Back to Back Issues Page
Toward a definition of a distinct American People: American National Existence.
March 02, 2007
Subscribers Newsletter

American National Existence = American People-hood.

If you’re new to this site or to these topics, here’s a very brief refresher: America was founded, her Constitution was designed and her civil laws were legislated by men raised in Christian tradition, whose sense of right and wrong came out of Western Civilization. America remains Christian by overwhelming majority population. This common ethos of the Founders forms the very foundation of all of our civil law. It is the cornerstone of our national sense of right and wrong.

The Founders believed, said and wrote that America was founded on faith in a guiding Divine Providence, called for continued worthiness of that Providence, clearly indicating that, in their view, our national founding was no mere accident. That original national Divine Ground Of Being of America has not changed. Right and wrong have not changed. Popularity polls do not matter; political speeches do not matter; even majority rule does not matter. What was right before remains right now, and what was wrong before remains wrong now. You cannot change that with a poll or even with a vote. Scripture has not changed.

You can see more on this in the Threats to our National Existence article. There you will see enumerated the various official State (Colony) Christian religions, which our Founders solidly established into law. This common sense of purpose is the cornerstone of our American People-hood; it defines who we are and what our purpose is. Regardless of our Judeo-Christian diversity, you can look back to our American National, i.e., our American People-hood, beginnings to see that the moral doctrines that we hold in common come out of the same Scripture now as they did then. There were two Catholics and one Jew among the original signers of our Constitution. All the rest were Protestants, with some Deists, since Deism was quite the fad among Protestant intellectuals of the day.

All, without exception, were raised in households, families and cultural traditions steeped in Judeo-Christian faith and morals. In these households, families and cultural traditions they received their initial and continually developing proper formation of their individual inner consciences, and their common cultural ethos, which guided them in designing our Nation and legislating her first laws, out of nothing. It was our beginning as a distinct American People, however imperfect. And it was no accident.

This quite distinct People-hood with its Divine Ground of Being represents our very American National existence. Whatever attacks our unique distinction as a Judeo-Christian guided people attacks our very national being.

On the need for open, public Discrimination.

I openly discriminate between good and evil. Good and bad, or perhaps preferable and un-preferable, if you prefer to use the atheistic, or all-inclusive, indiscriminate, any-thing-goes terminology. That goes for good and bad religions, it goes for good and bad philosophies, it goes for good and bad social manners, it goes for good and bad public and private behaviors, and it goes for good and bad political leanings. Now, elitists will tell you that, for the sake of diplomacy and public comfort, you should avoid public controversial issues, and most particularly you should avoid Religion and Politics as if they were third rail issues: if you publicly touch them, you socially die.

However, I’m not a diplomat; I’m a grunt, and there’s a big difference. Religion and Politics are my favorite subjects. So, how do I discriminate between good and bad religions, between good and bad political positions, and between good and bad philosophies? Well, there’s the method of observing how the religion or position or philosophy treats the clearly obtainable truth. There’s another way, and it, too, is quite easy. Following a rule I found at the SANE website, I ask one simple question:

  1. Do you support American national existence and the Judeo-Christian moral guiding ethos upon which America was and is founded, or,
  2. do you seek to destroy American national existence and/or her Judeo-Christian guiding ethos?
Support gets a good grade; Destroy gets a failing grade.

Very simple; nothing to it. By this very simple standard,

  • Islam fails as a religion.

  • Marxism fails as a political system.
  • Public or private secularism (meaning today anti-Christianism) fails as a political plank.
  • Multi-culturalism fails as a political direction.
  • Homo-Nazism fails as a – whatever it is.
  • Non-judgmentalism fails on all counts, except when exhibited by children and incompetents, where it is expected and normal.
  • Academia fails generally as a secularizing and therefore un-Americanizing influence on young minds, whole classrooms full of souls at a time.
  • Non-discrimination fails on all counts as a clear demonstration of the inability (or political refusal) to properly reason. Use of reason to make any decision at all absolutely demands the application of discrimination.
  • SANE’s NuVo Initiative (NuVo = Null-Vote, meaning, don’t ever vote again) fails as a force that seeks to take the citizen representation that forms the very cornerstone of our American Republic completely and permanently out of existence.
As simple and straightforward as this standard is, I’ll go it one better by asking another simple question; one that goes even deeper to the root question of what American Existence really means, and it is this:
What, exactly, is your purpose for being?
Once again, very simple. What are you here for? Nothing to it.

