Love does no harm to a neighbor

A small bit of truth from the media confusion regarding the FLDS:
Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville[, TX], ... began looking for ways to rein in his FLDS neighbors.

Representative Hilderbran from Kerrville is a tyrant, a busybody, a crook, and the moral equivalent of a Mafia thug.

The FLDS are NOT Hilderbran's neighbors. According to Google maps, Kerrville is nearly two hours from Eldorado. Why should a man in Kerrville have the authority to tell people in Eldorado how to live? This is a moral question we really should answer, with monstrous implications for the whole foundation of most people's thinking.

There's a line drawn across the middle of the Rio Grande river. We call it the border between Texas and Mexico. People living north of the line don't have the authority to tell people living south of the line how to live, and people living south of the line don't have the authority to tell people living north of the line how to live. If people cross the line with guns and try to force their will on others, we recognize they are criminals. The only way for people on opposite sides of the line to influence each other is by voluntary agreement. This can happen on a massive scale, in the form of treaties, and it can happen on an individual scale, in the form of small purchases, and it can happen on every scale in between.

Representative Hilderbran has no more authority to force his approval or disapproval of marriages on the FLDS than I do to go next door and tell my neighbor who his daughter can or can't marry. Marriages at age 14 and up with parental consent were deemed perfectly moral and acceptable by the gang of thugs in Austin calling itself the State of Texas prior to October 2005. They did not suddenly become immoral. Apparently the Austin Gang thinks these marriages were just fine as long as nice Baptist and Methodist people were letting their children get married at 15; it's only a problem when scroungy FLDS people move in and do it. Baptists and Methodists don't constitute near as much of a threat to the established order as do the radical FLDS.

There is no moral reason why there should be a line across the Rio Grande between Texas and Mexico, but no line drawn between Eldorado and Kerrville. People have the right to self-determination. If Texas and Mexico each have the right to self-determination and it must be mutually respected, then so does each component territory within the U.S. and within Mexico, so does each county within each U.S. State, so does each city, in fact, so does each household. Why should there be a line between Texas and Mexico? Surely it's not because the people to the south have dark skin and speak a different language, is it? Is that why it's okay to draw a line to keep those people out, but not okay for FLDS near Eldorado to draw a line to keep whites out? I don't think that's the motivation ... but what other consistent response can be offered?

We've invented the fiction that voting equals self-determination. Here the truth is exposed: voting in this case eliminates self-determination by giving a fake legitimacy to the crime of a man from Kerrville oppressing the FLDS. Self-determination is robbed from the FLDS. Their fate will now be determined by "neighborly" thugs like Hilderbran, offering us all "protection" if we will pay and acknowledge his authority, as he makes us an offer we literally can't refuse.

The cult here is not the FLDS. It's the religious belief that the gang in Austin is legitimate in exercising its authority and is beneficial as it does so. And that belief permeates almost all of society, within and without Texas. This is why Austin is so scared of groups like the FLDS: they offer something else to believe in and venerate, an alternative culture to the one mandated by our gang. They are competition, and the gang is trying to wipe them out.

Xenophobia in South Africa

Wikipedia is a marvel. At any given moment, a Wikipedia article might contain good information, vandalism, lies, or mistakes. But by watching the process through which a Wikipedia article is built, you can usually obtain a spectacular overview of the different points of view on a subject. The neutral point of view policy is not always followed, but when it is it results in a marvelous source of unbiased information.

Today is not one of those days.

Bias is sitting on the front page of Wikipedia, in the form of a headline which reads "At least 22 people are killed as a wave of anti-foreign violence spreads across South Africa." The bias is subtle. You might miss it. Statistically speaking, you're likely to possess some of this same bias yourself, without even realizing it.

The bias is most evident in a link from within the headline. The word "anti-foreign" is linked to the article on "Xenophobia." Xenophobia, of course, is a fear of things foreign. And here's the bias: Anglo-saxonism!

What prompted the violence in South Africa? Why would anyone rise up and begin taking lives? Wikipedia's answer is deceptively simple, and biased: the South Africans are rioting because they have xenophobia. They just don't like foreigners. Those backward Africans!

It really isn't too hard to obtain a historical perspective which will shed a lot more light on this headline than simply "xenophobia." It doesn't take much reading to discover that White Europeans have been overrunning every piece of the globe, killing and subjugating other people, since at least the days of the Roman Empire. Britain in particular is one of the most bloodily guilty nations in history, if a nation can be held "guilty" rather than the murdering individuals themselves. At one time, the British Empire covered 22% of the globe. Long before a murderous anti-Semitic lunatic in Germany dreamed of dominating the globe, murderous lunatics in Britain had basically done it. For millenia Europeans have worshiped the lie of the "Pax Romana" and dreamed of being the special, anointed people who will bring it to pass again. Many of them have been only too happy to use the same methods as Rome: bloodthirsty conquest.

