Universities of Intolerance

The University of Notre Dame recently invited the noted conservative thinker and author of Coming Apart, Dr. Charles Murray, to address faculty and students on the hot topics of today. This was done in the tradition of freedom of speech, academic freedom,  balanced representation of critical issues. In the past, liberal speakers such as Harvard Professor Robert Putnam, who is a recognized authority on the subject of diversity (his book BOWLING ALONE was a best-seller), graced the ND auditorium in a welcoming atmosphere. Such a welcome was not extended to Dr. Murray, nor to other conservative speakers before him. Noisy and often violent protesters, organized presumably by on- and off-campus left-wing organizations who smell hell’s sulphur in conservative speech.

Just like the word “liberal” has been corrupted to no longer mean “liberty”, but its opposite, i.e. politically-correct, anti-tradition, even anti-history, so has the treasured university policy of guaranteeing “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” become an empty promise. It is useful, if not ironic to remember that conservatives are the original “classic liberals”, promoting individual freedom of thought, respect and tolerance. How things have changed. It is a well-known fact that conservative professors, at least in state-financed colleges,  although many private ones have joined this anti-intellectual movement, learn to keep their mouths shut, for fear of being ostracized. Only some long-tenured professors and non-career adjuncts seem to have the courage of their conviction and speak out on campus, putting their longevity in jeopardy. Liberal professors have no such concerns.

After retiring from three decades in global business activities, i became one of those adjuncts at a private university and naively expected vigorous discussions for and against the great topics of the moment. I learned quickly, however, that many, if not most, full-time faculty were indeed liberal, some ridiculing any conservative comment. I learned quickly that today’s faculty are ideologically driven in whatever subject they teach. I learned, for instance, that cultural anthropology can have a left or right “spin”. I cannot help but think back to my college experience of the 1960s when the great professors that I respected highly, did not betray a personal perspective. They presented all sides of an argument. Just like journalism has been corrupted to become advocacy reporting, so has the teaching profession. The result of course has been that students are no longer taught to analyze and argue differing perspectives, but are injected with a singular viewpoint, or set of talking-points which they naturally accept as the absolute truth, and regurgitate  instinctively. This, therefore, explains why they are so upset at conservative speech which threatens their intellectual glass foundation. Having been empowered by their liberal High School teachers, they feel empowered and will  challenge conservative professors, while robotically agreeing with liberal ones. Furthermore, so often students seem to take control of a university with weak management and dictate the terms of university reform. (students teaching the teachers?).We have witnessed campus upheavals where liberal professors act out a sort of “Stockholm Syndrome” and become part of the robotic behavior chaos (e.g. Mizzou). Most students don’t know the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, the intellectual statesman for the leftist cause, but they act in accordance with many of those so-effective rules: #5 ridicule is man’s best weapon against an enemy; others: repeat a lie frequently, it will stick; push the envelope of your adversary’s rules, they will become “broken”. Have you heard this one?…..accuse and never explain …. This new atmosphere is  totally opposite of what a college campus is supposed to breed: open, inquisitive and tolerant minds

Demographic Change or Immigrant Invasion?

