Some ugly historical truths

I just read about a trend about how federal officials - from Congressmen down - are working to push a larger role for minorities in history textbooks. Thus, students will be more likely to see that America was not shaped by white males, and American history has been one multicultural melting pot where all have positive roles. For example, many blacks fought in the civil war (actually, this was well known), as well as many Latinos. Spanish and Indians lived in St. Augustine, Florida. And Asians had lived since the 1700's in Louisana (I highly doubt this one -where would they get people from Asia at this time to put there?) and California.

Besides the inconvenient fact that 95% of all American policy was set by dead white males (and probably 98% before 1960), there is a lot of stuff in American history that will make the multiculturists squirm, if they saw the truth come out. Here are some ugly facts that you probably will not hear of in the textbooks:

• According to Thomas Sowell, there were several black slaveholders in Louisana.
• In the Civil War, the only Native American General, Stand Watie, fought for the racist Confederacy.
• Most of those Latinos who fought in the Civil War fought for the racist Confederacy.
• The man who is responsible for modern racist theory, John Randolph of Roanoke, was himself part native American (descended from Pochahantas).
• So was Robert E Lee.
• We have one (probable) gay President, James Buchannan. While he was a Democrat, he was also one of the most incompetent of the Presidents ever (for evidence, read some history about this period, and tell me how his actions were not incompetent).
• We have one racial minority as a VP, Charles Curtis. He was a member of two Kansas-area tribes. Unfortunately for the multiculturists, he was a Republican (and a conservative one at that, too).
• As long as we are going to turn Spaniards into Hispanics, it was them who had the most vicious anti-Indian actions throughout the colonial period (so much so that there was a "Black Legend" that other Europeans though native Americans believed, which in a nutshell stated that all Indians though the Spanish were really, really evil).
• And to top it off, it was the Democrats who were the outright racists - until the 1920's (and many Democrats were the most adament at opposing extending rights to African-Americans until the 1970's). It was they on the West Coast who had the most anti-Asian policies, too. It was only until the 1960's that a few racists officeholders entered the Republican party and defended segregation - but they were a small minority, and their opposition lasted only about a decade - until, as Ann Coulter notes, the party told them to drop the racist nonsense (to continue to be members of it).

While we will hear a white-washed version of multicultural history, we will not hear the other side of the story. Because the multiculturalists still see that most minorities, as a class, can do no wrong. Unless a minority group become economically successful, then they no longer are entitled to the designation of "minority".

Unfortunately, history is messy, and rarely (I say rarely) can it be viewed in black-and-white terms. Multiculturists will say "of course nothing is absolute" - but then again, that belief often does not apply to their own world.

I'm a Seer!

It has been a year since I started this blog. And I have noticed that I am right on some things. This is because I try to honestly predict human nature.

Here is what I have predicted:

• The Rolling Stones are Irrelevant

This is because 60 year-olds are no longer focused bands. Instead, they have things to think about like family, or grandkids (or, why my kids don't have any yet), or how many more years are left to retirement, or that motorhome they are hoping to buy, or those symptoms that are popping up all over their body. An article appeared on the Drudge Report that indicated that the Stones were having trouble with ticket sales in the UK. And I predict continued problems, too.

I have a solution. It's called Bellagio. Or Caesers Palace. Or MGM Grande. Or New York New York. I.e., sign on with one of the Casinos on the strip to perform like ten weeks of the year. They will get an audience, and they have the rest of the year to goof off, or see doctors, or do whatever else old people do.

• Book of Daniel will die.

And it's now dead. My comments are somewhere way above. But I think that it failed for the reasons it failed.

Another predicition:

• The Seahawks will not win the Superbowl (due to some curse).

And I'm right there, too. It's obvious the Seahawks should have won. But then the officials conspired to make sure they lost by a. Not granting them a touchdown when one was earned and b. Granting Pittsburgh a touchdown where there was not one. And it was right there, for all America to see. Most of America knows the Seahawks got cheated out of their title.

