The Impending Menace

A new frightening horizon approaches as Americans look outward to dangers from afar while ignoring those dangers which multiply here at home, which no one seems to be aware. All seem to be focused on the people of brown hue, whether Mexican or Muslim, as the threat we must guard against to avoid extinction. The danger however, is here, and has been living among us for centuries. They live alongside us, and due to their humble and white exterior we typically ignore them. But their power and influence are growing. I am speaking, of course, about the Amish.

These people have lived in this nation as citizens since the 18^th century, and have continually refused to assimilate into our culture. In fact, not only have they not assimilated but have continually moved to differentiate their culture. As time went by and technology advanced they have, for the most part, kept with the technology and traditions of the 16^th century, eschewing all the wonders and comforts of modern technology.

The Amish population is growing at a tremendous rate and threatens to eventually unseat our great American culture. The average Amish family has seven children, and ten is quite common. In the past century, while other societies have been assimilated, the Amish have refused and added to their numbers. Average population growth for the Amish community from 1890 to 1990 is between 39% and 42.3% while the average for the total population has been between 12.1% and 14.06%. In those one hundred years the Amish population grew from an estimated 3,700 to 128,000. In 1890, only 1 in 16,924 American citizens was Amish. Today, according to some estimates, it is now 1 in 2,000. In another one hundred years, if population trends continue, 1 in 268 American citizens will be Amish. If this rate continues, and it will likely be worse, we are looking at the eventual possibility of Amish domination of these United States of America.

They are also a menace due to their anti-war positions. All Amish refuse to serve as members of the military and have refused to answer the call when their country needed them most. How will our country survive from outside threats when our national policy is dominated by Amish peaceniks?

The Amish also refuse to participate in our consumer society. For the most part they buy only what they need, and their community, if not each individual, produces all that they ever need. What would this do to our great consumer driven economy? What about entertainment, not to mention impulse buying which, as Americans, is our God given right?!

Not only would there be a loss of mass production of consumer goods, but what about the loss of technology, which the Amish would ban once they took control? Can any of you see yourselves giving up their right to a car and being forced to trade it in for a two horse-power buggy? They would take away our comforts brought on by the technology they have rejected, and this we cannot allow!

And what of their religious beliefs? Everyone reading this knows that one receives personal salvation only by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. But the Amish believe that it is in how one lives their life that salvation is achieved, and that it is not guaranteed. Such proves that the Amish are no better than the Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu heathens!

The final threat is in their communal way of life. They do not believe in individual merit or enterprise. Instead they put the community first and helping others as central to life. These Amish would destroy our great Republic, under God!, and supplant it with godless communism!

So I ask, all of you who read this, help stop the Amish menace! We cannot allow them to outbreed us and take control of this nation! As Americans, it is our duty to breed like rabbits and make sure their percentages are allowed to rise no longer. Such would not only be a disaster for each individual citizen, but the end of the nation as a whole because once they supplant our values and our way of life, they will open us to be overrun by the Mexican and Muslim hordes waiting on our borders!

Note on sources: All Amish population data and references to Amish culture are from Hostetler. Percentages and ratios of population are my own calculations from available census data.

John A. Hostetler, Amish Society

‘US Population from 1900’, < http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm >

‘United States Census, 1890’, < http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-census-1890 >

Immigration and Assimilation

I’ve had a good bit of time thinking about this topic and have come to the conclusion that the assimilation argument is a crock of crap. Let me explain:

First off, the whole idea of assimilating into a single homogeneous culture is a constructed illusion. Until the advent of mass media, mass culture there was no homogeneous ‘American’ culture. Culture varied by region, by city, by locality. One cannot also forget that Mexicans, the target of the assimilation argument, are also American even if that our not citizens of this country.

Second, the assimilation argument is only being used against Mexicans. This is because they are now the target of racist, xenophobic sentiments in this country. Sure, Muslims also get a bad rap, but they are still for the most part a distant threat while the Mexican menace is only a hop, skip and a jump over the border. If assimilation is so important then it would apply to all those within the boundaries of the United States. Are we going to force Puerto Rico to become more American and abandon their heritage? How about the Amish, they certainly have not assimilated into our society and base their community on resisting such assimilation. And lets not forget the Native American tribes which we have now allowed to act as separate nations within ours living under their own laws.

Once this ideal is applied equally to all immigrant groups, then I will accept the merits of the argument. Now however the argument that Mexicans refuse to assimilate is only a cover for a truly racist and xenophobic mentality.

One final note, assimilation is not the only false argument given against Mexicans. There are many who argue that they bring wages down, when in fact its businesses who force the wages down. There are also unfounded claims of laziness and dirtiness without any backing and is without truth. These are only myths perpetuated to deny the current of bigotry and xenophobia that runs rampant in this nation.