Is it possible that waves of Muslim refugees and Mexican immigrants will fundamentally change Exceptional America, i.e. change American values and principles. Exhibit 1 could be: Jorge Ramos who is Mexico’s pre-eminent propagandist on American airwaves. Born in Mexico and a naturalized US citizen, he pontificates as Univision’s nightly news anchor and weekly TV magazine show host, strongly supporting and encouraging Mexican immigration into the US, as if Mexicans had a natural right to do so. Of course, Jorge ignores the basic concept of national sovereignty and rule-of-law.  His rationale consists of two main points: 1) immigrants contribute far more ($2B) to the US economy than they “take” in welfare, incarceration, education and other social costs 2) “America is our country, not theirs” and “we are not going to leave”“there is a demographic shift in America and there is nothing that America can do about it. Of course, this shift is aided and abetted by a succession of US governments which catered to a small number of businesses that exploit cheap labor, and “liberal” politicians who see future Democrat voters that will outvote the doomed Republican party of dying white folks. He claims 60 million Latinos in the US (which includes Brazilians, Cubans and South Americans some of whom do not get along with Mexicans and do not agree with the socialist attitudes from Mexico and Central America) and predicted 100 million by 2044 when “whites” will be statistically a minority. He made these arrogant statements at the televised Premio Lo Nuestro (a Latino Entertainment Awards show) broadcast Friday March 3, 2017. While he has always been fiercely pro-illegal and pro-open borders, he has dropped references to diversity and tolerance in his subtle and hatefully anti-American rhetoric. Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly on Fox News invite him occasionally to explain his twisted logic, but he only cites “his” facts that are supposed to lead us dummies to conclude that they are doing us a favor. Statistics like 15% of all federal prisoners being Mexican citizens does not disturb him at all. He and the Mexican government demand perfect justice for the 30% of the Mexican population that lives, legally or illegally, within the US borders. Yet, Mexico has a terrible human rights record when it comes to “foreigners” in Mexico, especially Central Americans in transit to the US., having erected a fence on their border with Guatemala.It is a felony to be in Mexico illegally. When asked to explain this alarming statement that “America is ours, not theirs“, he changes the subject; it soon becomes clear that the message was intended only for Mexican ears. What nobody considers is the fact that massive immigration tends to change the host culture beyond recognition. As Rome was changed by the Barbarians, as Native American culture was subsumed by the European culture, so will massive Hispanic/Latino immigration change the values and principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Sixteen million Latino viewers get their biased news from Univision every night; another 5 million from equally-liberal Telemundo and CNN En Espanol. The question I have posed to immigration pundits but remains unanswered is this: If the 1920’s quota-based immigration law was discriminatory because it favored Europeans, then why is the 1965 law not de facto  discriminatory because it clearly favors Mexicans due to their proximity? Texas is beginning to realize that the demographic change also means a fundamental cultural change. A new slogan is appearing on T-shirts: DON’T CALIFORNIA MY TEXAS.…California is essentially a Mexican state…. Muslim and Hispanic immigrants bring with them totally different cultural values and principles which subsume the American culture over time. Just ask what these immigrants are proud of, and they will proudly talk about their foreign heritage, not their new homeland…

Stalinist College Campus

Once again, a Conservative pundit has been barred from speaking at a college campus, under the pretext of “security concerns”. Ben Shapiro was to speak on the topic of FREE SPEECH on the campus of De Paul University on Wednesday Nov 15, 2016, but was barred by 30 security elements installed by college management. the concern about security is code for “we don’t like conservative speech”. In other words, the institution that most represents freedom of expression, has become a virtual Stalinist gulag for conservative or libertarian speech.  The following day, Shapiro was almost derailed at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (WI) when a small group of students did their best to deny him his free speech moment. Shapiro did not insist on arresting the agitators because, according to administration wisdom, any arrests mean an immediate end to the event. Then, on the evening news we hear that those pusillanimous students walked out of classes at prestigious colleges like George Mason U.,  Tuft and many others, to protest the democratically elected Donald Trump. They simply cannot tolerate any amount of unpleasant moments, let alone real adversity, and therefore need “safe spaces” on campus to mourn the defeat of their pre-ordained candidate. Why do they  need a safe and quiet place, when they control the whole campus? is it not the conservatives that need this kind of protection from the violent and intolerant leftist students? Sadly, so many colleges and universities, both public and private, have become incubators of intolerance at the hands of radically liberal faculty and students who are acting as their own thought-police. Can you imagine being banned from the campus of the University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson himself, a great champion of free speech?  Conservative pundits are routinely barred by these college wusses who feel traumatized by conservative speech that challenges their simplistic beliefs, all based on their “good intentions”.Their liberal echo-chamber in which they obviously live, ignores the fact that more Americans self-identify conservative than liberal (PEW and GALLOP surveys), except perhaps on college campuses. Virtually all universities claim “academic freedom” beyond the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They live outside the mainstream, have a closed mind, and develop their own reality with its own phantasmagorical lexicon with words that are either an oxymoron or are simply fraudulently applied to their fantasy world.Terms such as: social justice, diversity, multiculturalism, white privilege, micro-aggression, cultural misappropriation. These terms are weapons in their hands unless rational people challenge their interpretation. The thirteen rules for radicals authored by communist agitator and hero to Progressives like Hillary Clinton, are no longer enough to intimidate their opposition. Let’s hope that the new administration will withdraw funding from colleges and universities that show this abject intolerance for freedom of speech and intolerance for the positive side of American history. After all, they are in school to learn, not to teach.