Now, this opens up several different levels upon which American men might argue. First, Americans may argue with each other, at multiple levels, and second, Americans might argue with non-Americans, again at multiple levels. Obviously, I believe that Roman Catholicism alone holds the totality and completeness of the unchanged and permanent Christian Revelation. Just as obviously, most of my compatriots disagree with that “opinion,” as they see it, and therefore believe that I am sadly mistaken in that particular faith, or obstinate belief, depending on your viewpoint. Yet, for the most part, and however imperfectly, this position, like the opposing position, not only can be, but is, tolerated, by both sides.

Because we hold more in common with each other than in opposition. We overwhelmingly recognize our Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, or so we overwhelmingly claim. That alone covers a lot of territory. We share the entire Old Testament with the Jews, and that, too, covers a whole lot of territory. It gives us our basis for morality, for dealing with each other on a day to day basis, for recognizing and respecting our rights to our diverse “rites” and rules of worship, for being good neighbors, and for coming to each other’s aid in time of need or peril. It is (or should be) incorporated into the very fabric of our being.

The old Baltimore Catechism repeats the old unchanging purpose for man’s being thus: to know, love and serve God in this life, and to be happy with Him in the next. Loving God, correctly, leads to loving fellow man. The two Great Commandments involve love of God and love of neighbor. It’s very simple, really. It can become as complex as you want to make it, but there, in a nutshell, is an explanation of the Catholic purpose for being. I cannot be too far off the mark in the statement that every believing Christian and every believing Jew in the world, when pressed, would ultimately come up with a statement very similar to this one simple sentence.

The key word here is believing. To me, if you are a Jew by heritage or race only, meaning you are not a believer, then you are not really a Jew; at least not in the sense that you are a good representative of Judaism. In a similar manner, if you were Baptized and raised in a Catholic family and tradition but you are not a believer, then you should not be calling yourself a Catholic, because you are not an accurate representative of Catholicism. The inside of a man is of more importance than the outside.

So, upon what shall we now discriminate?.

How about alternative, i.e., un-American, purposes for being?

Whatever major degree our typical contemporary college graduates may be awarded today, we may fully expect them to have a solid minor in Atheism, Communism and “Free Love.” That’s what drives Academia in America today. Actually, although Free Love is the term in overwhelming usage on the American campus, in Hollyweird, in the SLIMC, on the Left Coast, and among all Democrat Party leaders, I prefer and will hereinafter use the more accurate English term for it, which is, Random Copulation. These are the things held dear to all Lefties today: Atheism, Communism and Random Copulation. Atheists have always had a problem discerning the difference between lust and love; they really do not recognize any difference at all between them. Or, perhaps more accurately, they do not know what love is.

Ronald Reagan told us that ”A Communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-Communist is someone who understands Marx.” There is the old joke about the old Russian man, asked by youngsters for a definition of Capitalism versus Communism, who responded thus: ”Capitalism is the system where man exploits man. Communism is exactly the reverse.” Even all these years after the dismal economic failure of the great Soviet Union, our Leftist Elite, the Professoriate in the lead, still sees Capitalism, free markets and private property as super-exploitive mega-monsters, and themselves and their version of Internationalism as super-heroes to the rescue of the downtrodden.

Their purpose for being: to save all downtrodden workers from big business. Right. It’s idiotic. A definition of lunacy involves the tendency to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Conclusion: most American professors are over-educated stupidos.

Academia is joined by Hollyweird and the SLIMC in “owning,” as a purpose-for-being, Atheism, Communism and Random Copulation. Thoroughly Leftist Hollywood is the major power center of the Democratic Party for both money raising and popularity raising. No Democrat candidate for national level office has even the ghost of a chance of winning any Democratic nomination, let alone race, without Hollywood and Celebrity-hood support. That’s the way it is.

Hollywood continually shows it’s colors, and they ain’t red white and blue. Not to be outdone by the millions made by Dan Brown’s open attack on Christianity via the Da Vinci Code media-hyped book, movie and “historical” crockumentary, we now see another media-hyped “scientific” anti-Christian crocumentary. This one is James Cameron's ridiculous concoction on the Jesus Family Tomb, involving ancient ossuaries “discovered” in Jerusalem (not Nazareth) containing Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ supposed son Judah. SLIMC talking head Vieira pointed to “experts in statistics, DNA and patina testing” who “back up the conclusion that this could be the biggest archeological find ever." Yeah, right. The two thousand year old fossilized DNA – what the DNA was extracted from is left open, since there were no bones found in the ossuaries – proves it all beyond a doubt. See? The inclusion of the term Patina, I am guessing, comes from the forensic examination of a patina found in some of the inscription marks on the previously proven fraud of the “Brother of the Lord” ossuary. So my guess is that Cameron and his clowns are claiming that somebody looked for a patina in the engraving marks on these ossuaries. But then, the statistics re the combination of the extremely common names proves the crock beyond a doubt, for those mental twinkies for whom statistics proves anything at all.

