Some Conservatives are shocked that Elizabeth Warren, whose claim to 1/32nd Cherokee blood, has not withdrawn from the Mass. Senate race in disgrace. After all she is a liar, an affirmative action hustler who parlayed a fake Native American heritage into a professorship at Harvard, all of which should disqualify her from public service.
But as I explained to a friend over the weekend, Elizabeth Warren could torture puppies on national television and it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference… because Warren is a progressive.
The real story isn’t that Warren is an intellectual grifter, the real story is that Warner’s claim to a 1/32nd Native American bloodline is an embodiment of the Nazi Nuremberg Racial Laws.
In order to target Jews the Nazis had to identify Jews. And the Nazis, obsessed with race, classified Jews not as a religion but as members of a race.
From Wikipedia:
The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as “German or kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of “mixed blood”.
Democrats, liberals, progressives are as obsessed with race as were the Nazis. The Los Angeles Unified School District officially Balkanizes children via blood lines—though mention of religion is strictly forbidden. Add a sprinkle of black blood, a long forgotten Hispanic ancestor—Aztec, Mayan, whatever—and presto the local school is entitled to federal dollars. And not to be forgotten is the new and novel racial classification dreamed up by the New York Times for George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”.
The Elizabeth Warren scandal adds a whole new level to racial classifications. The Nazis relied on grandparents as kindred blood. But American progressives have stretched this classification to 1/32nd as a racial starting point.
Progressives, who now control the Democrat Party, have legitimized racism. In fact American progressives have out-Nazi’d the Nazis in the, ahem, “science of eugenics,” classifying people if they were race horses.
And we have no doubt that Seraphic Secret will be accused of racism by Democrats, the very people who feed off and perpetuate racism—the only way they can buy a majority of votes in any local or national election.
The Inquisition had it too: “Limpieza de sangre” (purity of blood). Except that so many of the people in the areas under their control had Jewish (or Moorish) blood somewhere in their ancestry that by special agreement (and payment of an agreed-upon sum), the Inquisition would check ancestry only up to a certain point and not go beyond it. (There is a term for that point, but I’ve forgotten it and need to look it up.)
Rahel:
Good call.
In fact, Bibi’s father wrote the definitive history of the Inquisition in which he explained that Jews were classified as a race by the Inquisition and not by religion.
Dr King wanted people to be judged not by their color but by their character – and the people who want you to think they have taken up his mantle think of people in no other terms but color.
Bill:
Rev. King would vomit to see how his message has been perverted by the race hustlers of the left.
I’m not so sure those Nuemberg Laws didn’t work. I’m reading Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and 2/3 of the way through the book Germany just conquered Poland and swept through France and now control all of Europe from the English Channel to Russia. So they must know what they are doing, right? I think Charles Lindbergh got a medal from them and he’s an American hero isn’t he? Anyway, don’t tell me how the story ends.
Reading Shirer made me think of our dear leader at one point. Shirer talks about how many copies of Hitler’s book were sold and how he made a lot of money in royalties off it. Yet when he did what he said he would do in the book, ordinary German citizens that had supported him acted shocked to find out how bad he was. Even though almost every house had a copy of MK prominently displayed after the Nazis took control.
And now, after he’s been president for almost four years. we are finding out things Obama wrote in his books. It’s like people bought his books but never read them and just wanted to have them sitting out where people could see how ‘literate’ they are.
Now, I am not saying Obama is just like Hitler. But maybe the people that buy the books have something in common.
Johnny:
In North Korea every household must own the eleven volumes of Kim Jong Il’s essays. The average household in NK does not have toilet paper, writing paper, and women use rages as Tampax. It’s a funny thing about leftist leaders, they have all written volumes of tripe that no one reads and once they do they realize that the dear leader is psycho.
Robert, it is the liberals who like to stake a claim on “diversity” — diversity in (educational) admissions, diversity in employment, diversity in politics. Diversity is a religion to them. Unfortunately, diversity means you have to identify races and ethnicity. It’s a form of sociological madness. They had an idea that some groups were being cheated — a valid assumption 100 years ago or less — and then they decided that, in the name of “equality”, we should promote certain “disadvantaged” groups (you know, like liberals). Now, we learn about Mohammed in elementary school, but you can’t discuss Jesus. White males with a 5.0 GPA lose out on admissions to an illegal alien with a 4.0 GPA because Hispanics are under-represented in our University. The list goes on and on. You see it in the Middle East as well. Muslim are united… unless you’re a Shiite and I’m Sunni. Or you’re Syrian and I’m Saudi.
It really comes back to the treatment of the INDIVIDUAL. Israel is great because they help everyone in need of medical care — it doesn’t matter if you’re Palestinian, or African, or Christian, or Jew. If you need immediate medical attention, chances are you’ll get great care.
I think the great overarching theme is we need to treat everyone as human beings first. Everyone deserves a chance. Almost everyone deserves a second chance. Why must “we the people” fall victim to this notion that certain groups should get preferential treatment? Equal opportunity for all. Isn’t that what America is about?
(or am I too old-fashioned?)
Joe
Good going. We need much more of this kind of thinking.
Joe:
The idea that diversity is good is such an accepted fact by liberals and many conservatives despite no objective proof of such (Jonah Goldberg touches on this Tyranny of Cliches). It is an idea for people to scam money from businesses and schools and any institution that cannot afford to be labeled as intolerant. I think the word is scam.
Ecologically-speaking, diversity is a good thing. National Geographic had a piece last summer about a project called the Food Ark which is trying to keep and maintain a variety of food sources which have disappeared through selective production techniques. It was a fascinating article about the disappearance of literally hundreds of varieties of foods in the last 100 years. This includes seeds and animal breeds.
The problem is “human ecology” which Dictionary.com calls “the branch of sociology concerned with the spacing and interdependence of people and institutions.” These are the academics (or worse yet, the politicians) who study groups of people and see how they interact. Studying the process is great. Knowledge can be beneficial in many ways (The Garden of Eden aside). The problem is humans who feel compelled to “right a wrong”. The problem is that minority preferences have moved past fairness and well into the range of societal engineering. I guess the best example would be the current president. America elected an African American as President of the United States. That is something my grandfather could not have comprehended in 1930. I doubt that 1% of the population in 1930 would have said a colored man could be elected president. Now, we have equal opportunities. Why do we still have programs based on skin color or nation of origins?
I like to think about diversity and/or discrimination using a library analogy.
1) We’re all books.
2) Books (we) offer something of value to someone out there. (we have value).
3) You can’t judge a book by its cover. Nor can you tell how good or bad a person is by the color of their skin.
4) Life would get very dull if the library only had 1 title of book, or if they only allowed 1 topic of books. (Diversity)
Sorry for the rant. For more info about the Food Ark, go see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/siebert-text I particularly liked the graphic showing the decline in seeds in 80 years at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic
Fascinating stuff.
Joe:
You’re just an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy:-)