In the meantime, the refs are back at their off-season jobs. They works as elections officials in both Florida and Washington State.

There are only two explanations to what happened. The first is that Seattle sports teams are cursed. Which seems kinda obvious.

The second is that there is some kind of conspiracy between the NFL Commissioner and the refs to make sure the Seahawks lost. Notice that he "retired" after the Superbowl? It's a pity that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did not do some kind of criminal racketering investigation into this; I think he would have found a criminal conspiracy and put these clowns behind bars.

Here is a near prediction that is turning out to be accurate:

• Harry Potter will die.

Now, while he hasn't, and may not, several people are lobbying J.K. Rowling to not kill him. Actually, it's quite obvious he will die, according to the structure of the story. But then again, this series has all kinds of twists and turns, and there is a good chance he will not die. So whether or not he lives, it will not be any surprise.

Here is another near-prediction that appears to be coming true:

• W ain't getting impeached

The head of the House Judiciary Committee wrote an article in the Washington Post that said that if the Democrats took the House, they would not focus on this. I said it is too late to do this, and in fact, the 2008 election has almost started. So the Democrats have to spend two years proving they are not a do-nothing Congress, and impeaching a lame duck will turn them into a do-nothing Congress.

Here is another near-prediction

• Air America is crashing

This station is getting yanked out of some markets. You see, it is too late to start up a talk radio station. Unlike 15 years ago, people are less likely to listen to radio in their homes, and do so in their car. And those liberals who are into news already listen to NPR. I have confirmed this with some.

And, the talk radio novely wears down after a while. An audience needs to refresh itself, as people get tired of listening to issues after about a year. Even before the internet came into play, Rush Limbaugh's audience started falling from 22 million. And that isn't refreshing itself like it was one decade ago. There is a core audience that has stuck with him for 18 years, but the core audience for Air America has been with NPR for a long time, and those liberals who are issue oriented are more likely to listen to NPR than this stuff.

Those are my predictions. Now, this does not make me a seer, but merely basing predictions based upon how I see things work. Now, if I can only get me a crystal ball, I will focus it toward the Stock Exchanges and the Sports pages, and know where I can put some money.

Comments on Singles Events

I just went to a singles event tonight, a mixer. This is where single men and women go to meet other single men and women. Which is fine.

However, there is a problem. It is for single men and women who are available. And not everyone there was so available. They brought their boyfriends/girlfriends. Kinda like "don't touch."

I thought it would be a bad idea to hit on them. But then I realized something.

These people are being inconsiderate by placing themselves into the mix, where people are looking for boyfriends/girlfriends. I realized that not only should I not avoid hitting on the single, unavailable chicks, it is my duty to hit on the single, unavailable chicks. In fact, it is the duty of all single people to do the same.

If boyfriend/girlfriend comes up and asks why you are hitting on their boyfriend/girlfriend, say "well, this is a mixer to meet people, so I assume everyone is available". The thing is, people who are attached do not belong there. There is this idiotic concept in American society, as a reaction to the Jim Crow mentality, that everyone belongs everywhere. That is because the concept of the right to disassociation was abused, where categories that shouldn't matter much (like race) forced people to feel unwelcome in places like resturaunts, job locations, nightclubs, churches, etc. Thus, unavailable people can go to these things, even though they do not belong. It's not like a meat market dance club, where the floor and the bar are central concepts to it, allowing all in (although focused as a pickup joint). This is meant to pick up dates.

If the unavailable, or married people, as some were, feel uncomfortable, they are supposed to feel uncomfortable because they clearly do not belong at these things. Even if it says "single's event" everyone pretty much knows that it really means "single, available people's event" - and it you don't that is because you are a dolt. It's not like a single's group in a church, which is for all unmarried people, whether or not they are boyfriend/girlfriend (and the central mission of a church is the savior of souls, not a pickup joint, as everyone should know).