But, of course, the crockumentary authors and the media talking heads, when rigorously questioned, step back, throw up their hands and insist that they are not the experts here, and indicate that it was a bunch of TTRSTF who produced all of the certain and unshakable DNA, statistical and patina evidence, but who also all remain unnamed. And the evidence seems to be unpublished and un-peer reviewed. Then they immediately return to their hype, that this is the biggest archaeological find ever. So the question for the observer to ask is whether these people have an anti-Christian political agenda, an anti-Christian evil agenda, or they are just plain stupid.

We have before us the unendingly tiresome Celebrity-hood saga of Anna Nicole Smith and all of her hangers-on, dependents, legal-eagles, breathless reporters and whole news networks. It would not be a story at all if it were not for the fact of her no-talent celebrity status. The current court battles rage on over custody of her youngest bastard child, for the sole reason that that child stands to inherit millions of buckaroos, and whoever gets custody gets control of all that money. So, multiple fornicators and adulterers are now jumping into the legal fray. No one asks any of them why, if they really loved her, there was no marriage. No one asks any of them why, if they ever felt any real sense of personal responsibility at all for the little child, then, why is the child a bastard?

Interesting points: they all want custody, but they don’t want to submit DNA for proof of fatherhood, indicating they really are not the father(s). In fact, Anna Nicole opposed DNA testing of the child before she died, indicating that someone else, other than the thundering herd of contenders, perhaps even her own other bastard child, was the father. And, the other bastard child died under similar drug-related suspicious circumstances. It just goes on and on and on. The only man she ever married was an 89-year old rich guy with one foot in the grave already.

What was Anna Nicole Smith’s Purpose For Being that was and is so solidly supported and applauded by her retinue of fornicators, fans and reporters? Image. That’s it. Self image, and projected public image. All wrapped up in two things: her beautiful smile, and her big tits, and nothing else. You can’t find a photo or a video clip or any public exposure of her that didn’t accentuate her tits. Every thing she wore, every pose she struck, everything and every one around her was calculated to frame, accentuate and highlight her tits and her smile. Her whole celebrity-hood was based solely upon her posing and strutting while displaying just as much of her tits as possible for the given setting, and her beautiful smile. Her celebrity-hood began with her contribution to America’s Masturbation Industry by selling a lot of Playboy magazines with her pictures in them.

Media treatment of the whole story, and the celebrity-image, can only be described as fawning and adoring. Which shows us all something about the values of the SLIMC, and that you should not confuse anything that comes out of that quarter with actual news.

The Democrats have let their true colors show recently, and the SLIMC did everything in its power to not report on it. Those few who did mention it did so very lightly on inner or back pages in hopes it would just die of its own accord. Democrat John Edward’s hired Amanda Marcotte, Blogmaster, and Melissa McEwan, Netroots Coordinator, to help his Democratic campaign for President via their talents out in the blogosphere. Marcotte’s blog is titled Pandagon, and McEwan’s blog is titled Shakespeare’s Sister. It just doesn’t get any more anti-American than this. Both blogs are systematic promotions of Atheism, Communism and Random Copulation. Here are a few of the quotes that drew John Edward’s attention to the potential here for drawing in more Democrat votes.

There’s this:

the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.
And there’s this:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”
And then there’s this:
One thing I vow here and now—you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
Which comes across as positively demented. When asked to fire these ladies, and I use that term loosely here, Edwards actually defended them. And the media said nothing. Imagine what would have been the response if the same level of intolerance, bigotry and filthy language had been directed at Islam. But, at the core, everything said here agrees with the Party line, if only stated a little too harshly for a few of the more moderate Democrat ears. What we’re looking at here is a foreign ethos and an alien purpose for being. This is the ethos of BMDFP and Democrats.

Many somewhat less Lefftie talking heads – Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly comes to mind – contribute greatly to the demise of the American ethos, by prohibiting use of adult judgment, of all things, by believers. Every time one of them says anything about a correct or incorrect religious teaching, or someone who is a good or poor practitioner of a religion, he verbally slaps them down and stops them cold for being “judgmental” and expressing a “personal opinion.” Like Hell. A teaching is either correct or incorrect within a religion, and a person is either a good or a bad practitioner of a religion, in accordance with what that religion teaches. Catholicism has a 2,000 year history of teaching that clearly shows whether a statement or a practice is orthodox or heterodox. Judaism has over 5,000 similar years behind it. Yet O’Reilly’s guests are supposed to tippy-toe around describing homosexual Catholics, or pro-abortion Baptists.

