is correct when he says the real benefit is to the economy—cheap labor, an ever expanding economy, and certain technical job skills Americans avoid acquiring. At the service end of the economy there are what might called low- and semi-skilled drudgery jobs that are essential but do not appeal greatly to most Americans. Then there are the immigrants who are brought in by universities and corporations for their technical, scientific, and mathematical expertise. The most popular college majors among American students are business, social sciences, history, health sciences, and education. Other areas of study are security services, parks, recreation, and leisure studies. It seems obvious that American students are attracted to jobs that are lucrative or have high enjoyment value. The U.S. Government also needs native speakers for its overseas operations.

The benefits in these cases are clear, but hardly ones that have to do with average Americans’ multicultural experience. If cultural difference means anything special, it does so mostly to the immigrants. Living in the U.S. highlights for them their cultural identity, perhaps enhancing its meaning. Living in in the U.S. strengthens immigrants’ ties to their homeland and to their cultural identity. If Mr. Thomas is an example, the response of millions of Americans to the presence of millions of immigrants who have come to live in the U.S. has not been positive. It certainly strengthens their patriotism and national pride, but the mood is not celebratory but fearful, despondent, and angry. Americans feel threatened as a people and society. Given that mindset I do not know how Americans like Mr. Thomas will ever be convinced that diversity is good for them and their nation.

From what I have said the reader must think that I agree with Mr. Thomas, and I do on the particulars. It is my response that is different. My attachment to America is not what you would call strongly patriotic. I believe I am fortunate to have been born in America because of the opportunities it offers me to successfully pursue my goals in life. I am not sure but perhaps I feel that way because that is how America presents itself to the world—the land of opportunity, not the land having a particular history. I know that the Pledge of Allegiance is recited in some high schools, but not at Fairmont Academy. Occasionally, the national anthem was performed, but I was not especially moved by it. At Fairmont Academy the emphasis was on multiculturalism, not patriotism. The two seem incompatible. If there was a time as a young adult that I felt strongly patriotic it was during the 9-11 attacks and for a time after. Those attacks, however, did not transform me into a fervid patriot. I did not join the military. I felt that the terrorists had committed a crime and should be punished for what they did, but unlike the president I did not think that America had come under attack by a nation, such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I knew there would be no enemy armies invading the U.S. I never feared for my safety, nor did I believe Americans were in grave danger.

More importantly, no one I knew felt threatened. And I understood why we felt that way. The terrorists who carried out the attacks had to plan and prepare for months to carry out complicated attacks using America’s own planes. We also knew that if another attack were to occur it too would be a local incident. The nation was not under military attack nor was it threatened as a whole. As it turned out, the men responsible for the attacks were hiding out in caves in Afghanistan. The government and media tried to whip the country into a state of hysteria, and it worked on many people; but my friends and I calmly continued to go about our business. We were not looking over our shoulders for terrorists.

When caution was required it was not for fear of being attacked by terrorists. The greatest danger we faced was being injured or killed in an automobile accident. After that was being robbed or mugged. The greatest threats faced by American women continued to be aggressive husbands, boyfriends, dates, and rapists, not terrorists. So like many of my friends, I believed the threat of terrorism to Americans was exaggerated. When America invaded Iraq I felt that something was terribly wrong, not with the world but with my government. If the 9-11 attacks had made me feel a greater sense of patriotism, the invasion of Iraq deflated my patriotism. My feelings were disgust and shame. My response was to distance myself mentally and emotional from the War on Terror and simply focus on my education and pursuing a career.

What I find in Mr. Thomas memoir that I do not find among the people I know is a strong feeling of nostalgia. Maybe one has to reach a certain age before longing for a past time or past life. One day I might feel such a longing, though I doubt it. I do think back fondly to the time I was a child and the time I was in high school. Due to my parents and my brother and sister, I had a happy childhood. Furthermore, my brother, sister and I were good kids who got along well with one another. There were disagreements of course but no serious outbursts of anger. We are a happy family, and I will always cherish the memories of when we were all together. I doubt, however, that I will ever wish I could return to the good old days with my family. One reason is I still have my family. Only a few times a year can we all be together but we stay in touch by phone and email. So when I think back to those happy times, my family and school mates come to mind, not the community where I grew up. There is nothing uniquely American about it.

In fact, I would say that it is remarkable for its lack of cultural significance, almost as if a cultural identity is incompatible with the artificial, monotonous character of the design and materials of the homes and grid-like layout of the community—as if it had been designed by a computer. It is a Starbucks community—friendly, functional, yet artificial and superficial. Such a community could exist anywhere in the world. It has a small park but no fields or clumps of trees, no factories or old buildings, nothing old for that matter, no community hangout, no places for young kids to explore. There is nothing to captures the imagination, nothing that evokes mystery. It is a checkered board and every square has been functionally utilized. Such communities do what they are designed to do, yet everything seems fake, everything except the people who live in them. And perhaps their lives have to some extent become artificially designed and programmed, but that is another issue. If my sister, brother, and I went out of the house we usually went no further than our yard. Life inside our home was exciting—music, television, video games, computers, and ourselves. The so-called neighborhood outside was boring.

I think nostalgia requires something distinctive and unique to latch on to, but there is nothing at all distinctive or unique about my neighborhood except perhaps its lack of those qualities. I do not recall my brother, sister, and I playing on the block with other kids. Of course, we did not attend the local public school, but I am not sure it would have made any difference if we had because our connection would have still been primarily with the school, not with the community. In a sense there was no community. So as far as the place where I grew up is concerned, it is just a place having nothing memorable about it except that it is the place where my family lived and where I grew up.

I am also willing to admit that perhaps my experience of growing up in America is not typical of the nation as a whole but only for people like me who grew up in the suburbs. Still, what I am looking for is the America that Mr. Thomas was so strongly attached to because it seems I never knew that America. As a result, I have never felt the despair and outrage he felt in response to millions of immigrants entering the country illegally. He obviously felt some aspect of America was being lost with their arrival. I think the reason he felt that way is to be found in Mr. Thomas’ childhood.