Thus, I encourage everyone to do the following. If you are going to a "single's event," which is implied it is a "single, available people's event," and you see a boyfriend/girlfriend in the mingle mix, go hit on the person of the opposite sex (or if you are gay, on the person of the same sex; or if you are bi, both). If everyone does this, such assholes will feel very uncomfortable to come to such things, and it will be easier for people to pick up on one another.

Ebbing of Tide of Support

At one time, the Republican party was the party that black people stuck with. However, beginning in the 1930's, blacks went over to the Democrats. This continued until today, when blacks overwhelmingly support the Democrats - by over 90%.

However, I see this as the high tide of support.

I see several issues where African Americans will start to re-think their positions on voting, within the next 20 years, and which means they will be more evenly-split between the two parties. Here are some issues that I can see an African-Americans change their position:

• Vouchers. The Democrats are beholden to the NEA, more than anything else. Education is the Democrat's Holy Grail. Well, "education" - meaning a monopoly of the public school system. Vouchers take kids out of the failing public school system and put them in private schools. And where are the schools failing the most? Inner cities. Which is why African Americans favor vouchers. And so do Republicans, if they take this mantle up again.
• Immigration Reform. The jobs that are available to many unskilled African-Americans, who are not college bound, are taken up by illegal Mexican immigrants. Which is making young African-Americans quite angry. So much so, there are now fights between the two groups. Now, which party stands for immigation reform? The Republican one. The word needs to be taken out.
• Traditional values. Most Democrats not only do not go to church, but they actually hate religion. Republicans like religion, and often go to church. The one group of Democrat supporters who do go to church are African-Americans. Republicans need to amplify the Democratic hatred of religion, to weaken the hold of Democrats on this group (only 2% of Americans will be alienated, but almost all those people, anti-Christian bigots, do not vote for any Republican under any circumstance anyway).

Now, the Democrats do offer affirmative action. But that is also a two-edged sword. It only works when you are the favored group. Since Hispanics are now becoming America's favorite minority, they stand to benefit from it. Especially against other minority groups. Since this is the one thing that really hold African-Americans to the Democrats, if they see the sword used against them, they might think twice.

Also, the Democrats are the party of the inner city. But, many an inner city is undergoing gentrification. Meaning rich liberal whites are kicking blacks out of their traditional neighborhoods. So blacks are going into the suburbs, where often, there is no dominant ethnic groups. Da Hood is what defines an African-American male as a "brother" more than anything else. Being in the suburbs will force a brother to act less like a brother and more like an American. And so think, too. And when a group loses it's identity and becomes American, it tends more to vote Republican. Look at the old "ethnic Democrats" - the Poles, the Italians, and especially the Irish. Today, they vote either way, often Republican. And if they have married out of their ethnic groups - which is more likely as time goes along - they lose this identity and get an American identity.

The Republican party is the party of Americans. It always has been. The Democrats, at the same time, has represented everyone else (excepting one or two groups, at whatever point in history). My study of American history has suggested that this is the case. When American ethnics vote a majority Democrat, the Republicans lose in a landslide.

One other thing, too. While Democrats were the ones who lead the civil rights battles of (almost two) generations ago, that is now history. To keep support, a politician must be able to answer the question "what have you done for me lately?" Just like Roosevelt advanced the agenda of union members three generations ago, Democrats have taken on positions that oppose many of their ideals, and the Roosevelt stories are pretty much ancient-history, so rank-and-file union members have a high percentage of Republican voters. Likewise, the civil rights stories of the 1950's and 1960's will not resonate with many black children anymore - especially when there is not a lot of discrimination - and they will lose interests when their grandparents and great-grandparents talk enthusiastically about this time.

Democrats are now being taken over by spoiled rotten white brats. Who are shoving minorities out of the spotlight - when once they had a prominent place in the spotlight. A feeling on non-inclusion will make African-Americans think about their voting pattenrs, and will be open up to new ideas. Meaning many will look to the Republicans.