Recommended Reading (not necessarily directly related to the topic):
Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1940 by David E. Kyvig
The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction by Linda Gordon
Making a New Deal by Lizabeth Cohen

Bigotry to the right

It would seem that the conservative cluster-fuck has gone supersonic and is heading straight for a catastrophic implosion. I don’t know why the hell they say something moronic, and then after heavy criticism, repeat it! One would think there would be some form of learning going on rather than creating a canyon out of the rut they already have themselves in.

Let’s start with CNN host, and chronic idiot, Glenn Beck. Apparently he would not vote for Joe Lieberman for President "because of the complications it would add in this country or on the planet right now because of the way the Middle East would use it. That's not saying the same thing as I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president" (Media Matters). Um, yes Glenn it does since the only reason it could be used in the Middle East was for the very fact that he is Jewish! This is the same sort of language he used when asking Keith Ellison if he was enemy of the United States due to the fact that he is Muslim.

Meanwhile over on Oxycontin radio, we have Rush going off using the phrase 'Magic Negro' in a parody song of Barack Obama. Of course he tries to wash himself clean of it: "If I keep referring to Obama as the "Magic Negro" from this day on, I will eventually get the credit and/or heat for this. "Magic Negro"" (Media Matters). The fact that he even makes this statement makes it all the more disgusting by excusing his own racism because he was not the first to mention it.

This bigotry on the part of these two is even worse since it is intentional. They know that what they are going to say is bigoted and wrong and yet they go forward and say it anyway. If their bigoted statements were unintentional, then they would not include a statement to try and excuse their behavior. It's either 'I'm not saying/asking this but I am' or 'I know it's bigoted, but someone else said it first so I'm clean'. They make these statements knowing full well their meaning. They should be sent packing for their inhumanity.

Also this week we have Tom Delay popping up trying to recapture the media attention he has deservedly lost and he has continued with his use of the Nazi reference when referring to liberals. "I only thought it was the radical left in our own nation which enjoys likening the United States to Nazi Germany" (Think Progress). I do not recall any liberal making any comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany, unless of course he equates himself, the president, and the Republican Party the United States. It also seems he may have a little memory problem since he made such a reference in his book.

One more point on the continued rhetoric of the right when referring to liberals as Nazi's. Just because they were called the 'National Socialist Party' does not mean they were socialist. Any basic knowledge of 20th century German political history would lead to the realization that the name was taken only to get votes. Socialist parties were popular among the working class, so the Nazi party decided to call itself something it wasn't in order to get votes. You wouldn't believe that the People's Republic of China is actually a Republic would you?

The Unfortunate and Dangerous Right Wing use of Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

This weekend I have what seems to be an immense post, but it would not be so if I did not find the topic important. Having said this, I must also admit that this is far from complete. There is a whole lot more information and rebuttals out there that could be used, I just don't have the time to make it complete on my own, so suggestions for additions would be greatly appreciated. Also, I know I lack citation and support for the most part, but in my defense, I intend these posts to be stream of thought rather than research papers (I already have enough of those to do). Having said that, I am quite certain that one could use a the google to look up some of the points I have made and see that there is support for them (if there is something that is however inherently false, and can be proved through fact checking, then I am quite open to making corrections). Since I enjoyed the structure and the rhetorical flare in making my first post, I have used some of the same here except to a lesser extent since I am also trying to make a logical/reasonable argument which requires academic components. This is therefore a hybrid, though I like to think that with some editing it could be made into an effective speech. Without further excuses and disclaimers then, I give you this weekends post. Enjoy.

Every day that passes it seems the right continues to further itself from rational debate towards a more ugly form of politics. I am not talking about the typical smearing of opponents for voting for or against a measure, for doing drugs or for seeing prostitutes. I’m talking about the calculated political decision to go after one group of people for their differences.

Currently the right has chosen followers of the Muslim faith for their campaign of intolerance. We have seen it in our chambers of government with bigots such as representative Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) questioning the use of the Koran by representative Ellison (D-Minnesota) for his swearing in photo-op. We have seen it in our news with bigoted talk show host Glenn Beck (Idiot-CNN) when he questioned Ellison if he was an enemy of our country for the simple fact that he is a Muslim.

Now this talking point has filtered down to the willing masses of right-wing ideology. They plague our country, our internet, loyally regurgitating the talking points they have been fed, eager to hate people they do not know for their faith. They repeat these talking points with such zealous fervor that they are unwilling to accept any criticism of what they say and will dismiss all logical and truthful corrections as either wrong, subjective, or off-topic.

Their talking point is that the Muslim religion is inherently different from others, and dangerous, because in the Koran written permission is given to the members of Islam to fight Jihad. They say that the only purpose of this religion is conquest of the entire Western world. This of course is another reason in support of the Iraq war, ‘fight them there rather than here’ they repeat incessantly, and with the zealousness only ideological blindness could provide.