Mr. Thomas grew up in a very different place from the suburb where I grew up, a small Texas farming community called Meadowview. He knew most of the people of the community, and the character of the community was very much defined by a particular economy—farming and ranching. Most of the people were white, but there was a small black community. There were Hispanic workers as well. It had one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school and all the kids attended these schools. The students must have all known one another since the student populations were small. I am certain that the sporting events were well attended by the entire community. That was impossible at Fairmont because the school itself was the only community. Sporting events were well attended but mostly by the parents and school friends of the athletes. It is odd that Fairmont was the only real community for most of the students and their parents.

That was not true for Mr. Thomas. The entire town was the community, and its members came together at sporting events and for church services. They also encountered one another at work or at various places in the town—such as the two grocery stores, the filling station, the two family style restaurants, the local Dairy Queen and Whataburger, and the pharmacy. There was a theater when Mr. Thomas lived there, but it has since closed. Based on the research I have done, crime rates were low in Meadowview. Underage drinking was probably a concern. Fatal highway accidents did occur, some involving teenagers. Apparently, drug use was not a serious problem in Meadowview, certainly nothing similar to what one reads about occurring in small towns today. There were no gangs when Mr. Thomas was growing up.

I believe Meadowview was Mr. Thomas’ America, and it became the benchmark by which he measured the changes that he witnessed occurring in the country. Meadowview was in many ways idyllic. It was a friendly and safe community. People knew their neighbors and trusted them. They could leave the doors to their homes unlocked and the keys to their cars in the ignition. People were content because they were devoted mostly to work, family, church, and community. They did not feel the need to spend a lot of money on nonessentials or entertainment. It was paradise if one did not demand too much from life. Mr. Thomas was very fond of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, and perhaps that story can give a clue to what happened not only to America but also to Meadowview.

In Paradise Eve wanted more, a very human attribute. However, an enticement was required to create this need for something more, and the Serpent offered that enticement. I doubt that when Mr. Thomas was growing up he felt bored with Meadowview. I will guess that had he the chance to teach there or some other small town he would have been satisfied to do that, though I cannot say for sure. America had changed even when he was a child. A different way of life was being offered—what Mr. Thomas called a life devoted to maximizing individual experience and satisfaction. Once Eve became dissatisfied, she had to leave Eden because Eden was a place of moderate satisfaction—young love, work, family, and community. As America became more affluent, there were more things to spend one’s money on—really cool things. And there was more to do. Every year my family went skiing. As a family we traveled often, twice to Europe. At one point we had three cars. And yet I considered our way of life rather modest compared to that of some of my more affluent friends.

For decades now, young people have been abandoning the small towns for the big city to seek an exciting life of self-expression, self-fulfillment, and self-indulgence, including causal sex. It is a way of living that is very different from what Mr. Thomas experienced in Meadowview. Neighbors and other members of the community no longer play an important role in one’s life. They are replaced by a few close friends and colleagues. Work can be important for certain professions, such as doctors, artists, lawyers, teachers, firefighters, and police officers, but for most people its meaning is limited and subordinate to how they spend their leisure time. What no longer exists is a community that is defined by a dominant form of work—such as farming, fishing or manufacturing. Thus, for modern Americans life has become fragmented in such a way that there is no longer an overall community structure with the individual at the center. Today the old physical, organic community is being replaced by the micro-communities involving work, play, and worship and by electronic social-network communities. People increasingly pick and choose the components of their community, which consist of like-minded citizens. Such a community disappears if the individual relocates or dies because it is rooted in the individual, not in a place that exists independently of the individual.

However, cyber communities are emerging that are portable because of the computer and Internet. Mr. Thomas was a science fiction enthusiast, and one genre he especially liked was cyberpunk stories. He said that stories have always been a medium that allowed people to escape from their humdrum existence into a more exciting and interesting virtual reality. Today movies, television, and video games have replaced books as the most popular forms of escape. One day he said something that really struck me, and that was whereas movies, television, and video games are considered forms of entertainment, thus not a part of reality or real life, the social interaction that occurs online is considered a part of reality and real life. He mentioned the cyberpunk novels Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson and Neuromancer by William Gibson. In both these stories the virtual reality of cyberspace is no longer entertainment but a virtual lifeworld. The same can be said for the social interaction that occurs online. Today online social-networks enable hundreds of different cyber communities to exist that are populated by people who share common interests.

A person can belong to a number of these communities at once, which may consist of extended family and friends but also special interest groups having to do with politics, religion, academics, hobbies, sports, recreation, art, and entertainment. These are ideal communities because all the members share a single interest they are passionate about. Existing in cyberspace, these communities are portable. Place or location becomes irrelevant. What seems strange to me is that people can also feel nostalgic about the virtual worlds that they have been a part of if only vicariously. I know this because some older members of my extended family enjoy watching reruns of shows that they watched when they were younger. Equally strange is how involved people become with television shows they watch. One of my grandmothers, for example, will discuss at great length the characters of her favorite television show, treating them as if they were her neighbors. It is clear that she is much more involved in the lives of these fictional characters than she is with her actual neighbors and the other members of her community. That may be because like Mr. Thomas she does not live in a community where she grew up, or in the community where she spent most of her adult life. To be closer to us, she and my grandfather moved when he retired. I find her obsession with long-ago television shows strange, yet outside of school and work I spend most of my time interacting with members of my online communities, many of whom are former high school classmates. And most relevant, I am not close to any of my neighbors.

So perhaps an important difference between Mr. Thomas and me is that our social worlds and their settings are not the same. Whereas the influx of immigrants threatens what he considers to be his home-world, they cannot threaten mine because it is a cyber construct. Most important, I feel no strong connection to the place where I live. I will leave Chicago when I finish school, yet I have no idea where I will eventually end up living. I might end up in San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle or some other city. But whatever city that might be, I doubt I will develop a connection to it that Mr. Thomas believes is so important. Cities have become like clothes and cars in that they serve a practical purpose and at the same time can be enjoyed. I cannot see that kind of relationship as ever being profoundly personal.