2016-11-16

 

 

 

My Last American Breath

Aye, to be right and popular

Nay, whether ‘tis nobler

To do good with dark reason

Or to do bad without treason

That is the question

Asked with great passion

For to suffer the slings of socialist misery

Or by reasoning with such a dissonant reveRide

As rendered by St. Hillary and Uncle Bernie

Conservatism must needs offer its mercy

That Liberals might abandon their rendition

And return from the edge of socialist perdition

Alas, equality for all

That none might fall

That none might toil

And socialism spoil

That none might fail

And abort sad socialist tale

That equity might be understood

As earned from family and the ‘hood

Not given or gifted

But from life brutally lifted

Right is but Liberalism after collision with reality

Left  is but life lived under threat of penalty

Conservatism is life lived as a free being

For which socialism has no feeling;

Born free, but everywhere in chains

Not free that which he disdains

Not wisdom nor clarity

Always ending in disparity

Followed by more laws and regulation

To twist and torture a whole nation

Born of Life, Liberty and Dream

Which Liberals find lean and mean

Oh give me liberty or give me death

Til I draw my last American breath

 

Millennial Angels for Mexico

Far from being an “act of love”, as Jeb Bush tried to convince us, massive migration from Mexico and Central America is an act of desperation, if not a major human tragedy. Clearly, the root cause of this migration is the fact that these nations are essentially failed states. They are failed states because of failed government policies, theirs and ours. So, building the world’s tallest wall on the southern border is no solution to this need to migrate, legally and illegally. Worse than wasted money and effort. Making Mexico pay for the wall is not tough love, but a frivolous penalty for Mexico’s use of the US economy as a crutch. Most Mexicans know what the problem is, and express it in the common lament: Poor Mexicans, so far from God, yet so close to the gringo. Pope Francis has already started God’s tough love approach by admonishing the Mexican elite to think about all of its people, not just its own personal enrichment.  Corruption is both a moral and an economic matter. The Pope can save their souls, but Millennial Angels armed with smart US foreign policy can save their economic, judicial and social well being.

Most Mexicans clearly know what they have to do. They have done it twice before. In 1810 they fought against the corrupt and oppressive Spanish rulers. In 1910 they fought against the corrupt and oppressive Mexican rulers. In 2010 they find it easier to simply avoid the issue all together and, like Romulus and Remus in early Rome, become sucklings at the teats of the conveniently accessible gringo cow, condemned to permanent dependence on the America’s foreign poverty program. The fundamental problems of corruption, violence and counter-productive central (non)-planning must be attacked. But when, if not now? Over one hundred thousand Mexicans have lost their lives over the past 20 years of ineffective policing of the narco traffic. There is no end in sight, unless the Mexican nation  becomes motivated to act. US law enforcement can help. But, why would they act if the gringo keeps subsidizing their wild-west economy in so many ways? Our assistance always seems to come down to US manufacturers investing in Mexico, not to help improve Mexican lives, but to exploit their cheap labor. Or is it? It is not really so much about cheap labor, but about lax rules, regulations and “flexible” officials, that make fully-automated factories cheaper to operate there than here (same in Brazil). The cheap labor flees to the US because NAFTA decimated parts of Mexican agriculture, and their government has no plans for those uneducated and poor farmers except “go al norte companero, the rich naive gringo will take care of you”.  