Now, Republicans do not really need to change anything - continue to stick to it's core issues. If you change positions on issues, for no reason whatsover (except votes) everyone knows you are a phony, and you will actually lose support. Thus, supporting affirmitive action or gun control will get the party nowhere, and will get us to lose support. People often vote for the party that best represents it's interests and ideals. If we Republicans stick to these issues - and do not change our position - we will start to pick up members of a key Democrat consitutiency.

Now, I am a white person living in an exurb way away from da hood. So I have little contact with black culture. But I am an observer of human events, and I see that this is very much a possibility down the road.

I review some books

About 15 minutes ago, I finished "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." For centuries - yes, centuries - everyone has raved about this book, nearly holding it up as the standard for all histories. After spending five months reading it - and reading other books during this time - I ask - why? It has been a huge waste of energy, fortunately, I read this on the bus while there is nothing else to do.

In any case, I will review some other books, too, that I haven't had time to review. Many of you know I like to read, and you know I am highly partisian. So you would expect that my bookshelf would be loaded with books of partisians. Not so. While I have most books of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, I don't get too many books by partisians. Sure, I also have a book by John Stossell (a libertarian partisan largely) and one by Rush's brother, and one by Patrick Buchanan (with whom I largely disagree) these are intersperced with huge works by Conrad Black, W.E.B. Du Bois (who probably deserves the epitatat Tom more than everyone else), and mostly random, historical, works, whose authors do their best to wash the biases out of their work.

Work by pundits are largely intellectual junk food - you really don't get a lot of intellectual nutritional value from them, but they are enjoyable to consume. Yet, just like everyone likes a Twinkie (or in my case, a Ding Dong) every once in a while, one occasionally is tempted to read something from their own partisian. So thus my junk book of choice is Ann Coulter - who is quite funny to read, unlike a lot of boring partisan books, on both sides. And one should read a book or two from the other side every year, so I start with George McGovern's book,

The Essential American
This book is practically worthless. And I'm not speaking as a partisian. While books by Ann Coulter and Michael Savage are fun to read, this is not. This is because this is a loser - remember, he lost 49 states as a presidential candidate - who whines a lot about the right wing. And gives lots of leftwing nostrums, without introducing anything new. No liberal should read this book, because it is a waste of time - stick to James Carville, who is entertaining, or Michael Moore, who is probably entertaining (I don't know, I have yet to read something by him) - and relevant, too. Only conservaties should consider this book, to see what the other side is up to. And I say consider. Because McGovern has been irrelevant for a quarter century now.
What does he say? Well, I forget - it has been six months since I read the thing. Something about his vision of America. For which no one has really cared about since 1972, the year he lost 49 states. The only thing I remembered is that he mentioned that Benjamin Franklin wrote about the benefits of having an older mistress. Which probably means McGovern has ED, his wife is horny, and neither Viagra of the Boston Medical Group can cure this condition - so he has to find a younger man for her. Which makes for good copy for the National Enquirer, but takes a lot of wading thru to get to. This is almost as boring as the Gibbon book mentioned above.
McGovern, for those who forget (something easy to do) was pretty much a fellow traveller - or a useful idiot. In 1948, he supported not Truman, but Wallace. Wallace wanted to support the Soviet Union. And he had the support of communists and other "progressives." Wallace wrote four years later Where I Was Wrong, which states his trust in the Soviets was based upon misinformation. Unlike Wallace, however, he was unrepetent, and apparently is still proud of his support that year, and disregards such misinformation. The following book give a history of that in the Third World