To Mr. Thomas Meadowview was a profoundly personal place. Its meaning was similar to that of one’s family. I believe that is why his response to illegal immigration and mine are so different. To him, having immigrants occupy an American community is like having a family member kidnapped. I do not feel that way because I have always existed in a very different living space than that of Meadowview or any other traditional American community. His community was unified by a common history and by a traditional way of life. Other than my family, my living spaces have been artificial in the way air travel and passenger planes are artificial. The attendants and passengers are well behaved and polite. The accommodations are comfortable. But unless a friend or family members are present, the other people onboard do not matter, and the meaning of the experience is superficial and forgettable. What is important is getting to one’s destination.

The people who have abandoned the old community-based way of life have been white Americans like Mr. Thomas. Blacks have retained their communities, if not pushed out by Hispanics or other immigrants. American Indians have preserved their traditional communities. As Mr. Thomas repeatedly points out, the new immigrants create ethnic-cultural enclaves for themselves. And certain European-American groups have tried to preserve a traditional community and language reflective of the homeland left behind—the English, Irish, Italians, Germans, Jews, and Poles, for example. And perhaps these multiple European ethnicities made it more difficult for white America to see itself as a distinct, culturally unified group. Yet, it seems to me more than anything else what has undermined the white-American community has been whites themselves. Certainly, millions of white Americans still live in small-town communities, but they represent a minority of the white-American population. Clearly, white Americans prefer living among other white Americans, but not in the same way other cultural groups prefer to live among their own people.

The community I grew up in was a collection of mostly white people living in proximity to one another. It was safe and convenient, and the quality of life was quite good. But such places really are not communities. In some ways they are very similar to the places where people shop or work. So if white Americans have come to see America primarily as a place where they are able to fulfill individual goals in life, then perhaps that is why they never really cared enough to protect America from the large number of non-white, non-European immigrants illegally entering of the country each year. I would even suggest that Americans were already abandoning their America even before the great waves of the new immigrants arrived, and only afterward did they, like Mr. Thomas, begin to reevaluate what they were losing.

Sunday, November 3, 2024

Freddy's America

 Last summer the gangbangers scored another hit by whacking Tyrone, a black kid who lived in the Black Zone but who bussed to Jefferson, which means his high school must have been like San Quentin High. Poor Tyrone was shot just for the fun of it. Dad was reading the paper one day after work and asked if I knew this guy Tyrone because he went to my school. And I said yeah, and he said he and a little girl were shot dead at a bus stop. I said no way. He gave me the paper and there it was. Jesus! I couldn’t believe it. And then Dad said there are places a lot worse, like Compton where someone is shot every other day, but I’m thinking Compton ain’t no worse for Tyrone. It’s an ugly world. There was photos of Tyrone and his friends putting balloons, flowers, notes, and other pathetic stuff at the bus stop. Man! I thought, Tyrone’s and the little girl's blood’s still there. You can wash most of it away but not all of it. I took the paper to my room and laid on the bed and thought about Tyrone. I kept looking at Tyrone and the bus stop. There was also a picture of the little girl. Couldn’t believe it, shooting a fucking little girl! That's totally evil. Then I felt this weird urge to go to that place where their blood had mixed in with the concrete. I wasn’t sure why, just needed to go, pay my respects I guess. So I decide I’d do a pilgrimage by making run on Manson to see the shrine because I don’t dislike blacks any more than I dislike other people, but shooting kids at a bus stop shows their thinking to be really messed up.

I figure if I take off in the morning I’ll get back plenty of time before it starts to get dark because I sure don’t want to be in no banger territory on a skateboard when the sun goes down unless I want to be in the morning newspaper, but there wouldn’t be no shrine, though Spike my white nemesis might drive by to piss on the spot where I died. Of course, Tyrone was shot in broad daylight, which goes to show you in the hood crime never takes a time-out, but what are you gonna to do? What I do is never skate through those neighborhoods, but I’m hoping maybe that things might be cool for kids at least a few days after one gets whacked, though not for adults, who’ll still be getting killed at 7-Elevens or in the back of some car where they’re doing a drug deal or in the parking lot of some strip joint (wish I was 21) or in and around any of those sinister looking bars that got no windows just a door and a neon Budweiser sign out front. I always wonder what goes on in those places, like. Picking up loose women (Mmmmm!), drinking, playing pool like in The Hustler, selling drugs, or planning a robbery or drive-by. Who knows? But no smoking! Can you believe it? I can do the one thing those guys can’t.

Anyway as I was saying, I thought I’d take my man Manson out on this pilgrimage, telling myself that the gangbangers won’t beat me up in broad daylight but knowing that in the ghetto gangbangers will pull up, jump out, fuck you over, and be gone in less than a minute. That’s the beauty of the automobile. Myself, I will have to rely on the speed and the intuition of Manson to guide me out of harm’s way. Of course, I know that’s just bullshit. They probably wouldn’t even bother beating me up but just do a bang bang good-bye drive-by so that some wannabe can get his gangsta stripes, and though Manson is fast, he ain’t faster than a speeding bullet. But it’s like going to church. You gotta believe in somethin, and Manson is my miracle. So I head out, quickly leaving behind the white-trash ghetto where Dad and I live and enter No Man’s Land which separates the Orientals from Hispanics, cross through the nether world of the rainbow coalition—black, yellow, brown, and red (the only whites hanging out are police and the red ain’t Indians but blood stains). There’s no white in that rainbow because the coalition is a bunch warring tribes busy hating, fighting, and killing one another, so long ago whiteys who could afford it retreated to the burbs, like the old pioneers circling their wagons for the last stand because there ain’t nowhere to escape to. White trash like Dad and me who can’t afford a fancy wagon in the suburbs are left behind in the urban wilderness. Imagine pieces of white litter floating around in a black hole.