We can look at the Democrat position on the current war in Iraq, and how it is in total, lock-step agreement with Hollyweird, American Academia and the SLIMC. (Gee, what a surprise.) You can look at the Bush Lied, People Died article to see open fraud behind the drumbeat chant of the Lefties on this issue. Here’s a related Presidential quote for you:

When asked, in December 1998, if he went to war with Iraq just to rally the people round a war-time President in order to politically derail the coming Presidential impeachment vote, President Clinton responded: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing."
Oh no? The incessant, continuous public lie, from the Left, all across the airwaves and in all “news” print tells us that Bush lied regarding Iraq having WMD. That he doctored or otherwise miss-used or abused intelligence on the matter. Let me give you just a few of Bush’s sources for the dangers of WMD in Iraq, and the danger posed to us and the world by Sadam:
  • The Presidents Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
  • The Presidents Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
  • Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
  • Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
  • Democrat Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
  • Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
  • Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001
  • Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
  • Cap'n Planet Algore, Sept. 23, 2002
  • Teddy (hic) Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
  • Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
  • Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
  • Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
  • Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
  • Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
  • Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Again, you can see their actual WMD confirmation words at the Bush Lied, People Died article. And now we have Democrats in Congress pushing a new variant of the same lie. Dem Senator (and Presidential candidate) Joe Biden says – falsely, of course – in the Boston Globe:
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
This is false on multiple levels. First of all, they “gave” President Bush nothing. Acceptance by President Bush of their Congressional action was a mere act of politeness; he already had the power he needed to act, as the sitting Commander In Chief. Second, Biden is just flat lying about that specific Congressional action he was writing about. Here’s what they “authorized” the already authorized President to do:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to – one —defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and two — enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
What can I say? These turkeys just make it up as they go along, to suite the political opportune moment. News-Flash to Senator Biden and friends: First: you had no military authority to “grant” to the President in the first place; second, you have no authority to restrict the President’s Constitutional military authority in his role as Commander In Chief. This remains true, despite the majority Party’s intentions toward the Iraqi people. The Democrat two-step plan of action for Iraq:
  1. Cut.
  2. Run.
They seek resolution after resolution to that effect, some of them posturing, some of them binding. They seek to micro-manage the troops in the field through the power they hold over the budget, usurping the Constitutional powers of the Commander In Chief. They lack the guts, and probably the votes, to actually de-fund the entire enterprise, which is what they really want to do, so they seek to place conditions upon their partial funding and complexify things into absurdity.

Question for sitting Democrats: If you were an American traitor - i.e., an American citizen who was opposed to continued American existence and in support of the strategic goals of America’s sworn foreign enemies - what public/political/military positions would you hold that would be any different than the positions you hold now? What actions would you do that would be any different at all from those you have already done and are currently doing and plan to do?

What are they prodding us toward? It may already be seen, thanks to Leftist efforts, that the American people are no longer seen, by themselves or by others, to be a distinct people as such, but rather, a mere part of a new, borderless, increasingly open society of "citizens" who theoretically share the same legal civil rights with all the other citizens of the whole world. It’s the new Internationalism; the newer and more benign-appearing face of Communism. But it is a false benevolence, and the primary unspoken ultimate goal remains, as it has always been, unrepresentative world dictatorship.

America, and the very idea of Americanism, is a stumbling block to Democrats and others who seek to push this agenda, and that is why they publicly rail against America as being an Imperialistic Bully on the world stage. Like the U.N, the French, and all other atheistic organizations and thoroughly secularized societies, they actually loath what America is and has been, and they work very hard to publicly discredit and dismantle the notion of any goodness or virtue being associated with old fashioned American ideals and American idealism. Nationalistic pride is attacked and demonized as Nationalism, flag-waving Jingoism, and even Nazism and Fascism. They who falsely claimed that America became an Imperialistic Bully in Vietnam today falsely claim that America is being an Imperialistic Bully in Iraq. They repeat these things, these political talking points, so often that some of them actually believe their own lying words.

I submit that there is absolutely nothing wrong with nationalistic pride for anyone whose nation is truly worthy of nationalistic pride. I submit that America is such a nation.

I say this despite corporate directives against American flag lapel pins at major media giants such as ABC and others. No matter how much they despise the American Ideal, sovereignty, borders and even private property, many if not most of us will still show off our American flag pins and bumper stickers and display the flag, and be openly proud of America, and sing the Anthem out loud at every opportunity.

What about the Moslems?