The World was Going Our Way
This book is about Soviet Espinioge activities in the turd world, written by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. Mr. Mitrokhin was a former KGB spy who left Russia in 1992 with a whole bunch of documents stuff away in his suitcases. This is so he could reveal that the Soviets were a bunch of sneaky liars - which everyone who knows something knew already, so it confirms what they believe. Despite the torrent of new information, however, there are those who still refuse to believe this, so now amount of new information will change their minds.
Basically, his thesis is that around 1961 the KGB leader, Alexander Shelepin, decided to "use national liberation movements as the spearhead of a forward policy in the third world." This is because he wanted to do his part to make the world communisty. So he used covert activities to get the KGB involved anywhere and everywhere. And they did everything imaginable to do this. Not just the dirty stuff, like killings and invasions, but infiltrating youth groups, getting involved in politics, and gathering information. It goes into a lot of irrelevant details, like the $150 icon it gave to Allende (a gift Allende requested). This is the kind of stuff that ends up in Presidential libraries and has no influence on policy whatsoever.
Basically, it shows that the KGB did nothing more than what all large intelligence agencies are supposed to do. If the CIA did this stuff, we might be better off in the War on Terror. This book is largely a chronicle of it's operations in non-developed countries from 1945 - 1991. Which becomes a springboard for future historians who want to look for material for their own books.
There is a companion book which I have yet to read, called The Mitrokin Archive, which is the prequel to this book and talks about activities in the more developed countries.

While this is largely irrevant to current policy, it is good for us to understand the Cold War as it is so recent. The next book tells of the story of it.

The Cold War
By John Lewis Gaddis. This book does an excellent job of explaining the Cold War, from the reasons why it happened, to all the major events.
This book was written at the request of his students, at Yale, where he teaches an undergraduate class on the Cold War. They didn't like all that reading material he gave and wanted something shorter. While I read this book in about three days, it gives the sad state of our education system if Yalies need something this brief, and this low of a reading level, in order to pass their classes. At least his consolation is that he got to sell a lot of books and probably make a lot of money, as it was reviewed in lots of prominent publications (so people would go out and buy the book). And he certainly is one of the few experts on this subject.
I'm not going to get into details here. Only that he covers all the bases on all the events of the Cold War. From all it's major events, as well as it's causes. And he gets the causes right, in that it wouldn't have happened had not the Soviets been bent on world conquest - they wanted to impose their murderous and totalitarian communist ideology on the whole wide world, and of course many people did not want this, which is why there was a demand to resist this. While this focus got watered down over time, they certainly acted as if this was the case, and since I was alive and cognizant of this at the end, it appeared to be the case, so governments needed to keep reacting to preserve this thing called national security. The intelligentsia of course does not see it this way, and either wants this themselves (thinking they will run things - but totalitarians are gangsters who will easily liquidate these bothersome useful idiots when they obtain power), or has an incapacity to realize that some things are in reality quite simplistic. Which is why they have an inability to understand that Islamofascists want to make Sharia the law of the world (even Osama says so). So often times the intelligentsia gets involved in the mix, hence the term useful idiots.
Of course some leftwing ideologists - er, historians - will deny much of this book through their own apologias. But until a few generations pass, where the historians are removed from the feelings and the ideologies of the Cold War, there will not be a more honest or knowledgable book written on this subject.

As long as we are talking about past events, I will go onto the book first so mentioned

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
By Gibbon. Actually, this is an abridged version by Hans-Friedrich Mueller. Which all versions of this book available are abridged, so it is very difficult to read the real McCoy.
This book is over 1200 pages, and according to the introduction, is only 1/3 of the original. And not much is to be learned. Maybe another abridgement, by Moses Hadas (1962) will provide a better version of it?
In any case, this book goes on and on and on and on and on without giving any explanation as to why the Empire fell. Both the empire of the West, and the remnant, the Byzantine Empire. Oftentimes, he does not really give a description of what happened, either. Which makes him a poor historian. Instead, he likes to focus on the physical characteristics of the individuals. Or go over every single church dispute since the third century (or something like that).
For example, when he talks about Constantinople falling to the "Latins" of the 13th century, all we know is that they took that city. He does not indicate what they did to take it. One would expect that in a 1200 page book (or a nearly 4000 page book) he would give us a bit of detail here. But he doesn't.
Nor, does he go into the good stuff. Like the adventures of the barbarians, who obviously played a huge role in the death of the empire. That was what I was looking forward to. Nor does he explain why it fell. I heard he said that cause was inflation, but nary a word of rising prices.
I have no idea why everyone has been touting this book for over two centuries, but I can only determine that their reason is that this was a good sleep aid before Ambian (and at least one doesn't go out and do some sleepdriving). Unlike this book, the next book does a good job of chronicalling what happened.