Of course occasionally whitey’s got no choice but to pass through the MCMZ (Multi-Cultural Militarized Zone) and he ought to be okay as long as he don’t run out of gas or have a flat. If his white ass does get noticed, it’ll most likely be kicked, robbed, or killed or a combination of the three (add raped if he’s a she). The predators roaming gangstaland are like the crows in Resident Evil, who’ll leave you alone as long as they don’t notice you, but if they do they’re all over you pecking out your eyes. That’s the way it’s always been for black people who gotta drive through the South to get to civilization on the other side. They’ll most likely be okay if they stay on the Interstate with a full tank of gas and play the tourist just passing through because the crackers will be so busy lynching one of the local niggers or burning a nigger church (that’s how crackers talk about black people) that they won’t pay the black tourists any mind. But they don’t dare leave the Interstate unless they want to join the puppet show or be on the wrong end of a shot gun like in Easy Rider. And of course they’ll be praying that all the cracker sheriffs will also be at the hanging. I mean those sheriffs gotta be black people’s version of Nemesis. Life would have been a lot better for black people if slavery happened some other place than the South, like Rhode Island. That way when the slaves were freed then all the bad shit would have been over and done with. But not in the South, and I’ll tell you why.

The South is a place that holds a grudge. I learned that from reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. If you read that book you remember the forever feud that took place between two cracker families. Southerners might as well be Moslems they enjoy shooting each other so much. What I liked about Huckleberry Finn (and I almost didn’t read it because I’d seen the movie and reading generally goes against my principles) was I wanted to be on a raft going someplace even with a black guy as long as he was like Jim and not a gangbanger who’d be shooting everybody on the shore as we floated down the river. Of course, Avalon or July would be even better, but I’d still probably need somebody like Jim or Dad because there’s bound to be trouble because there’s always trouble. That’s what I think the story is saying. That America ain't a story with a happy ending. And to show you the difference between adults and kids, there’s no way Huck would sell Jim just to make some money, but that’s exactly what the white guy Crusoe does in the same situation. His black friend is named Zury and as soon as he has a chance to sell him he does. That's what the teacher called capitalism. That says to me everything you need to know about fucking adults. I didn’t read that book only the SparkNotes and not even all of them. I mean there’s a limit to what teachers can expect you to read. I don’t think I’d live long enough to get through that book.

I digressed. My teachers were always saying I couldn’t stick to a topic. But that’s normal when you think life is messy like a RPG. That’s a game where the story looks more like a map instead of a single highway that’s got some turn-offs all basically dead-ends. Another thing that makes RPGs like life is that you got to make all kinds of choices that determine how you get to where you want to go but also determine what you’re going to be like when you get there, like you might be a hero or a villain or somewhere in between. You actually might not like how you turn out because sometimes when you think you’re making the right choice you’re not or more likely you make a choice you don’t want to make but do it anyway to get whatever it is you want. That’s why I don’t like RPGs. I play games to give my brain a rest while killing bad guys like the ones who killed Tyrone and the little girl. My life is already too confusing. So it’s normal that whatever I got to say about anything would be confusing too. That’s one of the reasons I hated writing for teachers. The main one being it’s boring. I’d rather be riding Manson or playing a (nonRPG) video game. But also they criticize your writing to death. When I’d get an essay back, if you could call three paragraphs an essay, it looks like it needs a blood transfusion. No doubt about it my best essays are the ones I do at home so Dad has a chance to look them over and fix them. That way I get at least a C or maybe a B- (unfortunately when it comes to writing Dad’s not an A student).

Getting back to the pilgrimage, I’m on the street trucking right through the badlands where the tribes exist in multicultural disharmony, which is apparent by the fact that the grafheads and bangers have bombed every fence and wall. Without the graffiti it still would be a really ugly place, the graffiti makes it a scary ugly place—Third-World scary. I dressed real grungy so most people see me as not belonging to anyone or anything, a piece of human waste, another human turd floating in a polluted river, which is fine with me. I got no allies, no nationality, no gang, no homeboys. No nothin. I’m rodent-boy scampering in the urban wasteland. Of course local boys will kill a rodent just for the fun. Like when they set that homeless man on fire just to watch him burn. Dad said it wasn’t like that when he was growing up. It’s nice to know that I’m living in America’s decline and fall. That’s what my teacher Mr. Wingnute said when he was talking about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, that there are lots of similarities, like fast food, TV and movies taking the place of bread and circus and football games being like the gladiators fighting it out in the Coliseum and people stuffing themselves until they vomit, shit like that. And all I have to do is look around the classroom and see that yeah the country is declining fast and has already hit bottom in my neighborhood.

I guess it could be worse, like a survivor of the Holocaust could say “I’ve seen a lot worse,” but who would want to go through that nightmare just so living in America don’t seem so bad? You’d think that after the Jewish extermination the world would have grown up and said Let’s all try to get along. Yeah right. No way, and I’ll tell you why. There’s only one thing dumber than teenagers and that’s adults because adults should know better but they don’t. I mean just take a look at the world and ask yourself what do you see and who’s responsible? Take those Holocaust survivors, you’d of thought they would of wanted to teach the world something about getting along but what do they do? They turn Palestine into a concentration camp for those poor Palestinians. And what do the Palestinians do? They start shooting each other. Go figure. But it just goes to show you that the only difference between the teenage world I live in and the adult world everyone lives in is that the adults got the power to do more harm. You’d probably say, “What about the good things like NASA and going to the moon and such?” I’ll tell you a little secret. I don’t blame scientists wanting to build a spaceship so they can escape all the bullshit that goes on here, but if they go to some other planet like Altaira it wouldn’t be long before Altaira becomes just like Earth, totally fucked up, and then the nerds would want to build another spaceship to escape to another planet.