At the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Winter Meeting, the Party chose it’s official Imam to bless the proceedings and lead them in “prayer,” which included a call for an end to American “oppression and occupation” in Iraq. The Party’s official Imam is Husham Al-Husainy, Imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi’ite mosque in Dearborn, Michigan. This spiritual leader of the Democratic Party is and has always been an open admirer of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, under whose rule American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days while Democrat Carter twiddled his thumbs, right up until the very day Republican Reagan took office, when they were suddenly released. During the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Al-Husainy lead anti-American rallies in Dearborn in support of Hezbollah and other terrorists, at which he and his followers displayed Nazi swastikas, anti-American and anti-Semitic posters and signs and railed against America. Isn’t that nice? Al-Husainy personally delivered some of the most hate-filled and vitriolic anti-American rhetoric in his speeches, and he cheered as others called for the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews. Obviously, he fits right in among the Democrat Party leadership.

But what about the bigger picture, involving the nature of Islam?

Someone once said that if the Palestinians laid down their weapons today, tomorrow would be no peace; and that if the Israelis laid down their weapons today, tomorrow there would be no Israel. Someone else carried it further, saying, if the Moslems of the whole world permanently laid down their arms, an unprecedented peace would break out, and the world experience an incredible period of freedom and prosperity. But that if America permanently laid down her arms, a horrible global war would open up, and world economies would crash.

There is merit in these thoughts. As shown in the Islam and the Jews page, Sharia – Islamic law – demands inexorable, relentless movement toward Ummah, the One World, totally in submission under Islamic Sharia rule. To the degree that any Moslem does not live by this rule – and there are undoubtedly many millions of them who do not live by this rule – to that same degree do they violate the rules of their own religion. Islam is a radical combination of Church and State. Sharia is Islamic law. Not believing in and following Sharia is against the religion of Islam. This is what makes Democracy (and every other form of government, save Sharia) very strictly against the religion of Islam.

When the Iraqis voted, massively, in the recent elections, they moved, massively, against Sharia, which is to say, against their own religious teaching. That is to their everlasting credit. But, make no mistake about it, the real enemy we fight in this so-called War On Terror is this very idea of Sharia. We are talking about a core teaching of Islam, which is inseparable from Islam. We are at war with an idea; an ideology posing as a religion. Give thanks to God that so many Moslems today do not rigidly follow and live by their own faith.

Those lands in which Sharia is the strongest are the most volatile, hostile and dangerous lands existing, to the rest of the world. They are even dangerous to each other. And yet, we continuously hear advice to go and negotiate with them. All the word negotiate means to a committed Sharia-directed Moslem is a strictly temporary truce while a better and more advantageous war footing is built up, at which point, hostilities will resume.

There’s nothing difficult about this. In the Israeli – Palestinian confrontation, land for peace, and the existence of a separate Palestinian State, simply does not work. If it so clearly has never – as in, not ever – worked so far, why do “experts” so fervently believe that it will work in the future? Palestinian Moslems will never accept even the continued existence of Israel, ever. Period. End of story. There is no option left to Israel other than to drive Palestinians out of Gaza and out of West Bank and assume control of those areas as part of Israel. I still don’t understand why they ever gave up any territory they ever won in any war with these people, who are bound and determined ultimately to exterminate them all. If you don’t believe that to be the true intention of the so-called Palestinians, then just ask them; they’ll tell you. If they’re being honest. Look at what’s openly preached in their Mosques and what’s printed in their publications, and what’s said in public speeches by their spokesmen, and what provokes the greatest cheers from the people.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church points to salvation possibilities of Moslems, in paragraph 841 as follows:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
As a devout Catholic, I recognize that Christ died for all men, including those within the House of Islam, and that no one is categorically beyond redemption. Now, because of Islamic teaching recognizing Jesus the Christ as an important Prophet, and elevating the Blessed Virgin to super-high status, some are tempted to see a closer bond between Christianity and Islam than between Christianity and Judaism, which recognizes nothing in particular about either Jesus or Mary. This would be a major mistake. For there is no official religious teaching within Judaism that directs disciples to kill or subjugate non Jews and to forcefully bring about a One World Judaism. And there is no official religious teaching within Christianity that directs disciples to kill or subjugate non Christians and to forcefully bring about a One World Christianity. This allows Christians and Jews to live peacefully together as neighbors, with some major theological differences, to be sure, but with mutual respect and even close friendship with each other. Our religions are willing religions, freely chosen, and we can argue about them, or avoid the topic altogether, and know that we still share the same general purpose for being.