1776
By another prominant historian, David McCollough.
Actually, this book is about the American Revolution to to the end of 1776. And the author does a great job explaining what happened.
Despite my interest in history, the events of the American Revolution were a fog. It's like historians wrote assuming that everyone knew exactly what happened, and the sequence of events. The author explains the revolution as a story, from beginning - to the end of 1776. I now have a cleared picture of what happened. Hopefully, he will write more books and go up through 1783.
No new information is revealed here. This, rather, is an aid for those who want to know what happened. Hopefully, teachers will use this as a textbook on the Revolution, rather than use the Marxist-inspired texts that don't say much truthful.

I will go into one more book, which is different than the rest of these

Reallionaire
By Farrah Gray.
This is a kid who became a millionaire by age 17. Which is amazing considering that he was a minority who came from da hood of Chicago. Or so he states - he had moved to a wealthier part of town at a still young age.
Actually, he had experience most people don't have. For examply, by age 10, or somewhere around then, he was studying in Japan. And he had connections galore, which few 10 year old have.
Nonetheless, all can learn from him - most people are not millionaires, and there are some lessons we can all take. While most boys are fascinated by sports, he was fascinated by businessmen. He got his first business going (and making good money) when he was like 8. Of course he was indirectly subsidized by adults who thought that it was cute to see a bunch of kids playing entrepeneur, but I guess that is a good selling point to get adults to help start up your operation. By the age of 17, he was able to make a bunch of food products, then cash out his business and live happily ever after - in a way. And he got to meet his idol, Bill Clinton. Why any God-fearing entrepeneuer would idolize Slick Willy is beyond me, but then again, it is an honor to meet any president, no matter what your politics.
This bibliography falls under the category of "self-help" books. While some people have denounced this industry, there is some benefit to it. Just don't get too sucked into this industry. As with anything else, there is a declining marginal benefit, and your natural abilities will only take you so far (you have to practice those skills before you can move on and develop more skills). But if done right, self-help books will help you succeed to some degree.

Well, that's a wrap of those books I have recently read. I will read more and get back to you on their reviews on my blog.

Why the mainstream churches die

I am too lazy to paraphrase this, so I will publish this in full. Giving credit where credit is due, this is from Malaysia Sun (MalaysiaSun.com) Tuesday, August 8 2006:


The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York's Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world's jihadists. In 'Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,' author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world's 'chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories. But after investigating he concluded that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, 'simply ignored evidence' that the administration was involved in the attacks. Griffin further asserts that such events such as that of 9/11 are part of a long history of 'false-flag attacks,' attacks orchestrated by governments against their own people to garner popular support for military action. Griffin is a professor at California's Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, and a codirector of the Center for Process Studies.

Recognize that, if true, this is from one of the major, mainline Protestant denominations in the US. Which explains why the so-called mainline churches are dying.

In fact, this is beyond what I would expect. Not only is it publishing something really kooky, but it is publishing something that has been proven totally untrue. If W had orchestrated these attacks, Richard Ben-Veniste would have uncovered it by now, and W not only would have been impeached, but would have been imprisoned, executed, or lynched by now.

The mainline churches, once seperate denominations, have now gone way beyond what they exist for - to preach Biblical truth. And are now going into left wing, nay, nutty, politicking.

Here are some examples:

• Now only does the Prebysterian church publish this nonsense, but advocates parisherners to get rid of their guns.
• The Episcipolian Church (the official American Anglican church) now ordinates gay bishops. The current head even explains that engaging in sodomy is not contrary to God's law (???)
• The United Church of Christ - formerly known as Congregationalists - has essentially endorsed gay marriage. It also calls for Israeli disinvestment.
• The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America states there are certain circumstances when abortion is permissible. I also remember having a speaker come in, in lieu of a confirmation class, advocating the seperation of Namibia from South Africa.