It’s like the Europeans who left Europe and went to America to create a better society (their slaves doing all the heavy lifting) as soon as they killed off the Indians and buffalos. What do they have to show for it? Places like Alta Vista and Compton. I know this is a real pessimistic view of things but any talk about people gets pessimistic. If you want to keep the conversation positive then you can’t talk about people because talking about people is like talking about different types of diseases. Each group of people, as far as I can tell, is a different type of disease. You got of course the American disease, but you also got the Jewish disease, and lately the Arab disease, and the Mexican disease and the Russian disease. The European diseases have been dormant but the Holocaust survivors can tell you all about the last outbreak. Man, I got stop talking about people because I’m putting a downer on paying my respects to Tyrone and the little girl. I mean that’s why so many people prefer pets or having a hobby like Dad did when he had a garage before the divorce where he’d make stuff. Mom’s hobby was gardening, though I spoiled it because sometimes she’d find a dead bird that I’d shot with a BB gun I got for Christmas, but that’s another story.

Anyway, just think about it a second. Who would you prefer to have as a roommate, the president of the United States or a cute pug with its curly tail, bulgy eyes and worried look? I mean no one in their right mind would want to live with an American president even for a couple of days. You’d go homicidal like that Moslem dude who went a gay bar with a machine gun. Dad said that the presidents insufferable because they're politicians and all politicians are insufferable.  I asked Dad what the word means because he likes it when I ask those kinds of questions, and if he don’t know (or just pretends he don’t) then he goes to his room and brings out a big dictionary and says something like, “Let’s find out exactly what that word means, Freddy,” and he’ll sit down at the kitchen table and I’ll go over acting real interested because I know it pleases him because it’s like a father and son teaching moment. “It says, difficult or impossible to endure; intolerable. That’s politicians alright.” So there you have it, the president’s in the dictionary and it’s the pug for certain as your roommate because pugs are loveable and politicians are insufferable.

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

The MAGA Myth

  America Has Rarely Been Great

America wasn’t great when slavery was tolerated for 246 years, from 1619 to 1865 (Thirteenth Amendment) and when Native Americans were being exterminated. To end slavery the Civil War was fought killing approximately 620,000 American men. The war ended slavery but not hatred of black people by both Southerners and Northerners. Twenty-five race riots occurred in the U.S. during the “Red [bloody] Summer” of 1919, the worst being the Chicago Race Riot. The hatred and violence toward blacks continue during 1950s and 1960s. These were not times of American greatness. And hatred on both sides remains.

America wasn’t great when women were not allowed to attend college until 1837 more than 200 years after Harvard College was founded for the education of young men or were not allowed to vote until August 18, 1920, when the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. America isn’t great when almost one in three women have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. When 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.

America wasn’t great when it dawdled self-servingly during Hitler’s rampage murdering our European ancestors and destroying their cities, which would have been allowed to continue had it not been for Hitler’s Japanese cohorts’ attack on Pearl Harbor. The lesson being tolerating aggressive authoritarianism can bite you in the ass. 

America wasn’t great when Hawaiian islands were annexed by the United States in 1898. Or when political freedom was being denied to Filipinos (Philippine–American War) and Iranians (Operation Ajax). Or when the U.S. supported the re-conquest of Palestine and the continued prevention of the Palestinian people from having a homeland. The first conquest occurred when Canaan was conquered by the Jews, described and glorified in the Old Testament, an important element of Old Testament Christianity used during America’s Westward Expansion to justify the slaughter of the native peoples.

America wasn’t great during the Vietnam War that immorally sacrificed 58,220 US service members, a million or more Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, and 275,000–310,000 Cambodians and 20,000–62,000 Laotians because two idiot politicians Lyndon B. Johnson (mostly) and JFK thought it was a good idea. (The invasion of Ukraine required only one idiot politician.) And tolerance of him is not a sign of greatness.

Then there were the two Bush Jr. wars. After the 9-11 Americans understandably wanted payback, and Bush Jr. delivered in Netanyahu Old Testament fashion: America spent 20 years and $145 billion to kill 176,000 Afghans. That’s a lot of death for a country of about 8 million people, and a lot of payback for the 3,000 people killed by the 9-11 terrorists. And MOST INTERESTINGLY there were no Afghans on the three planes commandeered by the terrorists. The attacks were planned by a Saudi, but Saudi Arabia is oil rich thus treated with kid gloves. Of course, American missionaries flooded into Afghanistan with the troops to convert the Muslim population to Christianity—when history shows that Christianity didn’t make America into a kinder, more loving, and tolerant Jesus-like nation. America chose Old Testament Christianity modeled not after Jesus but Joshua. Even used Apostle Paul to condone slavery (Colossians 3:22).

Then like Moses Bush Jr. received a message from God saying he should invade Iraq to get some payback for Hussain mocking Bush Sr., who deserved to be mock for allowing Hussain to remain in power after committing war crimes instead of hauling him before the International Court of Justice to be tried as a war criminal. The consequences of George Jr.'s second war: Over the eight years, “150,000 people including 122,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq War with U.S.” In addition, 4,492: The number of U.S. service members were killed. There was no wisdom to be found in Bush Jr.’s wars. And without wisdom, there can be no greatness.

America wasn’t great when forests and wildlife were being wantonly destroyed during the Westward Expansion, including over 40 million buffalo, reducing the population to about 500. In 1874 the government passed legislation to regulate the killing of buffalo, but President Ulysses S. Grant (a MAGA president) vetoed this measure. Three billion passenger pigeons would be killed into extinction. Hardly a sign of national greatness.

Pile of buffalo skulls to be ground for fertilizer in Detroit, 1892.
A symbol of greatness?

And how will a president Trump, who chats on the phone with one of today’s many Satans, Vladimir Putin, make America great when he knows nothing of greatness. He admits he doesn’t read—no history, philosophy, science, literature, etc., and most likely doesn’t visit museums where the works of great American artists can be seen and learned from.

Trump’s model of a Great America is money-worshiping Las Vegas, a nation of gaudy hotels and prostitutes with a MacDonald’s on every street corner. A society where women are aggressed and oppressed and gays and other declared undesirables are hated. 

