Saturday, December 06, 2008

There oughta be a Law

I recently watched a C-SPAN show by Robert Remini, who has written a number of books on Andrew Jackson (seemingly 'apologies' for him, in both senses of the word), and who sadly in 2005 was appointed the Historian of the United States House of Representatives. I haven’t read anything of his, but by his spoken words, I’ve have no interest in being sullied by his written words. His primary focus was to define, explain, and do penance for the behavior of 'white men' towards 'Indians'. He speaks of the 'white' men taking, pushing, killing and exterminating the 'Indian', because 'we' wanted their land, and that there was no other reason for our behavior or theirs "...And the Indian would say 'it's our land', and there would be treaties, sales or taking of land, nevertheless. Only the Indians who became cultural white men, survived, the rest were killed."

His talk was a disgusting harangue seemingly against 'whites' (though actually against the culture conveyed by those he terms 'whites'. Frickin' damn idiot bigots - I am so tired of their willfully blind stupidity), building to a point of admitting that the Indians were in fact raiding white settlers and killing them (and you can see how painful it is for him to 'admit' that), and once said, he then uses that to justify Andrew Jackson's wars upon the Indians.

He chides the settlers saying "'they must obey our laws, or be punished...' but they weren't the Indians laws". Does he have any understanding of what 'Law' refers to? I don't think so.

In his, and other multi-culti apologists minds, the fact that the Indians were incidentally 'here', roaming about the land, living in a sub civilized manner, and because of that, by virtue of that simple, perceptual, concrete fact, by their blood, and with having no further understanding of land as anything higher than the perceptual fact of it, no concept of Land in a legal sense, no concept of Property in the sense of legal rights, rather than something forcibly possessed... having no concept of Individuals at all, let alone individual rights... this is what he defends, and gives penance before. This, that they were ‘here’, and had different ‘ways’, that they were Rousseau’s ‘noble savages’ - this, the 'best' example of the Indian conception, he pits against; not the best examples of western concepts and behavior, but against the worst, those who did make and break agreements, etc; and that is the way the multi-culti wishes to (must) stage their attacks upon the West.

That is a necessity on their part. Necessary, because any comparison between their worst and our worst, invariably shows the Indian to be horrifying savages, monsters, creatures out of fairy tales like Orcs, as compared to a civilized people responding in the heat of the moment with passions of fear, anger and hatred, in response to direct causes. If you compare their best too our best, they rise to only the level of the worst of bronze age honor culture savages, such as the Celts against the Romans. They had only a preconceptual grasp of courage and 'honor', they were incapable of living in proximity with peoples other than those exactly like them (not even with other Indian tribes, let alone with ‘Whites’), with those who recognized the same pecking orders and piss markings.

Let me be as politically incorrect as possible - meaning honest - as a culture, they, the Indians, were savages; and while there were some, probably many, individuals who at times showed admirable qualities, they were culturally savages. Their continuing to exist as savages, with a savages understanding of relations with 'others', with a savages perceptual level understanding of 'honor' and counting coup, and of 'property' extending no further than... not even possession... merely who was in proximity of where an object, be it a knife or a valley, lay, and theft as nothing other than the movement of peoples position in relation to the item - no higher ideas of right and wrong (not 'no idea of right and wrong, no Higher understanding of either), no Land - only geography. Their culture was, in comparison with the West’s, sub human, and would not allow, as indeed for thousands of years it had not, any unfolding of human individuality let alone of true freedom and liberty, and hence no true Nobility.

We cannot even term them as representatives of even dark age culture, as are the isalmbies - to speak of dark is to imply an understanding that there once somewhere existed light - but they were representatives of a period unfamiliar with even the existence of light, they were representatives of a void age culture, which the West had left behind thousands of years before.

When a culture of Reason, of Law, of property rights, of Individual Rights comes into contact with a culture which has little or no comparative conception of such things, what must and will follow is what does follow whenever force without mind, clashes with force with mind - the first by its own actions puts itself into the position of bringing a club to a gun fight - they will, and must, be wiped out.

Now, to the person who is so concrete bound or ideologically snowed-blind as to read my reference to 'Indian' or 'Us' as having any meaningful reference to skin tone, bone structure, style of dress or the sound of words used in their language - your willfully self imposed blindness is offensive. I refer to the system of ideas possessed and revered, or their lack of, by that culture. I refer to the depth of a cultures conceptual structure, the integration of its ideas with its mores, and their integration with, and willingness to yield and conform with, reality, with truth, which is the only way to lead from a conception of truth, to one which holds it as being Truth. There is a difference (For further explanation of that, see my side bar for 'What are words for', 'Reasons of Reason', and the rest).

Was there beauty in the Indians culture? Yes. Was there wisdom in their stories, and among their people? Yes. But that which was Good and Beautiful and True in their culture, was hampered and confined by the rest of their culture, it wasn't allowed to spread and suffuse the rest of their behavior, their method of living, their political organization, their learning... they were isolated instances which, by virtue of being human, cannot naturally be completely suppressed. Those virtues which the Indian culture had, they did not possess as a result of their wider culture and philosophy, but in spite of it.

One key feature of what separated the 'Indians' from the 'Whites', which I haven't specifically addressed elsewhere, was the conception of Law. And it is what is fundamental to their conception of it, such as they had, which is the motive force behind our losing our understanding of Law in the Western sense. It is their understanding which is blatantly on parade in modern 'legal' thinking, and I've read disgusting examples of it as a motivating influence in Associate Supreme Court Justice Sthephen Breyer's "Active Liberty", and to lesser extents in others grasp of, and supposed defense of, western law.