(Please don't think when I say "Europeans" I'm tarring all Europeans with the same brush. I simply mean that, historically speaking, many Europeans have been ruled by murderers bent on conquest. During that time, the vast majority of people have simply been trying to live their own lives and not get killed. The common man does not profit from conquest; it is only the politically powerful who reap the benefits of war. When I say "Europeans," I mean "some Europeans," not "all Europeans." Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that only Europeans are guilty; the Pax Romana delusion and disease have certainly spread to many other nationalities. It's just that in this context, the fact that Europeans have done it is significant.)

Those foolish Africans, rising up against foreigners. Don't they understand that the foreigners are there to benefit them? Don't they understand the civilization, culture, and prosperity the foreigners bring? These questions might sound silly today, but one hundred years ago, to an Anglo-Saxon ear, they most certainly did not. The "white man's burden" meant that white Anglo-Saxons, including Europeans and Americans just happened to be the best and the brightest. After all, Anglo-Saxons ruled over 22% of the globe. And the Anglo-Saxons brought the blessings of civilization to all the backwaters of the world, where filthy, stupid dark people lived. In other words, Anglo-Saxons suffered from a Messiah complex. Unfortunately, unlike my Messiah, the Anglo-Saxons were willing to inaugurate their reign with bloodshed.

Why should South Africans have anti-foreign sentiment? Are they just irrational xenophobes? Really, that's a despicable thing to say. Like hundreds of other localities, South Africa was dominated by British rule. Those of us who live in America (whence the majority of English-speaking Wikipedians hail) don't often understand it, but people in other countries often have long, long memories. The past is not always just forgiven and forgotten. There are regions where 100% of the residents have been touched by the death and violence of conquest in the last few generations. What does it feel like to know that your father, grandfather, and three of their brothers were all killed when the Europeans were dominating? What does it feel like to have helped raise your own orphaned siblings after lethal injustice? I don't know how these things feel, but many people in formerly dominated countries do.

Thankfully today the British and most Europeans are enlightened. In the 20th century, imperialism mysteriously slowed down, although it did not entirely come to an end. Many dominated countries obtained their independence, sometimes through resistance, sometimes just through the apparent benevolence of their subjugators. The imperialistic Europeans have backed off. But mysteriously, sometimes the maimed and wounded survivors are still not happy. Sometimes we see anti-foreign sentiment. It's completely unjustified and irrational, of course; everyone knows we're more enlightened today than we were back when we were imperialistic. You know, half a century ago, when your father was a child?

I think it's somewhat telling that Wikipedia doesn't even include an article on Anglo-Saxonism. Bias, indeed. Not an overt bias, not a bias most of the readers are aware. But a bias of omission.

Does Anglo-Saxonism still exist today? Surely we see how racist the "White Man's Burden" idea was, don't we? Hmm ... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future." -- U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, defending the use of cruise missiles against Iraq, February 1998. Hmm.

For more about imperialism and its legacy, I heartily recommend the following books. They are all part of a series called the Uncle Eric Books. You can Google for these books and find them easily. I've also seen them for sale at every single homeschool book fair I have ever been to. The author's name is Richard Maybury. The books I suggest on this subject are:

Whatever Happened to Justice? [Doesn't concern imperialism directly, but this establishes the base perspective for the other books.]
Ancient Rome: How it Affects You Today
The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How it Affects You Today
World War I: The Rest of the Story, and How it Affects You Today
World War II: The Rest of the Story, and How it Affects You Today

I contacted the Fuhrer of Texas

I just sent the following to the Governor of Texas:

Governor Perry, it is reprehensible that you have publicly commended
the actions of the CPS in terrorizing the people of the FLDS RANCH
(not "compound" -- they are not a paramilitary organization). These
actions are unconstitutional, immoral, and sinful. These people have
been denied due process of law. I am very sorry to have voted for you
because I now see that you obviously do not believe in anything that I
stand for. I am praying for power to be removed from all those who
have been responsible for this abusive government action. The right
thing for you to do is to immediately repudiate your commendation,
return these children to their parents pending the outcome of any
legal case against them, and discipline and fire the people involved
in this kidnapping.

You are out of touch with the people of your state.