And, there's more, I'm just too lazy tonight to quote them all.

People generally see what is going on. When a church advocates "social justice" over it's key role, saving it's congregants, and ignores the Bible, it will lose members. And shrivel on the vine. In the meantime, other splinter groups in the denomination will grow in members, and the mainline groups will be mainline no more. And, the movement to non-affiliated churches has been growing.

If the pilgrims could see what happened to their church (the Congregationalists), they would freak out and die. Oh wait - they're already dead. Bad example. Then again, John Kerry is the descendent of John Wintrop, and Hugh Heffner is a descendent of a puritan governor of Conneticut.

And, when being a non-congregant is an option in American society, liberalizing your church does not gain members. Why wake up every Sunday morning to go to church when you can sleep off you Saturday night fun? Especially to listen to some boring lecture (er, sermon) about something you might believe, or might not. Going to church is not a fun activity - nor should it be. This is where you go to save your soul. And when those whose focus in life is that, and have to go to churches whose leaders openly preach against what is Biblically sanctioned, they are going to leave.

Mad Mel's Rage - What it means

With Mel Gibson's recent rage against the Jews - for being pulled over for drunk driving - we get to see a side of the character of Mel Gibson that was not yet confirmed. Of course Jews had nothing to do with his drunk driving. But, with someone having an outburst against a group, when caught with his pants down, shows that deep down, he probably really hates said group. So maybe he is an anti-Semite, after all.

In any case, this also reveals the bigotry of some of some of the chattering classes. I listened to some of the comments posted on one website, when announced the news. This young man said something like "What a fucking idiot. I knew it all along..." This implies something, as the tone of the voice indicated hatred.

So, who hates Mel? He is someone who has an independent mind, and does not totally agree with Hollywood on everything. Nor does he agree with the conservative movement on anything, either. So he has been denounced by both left and right. He is an independent thinker - only a little to independent, as his outburst indicates.

So what is it that they hate about him? He made a movie, based upon scripture, about the death of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. And a pretty good one, although I have yet to see it. Since it was based upon a book that nearly one billion people consider factual (and much has yet to be disproved of it, if it can be), we can consider it as largely neutral film - although probably it was somewhat propagandistic.

Now, some on the left - but not those who have closed minds - are touting another film of his. He goes forward some eight centuries, and shows how Mayan civilization doomed itself largely on environmental destruction. And this can be viewed as factual, too. Some scientists have shown that environmental degradation, like erosion, can lead to destruction of civilization. It did lead to a decline in agriculture in Iraq, for example. Some archeologists believe that the decline of the Mogollon culture in Arizona was due to overfarming a very fragile environment - like the decline of the Norse in Greenland, too. While they might be environmentalists with an agenda, they do provide sound evidence to back up their points, and no one has really given a good challenge to them yet. Now what this means in terms of global warming is another story for another time, but it is a plausible hypothesis. If all on the left had open minds, they would not think he was a fucking idiot all the time.

Instead, they hate him for his film the Passion of the Christ. They hate the whole Jesus story. Which is what? Simple - Jesus died for our sins, so that we may be saved. Of course, that is if we are willing to live our lives in accordance to His principles, our sins are forgiven. There is this thing called Revelation that shows that the living and dead will be judged - but some people kinda forget about that.

So, taken at face value, what is the film about? That someone died to save us. Which is a good thing, right? Well, some see way, way beyond that, and by implication, hate Mel for making such a movie to begin with.

So what essentially is the reason they hate Mel? Simple. Christianity forbids a man to put his dick in another man. Or another corollary, it forbids a man or a woman to jump in several beds with other men and women. And they like doing these kinds of activities, and in fact, they are obsessed with these activities, and they absolutely hate anything connected with denouncing this activity. It is basically an extension of their mental illness. Maybe Michael Savage is not totally right when he says that liberalism is a mental disorder, but he is not totally wrong in this instance, too.