Not so within the House of Islam. The guiding ethos of Islam is alien to us, and is not benign to us and is not totally tolerant of us. The ethos of Islam directs disciples, wherever they are, working in whatever way they can to reform the law, reform the culture and reform the political system with the goal of achieving ultimate Ummah. Jihad involves an inner struggle in which the disciple seeks to achieve total submission to Allah. It involves an external struggle that seeks to achieve a One World in total submission to Allah. In other words, the Islamic purpose for being involves our legal, cultural and political destruction, along with our religious conversion, subjugation, or death. Islam simply cannot tolerate non-Islamic teachings or holdings or beliefs for very long. All devout Moslems give sympathetic support, at the very least, to external Jihad. Which is what the larger world today recognizes and popularly refers to as Islamic Terrorism. But all that these so-called “terrorists” are doing is precisely what the Islamic Koran tells them to do. It bears repeating:

The Islamic purpose for being involves our legal, cultural and political destruction, along with our religious conversion, subjugation, or death.
You can prove this in casual conversation with any devout Moslem friend, if you don’t mind risking the friendship, and perhaps your life. Just state, as fact, that Jesus is God, and/or that there have been no Prophets since the close of the Apostolic era, and see what happens next. Try sticking to your guns in this conversation, which is a way of upping the ante. Now, if this conversation were between a Christian and Jew, it might result in shaking heads, raised voices, perhaps even displays of temper, or a closing of the subject. But, sticking to your guns in a conversation of this sort with a devout Moslem could actually result in bloodshed. This is no drill.

As a devout Catholic, I recognize the sacred immortal soul within the breast of the Moslem. As an American citizen, I recognize the immediate threat to our First Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of religion, as well as the immediate threat to the whole American Constitution itself, posed by the Islamic drive toward Sharia law. Recognition of this threat to America means directly resisting and opposing it. It forces my “tolerance” of this other faith to be a very suspicious and hair-triggered tolerance, because Islam carries within it the seeds capable of one day producing the violent destruction of every other non-Islamic system in existence. America is in Islam’s sights. Major leaders of lands under Sharia have said it. Strong, even violent anti-American rhetoric is a normal part of sermons preached in Mosques throughout the world, including even right here in America. I am not about to ignore this clear and present danger to American national existence.

Regarding the anti-Democracy NuVo Initiative.

You can see my last SANE - site comments in the NuVo dialogue found right here at NuVo Initiative 12 with Comments and Dialogue. In these dialogues, which began, I believe, with the 10th essay in the series, I feel as though I’ve been beating a dead horse. At my first understanding of the well-explained Redirection threat, I had hope that something would be forthcoming from SANE as a practical path to restoring something akin to the original American Republic, since that is, precisely, the stated goal in the public, published SANE mission statement. Failing that, I expected, somewhat doubtfully, any description of the political system projected to replace it, since NuvO so repeatedly declared itself to be adamantly opposed to the citizen vote. The citizen vote just happens to be the foundation stone upon which our Republic is built. Again and again I asked for a practical path back to our original Republic, or a description of the replacement political system for it.

But, alas, everything – every essay, every response to every question – that has come out of the NuVo Initiative is, essentially, the same as the first thing, rewrapped and re-verbalized, as follows:

  1. A well laid-out and reasoned argument describing what is called the Science/Democracy Reciprocal and the Redirection it causes, leading into an ever increasingly Open Society.
  2. The problem is fed and magnified by voting, which inevitably causes the Open Society to become an even more Open Society, culminating in the One World State.
  3. That the sole, solitary possible action that can stop this cycle is to stop voting and encourage others to stop voting.
  4. A Gnostic-like certitude in their newfound Secret Knowledge that NuVo and only NuVo will, in and of itself, eventually bring about the redemption of Western Culture and the original American Republic.
Right. Just as soon as everybody on Earth stops voting – Poof! – the original American Republic will pop out.

Like the ancient Gnostics who sought salvation via discovery of secret knowledge, and variants who sought re-discovery of theoretically lost technologies from ancient, lost or legendary civilizations such as Atlantis, the NuVo-ites insulate and bury themselves within the cocoon of their newfound beautiful theory that, for them, explains all, knows all, sees all and predicts all. It’s all they need.

I ain’t buying it. Too much time has gone by and too many opportunities to answer very simple questions have been bypassed for any practical man to continue to expect any real-world description of either a practical path back to good Republicanism, or a path to (and description of) its alternative replacement system. The American Republic is a system founded upon Democracy. It depends upon a citizen vote to elect citizen representatives. Those elected representatives also vote, for other representatives, for electors, to make laws and to make policy, to amend the Constitution, and so forth. The whole shebang is driven by the vote, right up and down the line, and cannot survive in the absence of the vote.