The Greatness of America was rarely national but to be found among ordinary Americans who struggled throughout America's history beginning with simple pioneering people to provide for their families, who endured the hardships of the Great Depression and World War II, who gave up their lives so others could live free of violent attack and oppression. Who found much to love and little to hate. The great hope is that such Americans still remain to guide the country.

Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Why America Will Lose the Presidential Election

 Kamala’s Burden

In John Bunyan’s story Pilgrim's Progress the character Christian is weighed down by a great burden—the knowledge of his sin, which threatened to sink him into Hell. Kamala Harris is weighed down by a great burden that will prevent her from winning the presidential election against Donald Trump. One of the interesting aspects of recent presidential elections is voters voting against candidates rather than for candidates. For example, in the Biden-Trump election sufficient voters voted for Biden not because they liked or admired Biden but because they despised Trump. Trump won the election against Hillary Clinton because enough voters despised Clinton, rather than liked or admired Trump. The voting against rather than for scenario will be repeated in the present election.

Onward, Christian Soldiers

Trump’s political base is militant Christians. That is why he chose the militant Christian JD Vance as his running mate. Vance said that “Augustine gave me a way to understand Christian faith in a strongly intellectual way” (“JD Vance,” Wikipedia). He could have said “in a strong militant way” since Augustine is one of the most viciously militant theologians of all time. Augustine became a “severe and aggressive figure of authority.” In his Augustine of Hippo, Peter Brown says Augustine justified forced conversion (231). Charles Freeman says in The Closing of the Western Mind  that “Augustine “provided rationale for persecution.... By the thirteenth century a papal legate reported on the extermination of the Cathars, a [Christian] sect which preached a return to the ascetic ideas of early Christianity: ‘Nearly twenty thousand of the citizens were put to the sword regardless of age and sex. The workings of divine vengeance have been wondrous’” (296). The new Cathars are the Democrats.

Brown tells us that Augustine spent “his middle age in a bitter campaign against fellow-Christians, the Donatist schismatics” (202). In addition, Freeman says that “Augustine’s rationale for persecution was to be used to justify slaughter (as of the Cathars or the native people of America)” (299). Brown also tells us that Augustine “wrote the only justification, in the history of the Early Church, of the right of the state to suppress non-Catholics,” which would include not only Protestants and Christian heretics but also members of other religions and atheists. Augustine believed that “paganism must be openly refuted.” Thus, he committed “himself to this task with the vast labour of his City of God” (Brown 269). As a result, Christians could slaughter Native Americans and take their land with a clear conscience. In the Old Testament God's chosen people set the set precedence doing so (with God's blessing) against Canaanite pagans and laid the foundation for militant Old Testament Christianity represented by Vance.  About slavery, Augustine asserted “that slavery is God’s punishment for evil.” He wrote that it “can only be by a judgment of God, in whom there is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to assign divers punishments according to the desert of the sinners” (Freeman 206). Thus, black slaves were more evil than their owners and slavers were simply doing God’s work!

Vance aggressed Kamala by calling her a “cat lady” because she has no biological children, only step-children. It was an ad hominem attack condemning women who are infertile and demeaning the role of stepmother. Instead of being a follower of Augustine’s Old Testament Christianity, he should have paid closer attention to the behavior of Jesus and the doctrine of Apostle Paul. Jesus defended women rather than aggress them. Apostle Paul advised against both marriage and having children because he believed the Rapture was about to occur. And it is odd that Vance would criticize a Kamala for being infertile when Jesus and Paul both chose not to be parents. So clearly it is neither irresponsible nor unethical to choose not to have children. Apparently, Vance didn’t learn much philosophy even though he studied it.

 Brown provides a Freudian explanation for the similarity of Vance and Augustine' thinking and behavior. Both had similar childhoods. "Vance has written that his childhood was marked by poverty and abuse, and that his mother struggled with drug addiction" ("JD Vance," Wikipedia). And "Augustine was the son of a violent father, and of a relentless mother; [thus] he could uphold what he considered objective truth with a notable innocence of his own aggressiveness" (Brown 208).

When Is Enough Enough?

Overpopulation is a good reason to have a pet cat rather than a child. With a global population of 8.3 billion, the Earth is overburdened with humanity. The population of the U.S. is one-third of a billion, ranking third after China and India. When I was in high school (1960s) the global population was three billion. At the time the U.S. population was 179.3 million and nineteen out of every twenty persons in the United States was born in America. Today, 13.8 percent of the nation's residents are foreign-born. And over a billion people live south of the American border who yearn to be in America as their populations increase and their quality of life decreases.

Finally, by serving as a step-mother Kamala behaves as a Good Samaritan. And her support for Ukraine also shows she is a Good Samaritan: “History has shown us if we allow aggressors like Putin to take land with impunity, they keep going. And Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states and other NATO allies. Putin started this war, and he could end it tomorrow, if he simply withdrew his troops from Ukraine’s sovereign territory.” We know that Vance skipped Jesus's Good Samaritan parable: "After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Vance stated that 'I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another'” ("Trump may surprise us on the Ukraine war," Lowy Institute, Mick Ryan).

"I don’t really care  one way or another."

"BRAVO, COMRADE!"  say the Russian soldiers slaughtering Ukrainian men, women, and children! "You're one of  us!" Just imagine, America, your next vice president doesn't care about the women and children Putin has murdered or about the communities, homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals Putin has destroyed. Why the dull-minded heartlessness? Because the dull-minded, heartless, authoritarian Vladimir Putin is Vance's and Trump's  hero . Thus, their hero is  an ally of our greatest enemies: China and Iran. Where is the logical in that? In sum, both Vance and Trump speak loftily of independence and freedom but without obligation to the rest of the world. The obligation I speak of is moral, the altruism of Jesus's Good Samaritan. Their moral policy for the nation is narcissistic selfishness. Their good neighbor policy is if your neighbor's house is burning, let it burn. Such men are not heroes but hollow men totally unlike the men of that Greatest Generation who at great cost to themselves came to world's rescue. How strange that today the French show greater noblesse oblige than do Republican Party. Their indifference to human suffering can only improve Kamala's chance of being elected, but not enough.