What if the US taxpayers stopped subsidizing this madness by stopping any and all discretionary “foreign aid” (Merida/Alliance for Prosperity Plan of $750M), renegotiating the unbalanced NAFTA agreement (25 years of $50B annual US trade deficit), taxing remittances of $22B per year, investigating and prosecuting suspiciously corrupt officials with ties to the US. How did Mexico get 16 billionaires? Carlos Slim is number one among 114 in all of Latin America, and top 3 in the world thanks to a sweetheart cell-phone monopoly in Mexico. Oh where is our non-profit-motivated millennial generation that is prepared to forsake some profits for righteous causes? This generation could lead the effort to re-allocate our assistance but under strict guidelines, enforceability and accountability. The millennials could  in effect lead a rescue-mission similar to the 1970s mission to Chile by famed economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics. Their intervention made it possible for Chile to be Latin America’s best managed free-market economy with average annual growth of 5%, despite the current socialist administration. (Mexico grew barely 1% per year since NAFTA). Chile has 12 billionaires and the same per capita GDP as Mexico despite an economy that is only 1/5th of Mexico’s. The millennial angels will figure a way to get US corporations to cooperate “for the greater good” of Mexico and America. Millennial Angels for “Peace, Prosperity and People”  working within government and corporations would virtually guarantee fair implementation of a government-business alliance to improve the lives of Mexicans and Central Americans at the economic, justice and social levels, alongside the spiritual one driven by Pope Francis.Bringing Hope, Change and Freedom to Mexico and Central America could be the Peace Corps of our age. Improving, if not booming economies south of the border would provide hope and inspiration to other impoverished and mismanaged economies. Most of the 25% of Mexican nationals living within US borders would happily return to a secure and prospering homeland, and with a will to raise Mexico out of its cesspool of corruption and violence, body and soul. Andale, “patria o muerte”.

 

809 words

The Art Of War Against ISIS

War is more art than science and technology. Presidential candidates are playing “war games” and competing for the trophy that would spell the end of the Islamic terrorist machine known as ISIS. It is clear that all murderous regimes like ISIS only understand force, and love to attack those who want to “make diplomatic love, not brutal war”. While carpet bombing seems like the force to dislodge them from their conquered lands, it will not be the move that will break their backs. Maybe the candidates have not learned the lessons of history, nor the wisdom of Sun Tzu, the Chinese master who taught his tactics to Chinese emperors 2500 years ago. Books have been written on Sun Tzu tactics applied to sports and business. His principles are taught in most American military schools. Certainly, the North Vietnamese applied Sun Tzu with great success against a much more powerful US military. Some of the successful tactics involved deception, clever use of spies, surprise (TET offensive), opportunity attacks on soft spots, infiltration of enemy ranks, mobility and agility of smaller insurgent forces hiding in plain sight (underground system of tunnels or in mosques), etc.. The tactic that made the final difference, however, was the feeding of the unwavering support for the war back home (Jane Fonda et al). Once news reporters (Walter Cronkite etc) started to question the wisdom of our actions, American youth became motivated to agitate against this and all wars, even in a violent manner (Bill Ayers bombing the Pentagon for example), bringing a superpower to its negotiating knees.

Should we apply similar tactics? General Sherman’s answer in the Civil War was “total war”, attacking not only military targets, but the supply chain that provided the goods from factories and farms, leaving of course collateral damage in his wake. The population of the South paid a price for supporting its Confederacy. Germans paid a similar price during WWII when we bombed their factories and cities (Cologne, Bremerhaven) to submit to our will. We nuclear-bombed Japan to kill the fanatic support of imperial Japan. We practiced deceit on D-Day. The Allies used spies and double agents to break the enemy’s secrets. Alas, our intelligence gathering capabilities have been compromised severely not only by the revelations by Mr. Snowdon, by probable hacking of unsecured official’s computers, and the infamous bilateral budget “sequester”, but mostly by ideologically motivated shifting of priorities, making further attacks on our homeland ever more likely