The mission statement of SANE is therefore patently false. SANE has no intention of returning America to its original Republican form.

What, then? What is this really about? It’s clear that the NuVo Initiative, if it were to become fully successful, could only serve to take whatever is left of the American Republic completely out of existence. In favor of what?

I smell another typically devious and treacherous Marxist rat.

I was quite young, only beginning to become what you might call politically aware when Castro was leading his Revolution in Cuba. He was, to me, a heroic figure, described heroically as he was in all the major news media, and most especially in all the news magazines available back then. And I read everything I could get my hands about him and his quest to free the Cuban people from the horrors of the Batista regime. Here was a real, live, Freedom Fighter, and I very nearly idolized him as a great man on the world stage.

I never forgot the stunned feeling I had when he first publicly announced his “Marxist-Leninist” stripes. Nor did I ever forget the second shock, regarding how he was still portrayed heroically in all the news media. The most negative things that I read in any of those same newspapers and magazines I had been pursuing for so long involved a sort of mild surprise that Castro and Cuba had gone Communist. It was clear that the media – our news media – still loved him, and his Communist regime.

And, today we know, my hero Castro then began doing to his political opponents – all of them, not just the Batista-istas – pretty much what Stalin did to all of his opponents, and what Hitler did to all of his opponents, and what all Marxist dictators always do to all of their political opponents. Which is to say, he had them all shot. Probably the only person who personally signed more death warrants than Fidel was the bloody Che Guevara, who took fiendish delight in taking them out and pulling the trigger himself. He especially enjoyed shooting children in front of their parents first, before shooting the parents. And our media never condemned them. They are still treated as heroes; Che’s murderous face is now a folk-hero icon among the Lefties, which is to say, throughout academia, throughout Hollywood and throughout the SLIMC.

Today, when someone, especially with an elaborate logical explanation of why, introduces a major change into a political system, and then steadfastly and stolidly refuses to answer a quite simple question regarding the true nature of their ultimate real-world goal of that change, my radar switches on. Now, in the total, glaring absence of a practical answer from NuVo regarding the real world ultimate result of nobody ever voting again, accompanied by their continued insistence that nobody should ever vote again, I have supplied my own real world answer. Another Marxist dictatorship.

Just as Cronkite, Rather, Jennings and all the other major network talking-head philosophical Communists of the SLIMC hid behind the smooth and sneaky title of Anti Anti-Communist to hide what they were actually promoting, the newer variety of NuVo Initiative Marxists hide behind the smooth and sneaky title of being Anti-Democracy to hide the fact that they actually promote the antithesis to Democracy, meaning, the outright dictatorship so typical of all historical forms of Marxism as a replacement system for Democracy. They seek to establish by stealth the very thing they schmooze their followers into believing that they oppose: the One World State.

Blacks and women in the “New” American Republic.

I have written elsewhere on race and gender issues, here, here and here, and in various other articles. Vaguely implied throughout the NuVo articles, comments and dialogues are a couple of seemingly conflicting positions, which I hadn’t previously gotten into in the dialogues because of the larger “what are you really up to” question I was pursuing. First, there is the notion that theNuVo Initiative is a form of non-violent revolution, indicating a wish to modify society for the better without resorting to violence. Second, there is the notion that certain groups of Americans, who are not Caucasian males of European ancestry, might be or should be somehow disenfranchised from voting and full citizenship, once voting is again allowed after our Original Republic magically goes poof! and pops back into being. If what pops into being truly were to be the original form of our American Republic in all of its particulars, of course, only certain men would be the ones doing all the voting. But, in the practical world, even getting America very precisely back to that point is nothing but a silly pipe dream.

The larger question is, exactly how are you going to “disenfranchise” any American citizens who choose not to be disenfranchised, and still retain your non-violent revolutionary status?

And, America at that foundational point was not perfect; indeed, it came into being as a very precarious political compromise, in a time of extreme crisis and urgency. The birth of a nation, like the birth of a newborn baby, is not necessarily a very pretty thing, and it doesn’t always go perfectly. Note well that Caucasian men of European descent clearly recognized, at that time, the absolute immorality of black slavery. An anti-slavery passage was very narrowly defeated and excluded from our Declaration of Independence. When our first Constitution was ratified, the Planters and the Southern block had enough clout and enough delegates to just walk out and shut down the process, meaning – no United States of America. Therefore, we wound up with a newborn “free” nation that officially legalized (and therefore condoned) human slavery.

But human slavery was still wrong, and everybody knew it.