The other female support of Ukraine is former Republican Representative Liz Cheney: "'Ukrainians fighting on the front lines of freedom should not have had to wait so long for this U.S. aid,' Cheney wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday afternoon. 'Today, 311 members of the House defied Trump & the GOP Putin caucus. They voted to stand for freedom against the evil of Putin & his allies in Iran and around the world.'" In response Trump told another member of the Putin Fan Club Tucker Carlson, "Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her." Just imagine that if Trump becomes president that both the president and vice president will not only be members of the Putin Fan Club but will also be anti-Good Samaritan misogynists.

Why JD?

Because appearances count a lot in politics. Images and facts are constantly manipulated to fit a political narrative. Vance comes across as all-American. Son of American born parents he overcame the hardships of a dysfunctional family, joined the Marines, used the G.I. Bill to go to college, and became a senator. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is the child of Indian and Jamaican immigrant parents. She had a comfortable upbringing. She is called an African American, but the label is incorrect for two reasons: her father is Jamaican and she has no ancestors who were slaves on American plantations. Thus, she does not represent the suffering of black Americans. So, on the one hand we have Vance as a genuine American rooted in family and history and Kamala an American sanctioned by law. That is part of the great burden that puts her at a disadvantage against Trump and Vance. In addition, “Harris expressed support for San Francisco's sanctuary city policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation” (“Kamala Harris,” Wikipedia). And as Border Czar, Kamala failed to secure the United States border, rather choosing to support Biden’s no border policy, which patriotic Americans consider a dereliction of duty and betrayal of the homeland. So whose side is she on? And now two assassination attempts on the life of Donald Trump. It seems the Democratic Party she serves has become militarized.

Now her burden gets really heavy. Not only must she beat the Trump-Vance cult and billionaire fifth columnists, she said she supported the violent “protests” that destroyed monuments, set fires in cities, destroyed businesses, and terrified citizens. She also supported all of Biden’s mismanagement, such as when he stumbled first day in office in January 2021 by despotically shutting down Keystone XL Pipeline without consideration for the American workers, costing the U.S. economy 59,000 jobs and $9.6 billion in economic growth. First day in office Walter Mitty Biden was going to show the Republicans who was boss. He showed them again with his despotic and bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan that led to the death of 13 U.S. service members. And nurse Kamala simply smiled. But Joe’s bungling arrogance became part of her legacy.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

NPR tells us that “Sen. Joe Biden was one of the few Democrats who sided with credit-card companies that were trying to make it harder for people to declare bankruptcy.” The bankruptcies were often caused by people having to use credit cards to pay medical bills, universal health care being absent. There’s more. SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) says, “​Newly sworn-in President Joe Biden unveiled legislation Jan. 20 that would create a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 10 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, offering expedited green card eligibility to ‘Dreamers.’” Taken together, it seems that Biden cared a lot more about the welfare of immigrants than he did about the welfare of Americans or about preserving the integrity of their homeland. Or did he open the border just to get back at Trump? Whatever their political motivation, both he and Kamala appear more committed to rioters and immigrants than to Americans. The slogan of the anti-American left at the time was “No borders, no walls, no USA at all.” Unbridled immigration could achieve that goal.

The Hidden Agenda

Old man Biden was played by the radicalized left that took control of the Democratic Party. His ego was stroked: “We will fulfill your wish to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES if you play along.” He said “I’m your man.” Of course he was. This was his last chance for greatness. The strategy was simple. The narcissistic old white man (much like Trump) would serve as the radical left’s Trojan horse. The goal wasn’t about policy but about revolution. If Biden gave up the ghost while in office, then Kamala would become president, the daughter of immigrants who had represented not traditional Americans but immigrants pouring across the border and being transported to cities across America, traveling expenses paid for by American taxpayers. In a sense, immigrants became the new proletariat with traditional Americans becoming the oppressive, racist, exploitative fascists. This Marxist revolution had been brewing in the U.S. for decades as explained in the following books and articles: 

Clinton Rossiter’s Marxism: the View from America

Nathan Glazer’s The Social Basis of American Communism

Paul Buhle’s Marxism in the United States

Maurice Isserman’s “When New York City Was the Capital of American Communism” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/new-york-american-communism.html

Frank Kyle’s “The Roots of the Biden-Harris Marxist Overthrow of America”: https://speakingaboutnothing.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-roots-of-biden-harris-marxist.html

Most Americans are unaware of the influence of Marxist ideology in the U.S., and since the inept, heavy-handed overreaching of the Army–McCarthy hearings, criticism of those committed to the ideology is considered unjust and persecutory.

The Great American Multicultural Experiment

Normally, two methods have been used when political parties want to change the country. One is violence as used in Russia and China and attempted on a smaller scale in the U.S. The other is to change opponents’ thinking via dialogue and ratiocination. The latter hasn’t worked all that well in America because there are only two political parties and both are powerful political machines. In addition, differences are deeply rooted in ideology (Christianity, capitalism, and Marxism) and infused with hatred of the other party. In other words, emotion has overthrown reason. A new strategy was needed.

Whereas Republicans like George Bush Jr. tolerated illegal immigration for political/economic reasons, the new Democratic Party has been using it as a method for bringing about a demographic shift in the country. A five percent margin was all they needed. However, as noted above, something more radical has occurred within the Democratic Party. Why settle for a five percent margin when a demographic shift would keep the party in power forever, accomplished by transforming America into a multicultural society by importing tired, poor, wretched refused huddled masses yearning to escape their lawless, politically corrupt, poverty-ridden nations by emigrating to America.

