 |
| The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com |
Originally published in the August 8, 2004 issue of the Alamance Independent
LIBERATE YOUR MINDS FIRST
By Mark Andrew DwyerInquisition - a permanent institution of the Church charged with the eradication of heresies.
(A definition borrowed from [8])Liberals of all flavors cannot accept that We the People are submitted to norms and rules that, according to their utopian theories, keep us from being truly free. So, they want to liberate us from this, and liberate us from that, but what seems to be the common denominator of all the things they want to liberate us from is the reality and truth. And this fact is not a pure coincidence, as it turns out that the reality and truth are the harshest judges of liberal programs that may look good on paper but don't deliver what they promised when actually implemented.
Unfortunately, liberals will not give up just because their utopian visions are incompatible with the real world or defy truth, and relentlessly push the humanity in wrong direction, in spite of common sense and the mounting evidence that disproves their claims. And in order to silence the critics who keep bringing up the inconvenient facts that document failures and flaws of liberal postulates, they impose more and more restrictions on what is supposed to be the most free part of every human being: our minds. As of today, by de facto controlling American education system, they have managed to muzzle minds of millions of young Americans who have been conditioned to not question certain revealed "truths", particularly those related to race, ethnicity, immigration, and population growth.
One of the most successful ways of discouraging people from exercising their freedom of thought and expression when it comes to subjects that have already been "decided" by the oracles of liberal orthodoxy is associating anyone who dares to question their veracity with persons, events, and organizations than no one wants to be associated with. You like American flag waving and firearms? Too bad. Gun totting white supremacists in military fatigues just wait around the corner to grab the power and eliminate all minorities. Want to limit immigration? Wrong again. Millions of innocent people were killed by Nazis because the U.S. put cap on number of immigrants so that the oppressed could not flee Germany. Don't like affirmative action and claim that underrepresented minorities have no one but themselves to blame if they don't perform well academically? Ku Klux Klan lynched countless blacks because of the racist prejudice and discrimination. (I consider myself lucky that no one pointed out that Hitler brushed his teeth daily and wore pants so that I can do the same without fear of being labeled a Nazi.)
The list goes on and on and on, and I am sure you, my reader, can add some examples of your own. Here is what I found few days ago.
According to an article published in Newsday August 3, 2004 (see [1]), there is a Republican congressional candidate named James L. Hart in 8th District in Tennessee who "shows up at voters' homes wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a gun, and tells them that `white children deserve the same rights as everyone else'." In the case you are not appalled enough, Newsday has more shocking news. Hart "believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" if it doesn't eliminate welfare and immigration". He says that "if an individual demonstrates the ability to produce and contribute to society, he or she would be encouraged to have more children, [while] people on welfare would not". But above all, according to Newsday "much of Hart's platform revolves around eugenics, which arose in the early 20th century as a pseudoscientific movement to solve social problems by preventing the `unfit' from having children. It inspired 33 states to pass laws that allowed the [voluntary, I suppose] sterilization of some 65,000 people, and Nazi Germany used the U.S. examples to justify programs that sterilized and killed millions".
Whoa! That should settle all the burning questions one may have about racial preferences, the right to keep and bear arms, immigration, and welfare, particularly when it comes to helping mothers on welfare to have more kids than they can afford, kids that are likely to end up exactly where their mothers are: on welfare, that is. Everyone who still have doubts that what James L. Hart says is just a bunch of nonsense and an example of hate speech takes a risk of being linked to Nazi Germany's "programs that sterilized and killed millions". And if that's not enough reason, Newsday clearly tells us that all this is an embarrassing offspring of "eugenics, the phony science that resulted in thousands of sterilizations in an attempt to purify the white race".
Or is it? If what Hart says is false then why not to present evidence that would disprove his claims beyond any reasonable doubt? Why not to lay out an argument that demonstrates what is wrong with eugenics, or at least to provide a fair statement what eugenics is or was, and leave it to the reader to make his or her mind where the truth is? (The claim that eugenics is a phony science because Nazi Germany adopted it has many flaws and just doesn't wash; for instance, Newsday fails to explain why would Nazi, ostensibly so infatuated with eugenics, exterminate millions of Jews that were known for exceptionally high average IQ.) Apparently, Newsday, that acts as if its name were Doomsday, would not take any risk of us jumping to, God forbid, unapproved conclusion and keeps us out of harm's way by forcing upon our minds a muzzle of "political correctness".