That basic moral argument never ended; it was always present. It was our founding American guiding ethos that directed a majority of Caucasian men of European descent to vote in President Lincoln. It was that same common Judeo-Christian ethos that guided a huge number of Caucasian men of European descent to got to war to preserve the Union and to free the slaves. The civil war was fought long ago, we won it, and the matter is settled, with the United States of America being the direct result. Now, the 14th Amendment might need modification to keep today’s illegal aliens from purposely coming here to give birth to new “citizens,” something the authors didn’t foresee, but the right of the black man to vote and to full citizenship in America was bought and paid for with a vast quantity of American blood.

I’m sure I’m not the only veteran proud to have stood in ranks and served along side black Americans. And I’m sure I’m not the only one who would, old as I am, stand up again in defense of their rights. Anyone who thinks the only resistance they will get from disenfranchising American blacks might come solely from American blacks had damned well better do a whole lot more thinking on the subject, for they will only do it over all of our dead bodies.

Now, I and others have talked about the minority within America’s black population that refuses to assimilate, despises and demonizes America and so forth. There are gross examples, such as the racist bigot Farrakhan and his followers, and there are milder examples among the more Leftist, world-recognized American “Black Leadership” who have built careers and fortunes out of making and keeping masses of inner-city and other poor black citizens into absolute dependents of the state. These facts are not sufficient to warrant disenfranchisement to any specific race. If it were, Caucasian men of European descent would have to be disenfranchised because of their un-American minorities, sometimes equating to a majority.

I refer to academia, where our extreme Leftist Professoriate is overwhelmingly comprised of Caucasian men of European descent. And the whole Hollywood major studio and entertainment empire, driven almost exclusively by Caucasian men of European descent. And our thoroughly disgusting SLIMC, owned, operated and directed almost exclusively by Caucasian men of European descent. If you followed this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, there is probably a bigger fraction of white America than black America deserving of civil disenfranchisement. Their purpose for being is foreign to us; it is, again, Atheism, Communism and Random Copulation. These men oppose our very national people-hood. Again, what’s inside a man is of much more importance than what’s outside.

In a similar vein, I have written elsewhere about the falsehood and even stupidity of “socially redefining” the vast physiological and temperamental differences between men and women as being, exclusively, “Institutional” and/or “learned behaviors” rather than actual, physical, biological differences. And I stand by those statements. Men are, on average, bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women. That’s just a plain and obvious fact. But that is not to say that women should be denied the vote, or any other civil right, just by mere dint of being female. Again, it would be good for challengers to go back and look at the history of the Suffrage movement. It was, overwhelmingly, Caucasian men of European descent who granted women the right to vote in America. NuVo thinks (apparently) that America is worse off for it; I am not convinced.

By way of illustration, let me say some highly opinionated things about our current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

  • It would be quite impossible for her to ever be a Catholic priest.
  • She would make a lousy front line infantry grunt.
  • She would make an entirely too tentative and hesitant fighter pilot.
  • She would make a lousy fireman.
  • She would be the worst NFL linebacker in the history of the game.
  • None of these things are due to any education or institutionalization.
Having stated all of these “negatives,” if that’s what they are, I can categorically state that they are all exclusively based upon biology, and nothing else. After having said those things about Condi, I can say these:
  • She is my intellectual superior, and probably yours, too.
  • She would make an excellent teaching professor.
  • She would make an excellent CEO.
  • She would make an excellent motivational speaker.
  • She would make an excellent President of the Unite States.
  • Please, dear Lord, let it happen.
Now, NuVo has indicated that all voting in every instance is a movement to the World State. Again and again they have demonized Democracy. I submit that you cannot eliminate Democracy without simultaneously eliminating the USA. Yet, the SANE mission statement indicates a desire to re-establish the American Republic. I’m tired of raising the question with them and not having it directly answered.

When someone obfuscates and blurs their responses to direct questions, everyone needs to focus a little more intently on what they are saying. Obfuscation is the hallmark of treachery. And treachery is the hallmark of all philosophical Marxists. When I first discovered SANE I had hopes, however skeptical, of finding a path back to a manageable Republic, or at least to a better situation. Ideally, it might involve a time machine, with which to tweak the perceived imperfections and make America perfect. After all, I do like tri-cornered hats, fancy walking sticks and gentlemen’s dress swords. Sigh. Reality strikes again, and we have no choice in the matter. You have to go with what you’ve got, right now.

Pray for America, and may God bless the USA.

This is the free periodic e-zine of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center.

Forward this e-mail to a friend.

All previous articles are available right here.

Back to Back Issues Page