Achieving a Leftist Utopia through Demographic Manipulation

The goal has been to marginalize traditional Americans as a political force nationally and in cities by changing the demographics—which has already occurred in many cities and states. The political objective has been to marginalize the political influence of traditional conservative Americans. The hidden agenda is to minoritize traditional Americans using population manipulation. Euphemistically, the project has been acclaimed as the Great American Humanitarian Multicultural Experiment that would result in a multicultural utopia in the way communism was supposed to create communist utopias. And yes, the multicultural experiment is a Marxist offshoot with all cultures and ethnic groups becoming politically, economically, and culturally equal. Of course, the multicultural experiment is contrary to the idea E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) because it discarded the melting pot idea that all the cultures would come together to create a common, unified American culture. To the contrary, the differences of culture, ethnicity, and ideology that made up the multicultural puzzle have prevented the pieces from fitting harmoniously together. And traditional Americans—black and white—find themselves possessing no greater status than the new people flooding into the country. So, they feel they have been betrayed from within.

Biden’s Problem

Acquiring great power and influence usually does not result in being loved and appreciated, yet what Biden has wanted most is to be loved and appreciated, and to be given great man status—like that of Washington, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and well that’s just about it. Anyway, Biden’s problem is that he achieved his political ambition to become president, but he believes he has not been adequately loved and appreciated by Americans, not even by Democrats who simply used him as a tool. It was pretty clear that he is the Democrats’ puppet president. They knew his ambition was not their agenda but personal and narcissistic. Like Trump and most other politicians he has been driven by personal ambition—not the well-being of Americans. Being vilified by conservative and patriotic Americans and especially by his nemesis Donald Trump angered him. Welcome to my world, thought Trump. It was time for anti-American/anti-Trump payback. Biden halted work on Trump’s border wall (another one of 17 executive orders issued on his first day in office, including six others dealing with immigration), abruptly and authoritatively, without consensus or discussion but by executive order.

This Agenda is not Empowerment of American Minorities

It's not about black lives matter. The lives of red, brown, black, and white Americans don't matter, though the goal is the deconstruction of a unified culture via the  establishment of a heterotopian nation consisting of disturbing, intense, incompatible, and contradictory cultures achieved waves of immigrants from other cultures. It is the program of both Joe Biden and George Soros that have been described in YouTube videos that have been deleted. Newsweek, however, says, "Alex Soros, the son of billionaire George Soros, has issued a warning to Democrats about the presidential election ahead of a pivotal press conference for President Joe Biden...Alex Soros, the chair of the nonprofit Open Society Foundations (OSF), took to X (formerly Twitter), to urge Democrats to unite around Biden" ("Joe Biden Gets Support From George Soros' Son Ahead of Key Press Conference"). Why? Because Biden and his vice president would continue Soros's program. For example, "The OSF has been a major financial supporter of US immigration reform, including establishing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants" ("OSF," Wikipedia).  "Underneath its lofty rhetoric, the organization was clearly devoted to the eradication of national sovereignty, ("Connoisseur of Chaos: The dystopian vision of George Soros, billionaire funder of the Left," by Stefan Kanfer, City Journal).

The subtext is to minoritize the white population of nations dominated by European descendants. This is achieved by waves of immigrants from non-European nations. From the Center of Immigration Studies: "The last four decades of mass immigration did not just happen by chance. Complex social and political forces drove the demographic transformation that has added 55 million people to the U.S. population since 1980" ("A Review of Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction?, by Michelle Malkin"). Mirroring the agenda of the Democratic Party, Harris represents migrants, not black Americans. There are plenty of black American women capable of being president of the United States, certainly more qualified than the last two. But the agenda was never about celebrating and empowering black women or black Americans generally. It was always about transforming America into a decentralized post-America heterotopia that makes an absolute break with the traditional America. The agenda is a Brave New America.

Mission not yet Accomplished

Biden has hung on, so Kamala hasn’t become president as a result of his demise. So on to plan B: President Biden drops out of the race and endorses Kamala for president, fulfilling his deal with the now radically left Democratic Party that brought him to power. However, like Biden, she would have to be elected as his former vice president. And like him, she would have no chance of winning if she weren’t running against the greatly despised Donald Trump who “has the dubious honor of being the only U.S. president to face impeachment twice.” And let's add to that Best Buddy and admirer of mass murderer Vladimir Putin.  (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/)

However, like Hillary Clinton, Kamala is encumbered by a great burden, but Hillary was simply disliked in the way Trump is disliked. Kamala, on the other hand, is disliked and fearedHillary and Trump were not considered threats to the integrity of the nation, whereas Kamala does represent such a threat. If she were president of the United States, immigrants would have a champion in the highest office in the land. She would be able to bring to fruition the Great American Multicultural Experiment that would marginalize traditional Americans—black and white. The threat of Hispanic immigrants to blacks is not that they are taking jobs from blacks but that they are taking over black communities. Read Steven Malanga’s “The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates: Black anger grows as illegal immigrants transform urban neighborhoodshttps://www.city-journal.org/article/the-rainbow-coalition-evaporates

The future that both black and traditional white Americans fear is described in these stories:

Fear of the future and fear of that political juggernaut the Democratic Party are two among many reasons that Kamala Harris will lose the election.

Whoever wins, the country will remain divided by hatred. How did America come to this? And where are the wise media pundits and politicians who would condemn both parties instead of condemning one and praising the other when both are deserving of condemnation? Why the blind loyalty to that which is undeserving of loyalty? Paycheck? Ideology? Fear of becoming an outsider? Fear of being condemned (as Socrates and Jesus were) for not conforming to social media's ideological protocol? And why the silence of America's wise intellectuals, the so-called voice of reason? Are they cowering in academic bunkers? The irony here is that we have to choose between two undesirables for president when the country is fill with brilliant men and women. And it's not the fault of the people but of two political parties corrupted by greed and religious and secular ideologies. America wasn't intended to be a theocracy or a Marxist state but a nation that encourage the self-realization of each and every individual.