The panic that Mr. Hart's postulates stirred at Newsday editorial board and among "the statewide grass-roots group TeamGOP, which called for Republicans to `unite against the politics of hate'," seems to have something to do with the fact that what he says doesn't sound nearly as absurd as they purport. What's wrong with postulating that white children should have exactly the same rights as children of any other color? (For all those who think they already have, think about all the white kids from very poor families and compare their rights to, say, Hispanic kids from poor and even not so poor families. I know it for fact that these white kids are not eligible for nearly as much of educational and social assistance as Hispanic kids are.) What's wrong with postulating that people who cannot afford kids, and, therefore, are unable to ensure their own children's well being, should not be encouraged to have them? (For those who think it's wrong, look at millions of migrants from Mexico and other Third World countries who while working on low-paying jobs try to have at least four kids and then look for someone else to pick up the tab for their lack of procreative responsibility - see [2] and [3] for typical examples, and [4] for analysis of growth of single mother parenthood.) Don't big parts of the U.S. that experience massive influx of low-skilled migrants from Mexico and other Third World countries already look like Detroit? (If you have any doubts, visit South-central parts of Los Angeles County that because of their heavenly climate and attractive geographical location could have been a paradise on Earth, and judge for yourself.) Finally, what's wrong with hypothesizing that current policies that favor virtually unrestricted immigration and massive state-funded welfare programs impede the technological progress in America and stimulate growth of population of the uneducated and poor? (For those who think that mass immigration and overgenerous welfare have nothing to do with pauperizing and dumbing down of America, just look at the exponentially growing population of the poor and skyrocketing dropout high school rate among Hispanic migrants. For mathematically sound argument discovered by Malthus some 200 years ago that indiscriminate welfare only fuels growth of population of the poor, see [5].)
The attack on candidate Hart's political creed has all appearances of projection (projecting on others one's own vices and bad intentions). Whether eugenics is "scientific" or not remains a question that needs to be addressed based on verifiable facts and valid reasoning and not on emotions and intimidation. What's unquestionable, though, is that liberal unproved theory stating that all people are equal is an obvious example of pseudoscience; it's based on such "scientific" arguments like twisted statement from the Declaration of Independence (it says "all men are created equal" and not "all men are equal"; also, the statement has clearly legal and not anthropological meaning) and naïve interpretation of some results in genetic research (all human races share all but a fraction of one percent of genes, but the same is true for all primates, although no one seems to believe that human and chimpanzees are equal). Just one glance at the composition of our best basketball team strongly suggests that distribution of particular talents among different races is far from even. This fact alone is enough to disprove the myth of universal equality of all humans; recent research clearly demonstrates the fallacy of that myth as well (see [6]). True, our society recognizes equality of the citizens before the law and strives to give its every member an equal chance, but that's not the same as overly simplistic assertion of equality of outcome that the wishful "all people are equal" dogma does entail.
It seems idiosyncratic how intolerant and judgmental the attackers of Hart's beliefs are, which is indicative of double meaning of tolerance that so many of them preach at other occasions. We are being taught ad nauseam that all cultures are equal, that there is no objective right and wrong, and that morality is a relative and not absolute concept, so we have to be non-judgmental. Well, except when someone claims that state welfare and immigration should be reduced or eliminated, that people should not be granted preferential treatment because of the color of their skin, and that those who cannot ensure decent living conditions and future for their children should refrain from procreation. Now, it's OK to be intolerant and judgmental, and "unite" in efforts to deprive that person of his or her right to run for an elected office. Meanwhile, millions of migrants (mostly, Mexicans) from cultures that discourage use of birth control are flooding America with oversupply of their countless kids that crowd-out Americans from their country's most attractive habitats only to end up in a lower class of the uneducated and poor that cannot make ends meet without public assistance. And this destructive process continues perpetually, while everyone, like Mr. Hart, who objects it is labeled a racist, a nativist, a bigot, or a xenophobe.
I personally don't know Mr. Hart and cannot say if he looks and acts reasonably or not, and where did he arrive to his current political standpoint from. Nor do I care. He denies being a racist, so it's only fitting to assume he is not until proven otherwise. If he is wrong then show us why is he wrong. If he is right, so be it. It's the message and not the messenger that we need to freely debate. Newsday editorial board may wish to remember that arguments ad persona combined with rigidly dogmatic restriction of intellectual inquiry were the defining features of Inquisition, a feared and powerful movement that enforced, by means of death and torture, "political correctness" of medieval ages across Europe and elsewhere. Doomsday-like witch burning (see [7]) that was a common remedy Inquisition administrated to discourage heretics from unorthodox thinking (see [8] for a classic example) was one of the most visible effects of that organization's reign. It survived long after Inquisition had been disbanded. And what Newsday and "the statewide grass-roots group TeamGOP" with their calls to "unite against [what they claim to be] the politics of hate" are doing is a big step in that direction. They apparently would be mostly happy if they could burn Mr. Hart together with his campaign literature, but since that's not quite possible, yet, they declared him a pseudo-scientific heretic, using today' s favored assault word "racist" in place of medieval "witch".
We need to free our minds from the liberal dogmas so that we can pursue intellectual inquiry of any subject of interest without having to obey limits set by the Inquisition-like thought police of "political correctness". We must firmly reject any attempts to automatically stigmatize as racists, bigots, xenophobes, etc., those who dare to think independently and question the revealed liberal "truths". Because those who want to muzzle our minds, ostensibly for the sake of our liberty, may turn out the worst tyrants we have ever seen.
[4] Marriage Promotion? Try Immigration Demotion!
http://www.vdare.com/misc/thom_marriage_promotion.htm[5] An Essay on the Principle of Population
Chapter 5
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.5.html[6] IQ and Economic Success
http://www.thepublicinterest.com/notable/article10.html[7] Burning Times
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/burning_times.html[8] Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/bruno.html
| 
| 
| 
| 