I have been reading Breyer in particular, along with Madison, Blackstone, Burke, Cicero, Mill and others of both sets, and this is going to be the focus of my next series of posts. In view of our recent election, our view of Law, and particularly those of its defenders and lawmakers such as McCain, who unwittingly do it more damage than those purposefully out to destroy it, it is a timely topic to consider.

Timely, because it is through the Law, that we are being slowly but surely pushed back into an age of savagery that would have made the Indians seem positively Athenian in comparison to. The actions and ideas of our Justices and Lawmakers are attacks upon western culture in general and upon Truth in particular, and the conception of Law, what it is and why, is very much key to understanding that. You haven't really seen savagery, until you've seen the actions of the civilized who have discarded their civil understanding along with their civility. Auschwitz should pop into mind as less a detour than a destination.

I will say this for the Indians, for the Noble Savages; they are orders of magnitude higher in my esteem, than those of Stephen Breyer's ilk. When the understanding of what Law is, is lost, yet the laws and law makers remain, civilization is lost, and only savagery will reign.

It is a Law.


USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

You raise some excellent points, Van!

Even many conservatives/classic liberals are ignorant or afraid to be honest about the Indians and rarely speak out against idiots like Remini on this subject.

I recall in school how our 5th grade leftist teacher took delight in recounting all the atrocities the white man inflicted on the Indians.

Nothin' about the Indians that joined the British to wipe out George washington and his men.

Nothin' about the brutality between the different tribes, or the attacks on helpless whites.

Just a sweeping whitewash and distortion of American history.
Nothin' about the self evident truth's, liberty, and law.

It wasn't until i got into jr. high that I got a real history teacher.
Before that, I hated history.
But that teacher got me interested in history. he inspired me and motivated me. And he got me to think for myself and research the truth about American history.
I was sad I only had two years to learn from him for he was one of the rare teachers that could actually teach, and who really cared about his students.

"Was there beauty in the Indians culture? Yes. Was there wisdom in their stories, and among their people? Yes. But that which was Good and Beautiful and True in their culture, was hampered and confined..."

The lies about our history and laws runs so deep in our culture that many would perceive this post as an attack on the Indians when it's really about a cover-up of the truth and distortion of our history and our laws.

The Leftists always take things out of context tand focus only on the bad things whites have and still do, do, ignoring the truth to fit their own fantasies to assauge their guilt.

You can hear their guilt when they speak: "WE enslved the black man," "We committed genocide on the noble Indians (so why are there still Indians today, again?)," WE raped the land."
All BS!

I'm not a part of their WE. If they insist on taking on the guilt for what men did generations ago leave us out of it!
The Left is certainly free to give their money to the black man and to the Indians, but wait, they aren't doin' that.
No, they wanna take our money to relieve their guilt.
Hell, they go against their own principles all the time, no wonder theyu have no concept of Law and the Truth n' Justice it's based on.

When it comes down to it, the Left don't really believe their own claptrap. They just wanna force it on others.

No liberty, no law, just anarchy and communism, and they never realize that those two ideologies can't work together let alone on their own.

You're right, Van, there oughta be a Law.

Van Harvey said...

Ben said "When it comes down to it, the Left don't really believe their own claptrap. They just wanna force it on others."

Yep... they don't really think it'll work, but they believe it should work, and they're willing to force others to keep trying it until it somehow does.


Some small ray of hope HOME SCHOOLING GOES MAINSTREAM, it's the right direction, and the only solution, getting education out of the hands of the maniacs.

JWM said...

The first major research paper I did in college was a look at the indians as portrayed in James Fennimore Cooper's novels. I contrasted Cooper's imaginary indians with first hand accounts from the people who actually encountered the real thing. As I pored through microfiche photocopies of seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century writings, a clear pattern emerged. Those who lived at great distance from real indians believed Cooper's portraits to be true, and accurate descriptions of the 'noble red man'. Those who actually encountered the real thing were- shall we say- somewhat less enamored. I recall visiting the Frontier Museum in Bellfourche South Dakota, and reading there some descriptions of the 'noble red man's' treatment of captives. Grizzly stuff. Of course, most of the conflict arose over land. Settlers would strike bargains with locals. The locals would agree. But the indians had no concept of ownership. Yes you bought this from us last season, but this season we want it back. Indian 'warfare' upon settlers consisted largely of terrorism and butchery of innocents. Women and children were the first and favorite targets. Did the settlers respond in kind? Often, they did. It was what the indians understood. As a side note- the indians' treatment of 'the other' was the same whether 'the other' was white, or a member of another tribe.
Now. What you wrote here, Van, and what I wrote in response violates one of the unholy writs of political correctness. What I wrote came from actual accounts that I took great time, and effort to research. What I learned what not what I expected to find. But I took the time to learn it.


Van Harvey said...

JWM said "The locals would agree. But the indians had no concept of ownership. Yes you bought this from us last season, but this season we want it back."

Exactly, no Property Rights, no civilization worthy of the name.

It's not the Washington D.C.'s team isn't called the "Washington Redskins" for nothin'.

"What I learned what not what I expected to find. But I took the time to learn it."

Almost always the hardest lessons to learn, and the most worthwhile ones as well. Reminds me of when I set out to prove to my friend that the Founding Father's were all atheists at heart. Talk about having to take a cluebat to yourself! But it was twenty something years ago, and I owe nearly every sensible idea I've got now, to having to admit to myself that my research proved that I was on a fools errand, then.

The Truth will set you free... but it doesn't come for free!

Van Harvey said...

hmmm... of course I wrote
"...It's not the Washington D.C.'s team isn't called ..."

just to make you feel better about the
"...What I learned what not what ..."