ISIS knows Sun Tzu. ISIS knows the West’s soft spots. And ISIS softens its own military installations by using civilians as shields. Having determined our soft side, ISIS uses that knowledge to paralyze the West. Let us note that the West has often sacrificed its own for the sake of a larger goal, not least of which are the Americans sacrificed in Benghazi and those recently abandoned in Iran, not to forget the Texians at the Alamo.. Yet the West is paralyzed by the likelihood of “collateral damage” in our defense against a brutal enemy. Our military and intelligence professionals know the art of war, and know how to win before the Russians and Chinese co-opt ISIS and turn it into a new cold war…

 

American Multicultural Muddle

Roque “Rocky” de la Fuente is the third Hispanic man in this race for President. Shunned by his own party which excluded him from a discussion forum, he was denied a chance to be counted even as a minor presidential candidate on the Democrat ticket. This real-estate mogul, born in San Diego, CA, was so offended by Trump’s “anti-Mexican” stance that he decided, as his TV commercial illustrates, to dive into this political “pool” (fully clothed) in order to defend the honor of all Spanish-speaking people. He was interviewed by Jorge Ramos, the self-anointed on-air leader of all (illegal) Hispanics and Univision’s nightly news-anchor. In Jorge’s interview and opinion show AL PUNTO (To The Point) of Sunday February 7, 2016, he admonished all Latinos to vote for him because he will “unify all Hispanics” in North America. In fact, he intends to establish a “United States of the Americas from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego”. His statement agrees with a 2013 Hispanic Marketing Study (Latino Boom II) which sounded equally super-Latino-American: the forty-two million Hispanic-Americans will influence if not determine the future of America, and American businesses need to cater to that distinct market. Furthermore, Hispanics are already a “country within a country”. Like Rocky, this study claims that most Hispanics are 100% Latino while also 100% American. The flaw inherent in this attitude is the obvious conflict when voting in important elections: will these super-Americans vote for the American vision or the Latino vision? Many, like Jorge Ramos, are dual-loyalty citizens, voting in US and Mexican elections without any sense of conflict.This is all the more disturbing as there have been other forecasts about a “balkanized” America: In 1998, a Russian Professor predicted an American break-up along national-cultural lines where Europe, Mexico, Canada, Russia and China would virtually embed themselves and influence these regions by 2010.  More recently another author traced the history of the “eleven rival regional cultures of North America” (American Nations, 2011). This work updates the “Nine Nations of North America” authored in 1981 by Joel Garreau. What these studies have in common, is the certainty with which they predict an American disintegration caused by either regional or national cultural differences. But predictions are difficult, especially if they are about the future. While no one seems to have predicted a hyphenated America, there is clear evidence  of an Anglo-America and a Hispanic-America, aided and abetted by our political elites who are guilt-ridden about (white) America’s enviable success story. Declared a “perfect failure” by three European heads-of-state, multiculturalism has created division along cultural lines, and stoked intense competition for special-interest group attention and benefits, over there as over here. It considers all cultures equal, and teaches little about our own culture. The result has been, as Harvard Professor Robert Putnam laid out so clearly, “we have integrated our neighborhoods, but we all go bowling alone” (2000), i.e. without assimilation we socialize within our own cultural groups,thereby deepening the cultural divide.

US Exceptionalism: Left-Right Debate

Today, February 3, 2016 I again had the pleasure of watching Dinesh D’Souza debate Bill Ayers on the question of American exceptionalism. Dinesh is my kind of immigrant. He understands American history, its foundational principles, has written books on the subject, including books critical of Barack Obama, and several documentaries about Obama and America. Imagine a world without America. He graduated from Dartmouth in 1983 and was president of New York City College. Bill Ayers is a Chicago native, is an admitted communist sympathizer, a friend of Obama, with a violent background back to the anti Vietnam war protests. He never went to jail for bombing the Pentagon, injuring people while bombing police stations and other “military”-oriented government entities. He was rewarded for his violence by becoming a public employee as an Instructor at the University of Chicago until his recent retirement. Several subjects came up in their responses to questions from the moderator and the audience:

BA (Bill Ayers): all public and private schools need to have similar resources so that poor kids can have a valuable education. Why cannot the Chicago School Superintendent, Arnie Duncan, find a public school within Chicago for his kids? Common Core is bad education because it teaches to standardized tests with simplistic metrics that do not provide an incentive to students. America has been the bully, often violently changing governments. Teachers Union is the “expert” in dealing with public education.