Everything they say can be easily dismissed by anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Muslim faith, however any counterpoint you give to their raging ‘the Muslims are out to kill me’ will only be dismissed or ignored. With the more intelligent and receptive, however, who have fallen prey to believing in this talking point as truth, are open to discussion and will willingly abandon the belief of all Muslims want to kill non-Muslims for the more rational and true points. Hopefully I can succinctly explain these points, and if I miss any that are extremely helpful when going through such a frustrating conversation, please do inform me of them.

Firstly, since the argument of the anti-Islamic individuals depends on the view that Islam is different from any other religion that is open to examples of the misdeeds and violence of the other religions. The difference they point out is that the Koran sanctions violence in the form of Jihad. They see this also as a sanction for the extermination of non-Muslims. Well, in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, the Jews were given instruction by God granted them the land of Canaan, and gave the Jews permission to exterminate the Canaanites. If you want to use historical precedent, the Popes in Rome declared Crusades in the name of religion, quite technically these are similar to Jihad since they are both forms of holy wars.

For some reason these people also believe that Islam is the only inherently violent religion. They cite modern Muslims who call for violence against Westerners, but ignore the radicalism of those in other religions. Pat Robertson, for example, has openly and consistently called for the assassination of the leaders of other countries. Rhetoric from these people has also led to the bombings by Christian extremists of abortion clinics. Our country also has right wing crazies like Timothy McVeigh who bombed a federal building killing scores of innocents. Such violence therefore is not limited to the Muslim world and the Muslim religion. It also behooves our purpose here to be reminded that terrorism in its modern form was invented by the Irish who used such tactics to free themselves from British rule. So, if any religion should be blamed for such violence it is the Catholic religion for being the dominant religion of the people who developed such tactics (I am of course advocating no such thing since such tactics emerged under the pressure of a dictatorial occupying power).

One must also question the relevance of the Jihad teachings in the Koran to modern Islam. For the most part, Muslims do not follow the teachings of Jihad, except for the Fundamentalists who almost exclusively focus upon Jihad. For any who believe that every Muslim follows the Koran to the letter, take a look at Christians. How many stonings of adulteresses have you been to lately? Take a look at the divorce rates in this country. Every religion, it seems, has out-moded doctrine that still exists in its scripture but is almost completely ignored. This has been the fate of Jihad, except among the marginal fundamentalist sects.

Another argument is that Muslims want to bring our country under Islamic Law. These people argue that this is what makes Muslims different and dangerous. First off, its only the Fundamentalist Muslims who want this, most others, especially in our country, are either secular are content to practice their religion without instituting religious law on the government level. Further, what about our own Christian Fundamentalist dingbats who want to do away with secular government and create a government based on Christian law? They are the same as the fundamentalist Muslims, crazy and marginal, only differing in their religion.

This brings us to the finale, the core laws of the religion which the religions do not exist without. For Christianity, there are the Ten Commandments. For serious Christians, these are the laws to abide be, these are the doctrine that is known (except by republican senators) and abided by (supposedly). Islam has something similar, they are known as the Five Pillars of Islam, which most spouting hate against the religion do not even realize exists though it is commonly taught in core college world history courses. They are:

1. Testimony of Faith: There is only one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

2. Ritual Prayer: Five times a day.

3. Obligatory charity

4. Fasting.

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca: At least once in a lifetime.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam)

In these basic tenants of Islam, there is no mention of violence, or Jihad. It is also interesting that this view of Islam as a religion of violence has come about since it is also known as the religion of peace.

So, why is such rhetoric against Islam in particular dangerous? Rhetoric against any group of people as a problem is in itself dangerous. They become a scapegoat for the problems in society thus limiting the ability of that society to deal with their problems as they can always have someone to blame other than the actual structure of society. Also, this rhetoric is reminiscent, even identical to that used by Hitler and the Nazis against the Jews. They used Jews as a scapegoat for problems in society, labeled them as different, and then proceeded to attempt to exterminate them. If such rhetoric against Muslims is allowed to proceed in our country, then internment, even extermination of these people in our country could easily become justified and acceptable.

This rhetoric against Islam does not show any solution to ‘fixing’ the problem. They may suggest conversion as a solution, but conversion against peoples of any different religion always brings out stubbornness and militancy. So the next step, quite logically for these people, would have to be extermination. If our country has any soul left, we ensure that this never happens; otherwise our United States will indeed be soulless.

Addendum: I just realized I had skipped any mention of the racist element of anti-Muslim bigotry. This is purposeful since I believe the subject deserves a lengthy post of its own. That may or may not be the topic for next weekend, stay tuned......