There is some aspect where women are subservient toward men, too, but these men, while paying lip service to women's rights, really don't believe in it. Instead, they (at least the bi's and the hetero's) regard women as nothing more than sex toys, and have little respect for them. In any case, the most fervent believers in the Christian religion are women - and lots and lots of them, too.

Besides those two things, I really can't figure out what else they hate about Christianity. Even though it does denounce aggradizement (something not talked about) and urges charity, their hatred is so strong, that they look beyond this too. Despite being liberals, that is ideologically based, and even though liberals are probably more charitably minded than conservatives, in general, that does not apply to all liberals. I know of some liberals who are very selfish - and some of them, the degenerates, don't care one bit about this positive aspect of Christianity.

So, the rage of Mad Mel, while revealing his anti-Semitism, is more revealing in another aspect toward one part of our society - the absolute bigotry and closed minded of some on the left.

So we declared independence from the English Monarchy?

This is not really a political post. OK, it is a highly political post. But not in the way you think. That is because this highly political post does not have the tendency to piss anyone off.

You see, most of our Presidents are very related to one another. In fact, most are decendents of the English monarchy.

I found this out a couple of years ago. While trying to see a close relative of both Calvin Coolidge and Thomas Jefferson. I found out that at least 21 Presidents are decedents of the Plantagent monarchy (that is what Queen Elizabeth is). I did some more research, and the results are more surprising.

Originally, I thought there were 21 Presidents were Plantagents. That's how many were confirmed to be. But then I looked at another site and found there were a lot more. A lot more. Like almost all of them.

So, you think that Dwight Eisenhower is of complete German ancestry? Think again. He is a Plantagent. Legend has it that Andrew Jackson was trailer trash from Ireland. But he is one, too. Martin van Buren supposedly is entirely Dutch. Yet he hails from the English monarchy (although from an earlier line than the Plantagents). While there appeared they were not, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton are from this family, too. In fact, almost all Presidents are from this family. Check out this site:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~tdowling/presidents/presidents.htm

Now, everyone knows that the current President is well connected. And is he ever! But that was known for a long time.

Of more interest is Dick Cheney. He is a close relative of Harry Truman - they have a common great, great grandfather, I believe. At least this website will attest to it:

http://www.wargs.com/political/cheney.html

Of note here is how many people are descedents of Henry Adams. He was the first Adams in America, so I think that those Presidents who are his descedents should be considered as part of his family also. They include not only the two Adams presidents, but also Dick Cheney, and Calvin Coolidge. Both should be included in the Adams family histories, because of their prominent positions, if only as brief mentions and a footnote.

So what is the moral here? One of two things. This will show I am crazy. There is the possibility that there is some dark force out there who picks the leaders of countries, and the Plantagent line one aspect of this dark line. So maybe the Da Vinci code is somewhat right (regarding the extinction of good monarchial lines, such as the Merogovinians).

Here is something a little more plausible. Rich people can afford lots of children. And kings are certainly rich. So they have lots of children, and while most of those children are not as wealthy, they have much more wealth than most others. So they have lots of children, too. And over and over again, where the wealth diminishes over time, and so do the number of children. But by the time you are giving birth to mean serfs, there are so many descendents, that it doesn't really matter - and the serfs are marrying their distant cousins anyway.

In any case, I thought this was fascinating, if only for coincidences. I am now very tired and will have to go to bed (see the time?). I will need to stop off and get a latte in the morning and get the bucket I put the roses in I give to these chicks at a latte stand in my town, so I can give them more roses this weekend (see a prior post - I get tons and tons of roses from my garden now, and if I don't give them away, they end up in the yard waste bin). What does this have to do with anything? Probably nothing, excepting that they probably are Plantagents, too.