D’S (Dinesh D’Souza): history is badly taught in public schools, all cultures are equal when they are not; colleges are no longer the bastion of “academic freedom” and “free speech” where all points of view are permitted. Ayn Rand understood capitalism’s powerful principles; the world is better off because one nation does not limit one’s earning power by promoting “enlightened self-interest as a virtue”. Liberal college professors have been teaching a negative view of America’s part in shaping the world, which would be much poorer, less advanced without American drive. America has never conquered or colonized another nation, not even stolen their riches, but only liberated them to find their way. Teachers Union put a choke hold on education; bad teachers must be fired.

BA: Wealth gap between rich and poor in the US is the biggest in the world. Military power has prevented others from challenging America’s inordinate power economic power. America has the highest incarceration rates in the world, mostly minorities. The richest country in the world can afford to provide free health-care and free schooling for everyone. Divert military funds to education.

D’D: Would another nation with America’s power be so kind and generous? Wealth and income inequality is a small price to pay for major advanced in science and living standards. Health care and education costs are spiking simply because the beneficiaries of those services do not have to pay for them.

BA: founders were slave owners and institutionalized slavery

D’D: Founders could not have formed the Union of 13 colonies unless they “permitted” slavery which was reality at the time. The Constitution did later correct that error.

BA and D’D: Diversity of thought is no longer standard in the elite colleges. Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom are threatened. Dissent is one sided and politically correct. Students who condemn the Confederate flag for its racist element (my tought) often wear t-shirts of real tyrants such as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara

BA: US system is corrupt as it allows free movement of capital through Free Trade Agreements, but limits labor movement. Wars provoked by America create refugees and immigrants.

D’D: being a nation state, we are limited by its definition which includes sovereignty and national security. This means that America has a right to determine who and how many are allowed into the US. There are 2 billion poor people in the world, how many shall we allow to come? even so, large numbers will change the cultural and political values of the nation, as history shows clearly. Immigrants could in fact outvote native-born and install a new system of government, resulting in chaos. They must assimilate to us, not us to them!

D’D: America is the model of the LADDER: where each according to his/her ability can progress at will…. the Left wants the model of the ROPE where they expect to be lifted out of poverty by the nanny state…

http://www.dineshdsouza.com

 

 

 

About that foot-ball….

Speaking of American football. Immigrants and foreign visitors who are for the first time introduced to the game as spectator or otherwise, often ask these obvious questions: why is it called football when the foot is very rarely used to kick the ball? Secondly: why is the ball not round?  Thirdly, why in the land of second chances do they allow 4 chances to advance the ball 10 yards? Fourth, why do Americans call European football “soccer”? A quick Google search provides answers to three of these questions. It is called “foot” ball not because of kicking the ball with one’s feet, but because the game is played on foot, as opposed to being played on horseback. Another explanation tells us that the ball is exactly one foot long (from a French Google search). The ball is not round, according to some online explanations, because in the early days the ball was inflated by the lung capacity of the players who never wanted to exhaust themselves in this way, making the ball soft and more easily handled by their paws. As for the question about “downs”, I have never been able to get an answer from any source….. The game started with 3 downs and is still played that way in Canada. Do the gladiators of the football arena need that much latitude to move the ball 10 yards? Anybody know?….. Ok, finally, why do we call the (sissy) European game “soccer”? The word apparently is a corruption of the original designation “Association” football. Those Brits shortened the word to something resembling “assoc” and adding the suffix “er’ to give the player a title (assoccer) resulting in the final corrupted word “soccer”. Then I could always ask the additional question: why are the goal posts reaching into the heavens? The sky is the limit? No wonder American football does not have a “goal keeper”.