Terra Incognita 45 Obama, Service and stereotypes

Terra Incognita
Issue 45
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

Website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com/

July 29th, 2008


1) Poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair: Obama's lie: Obama penned an editorial soon after Sept. 11 in which he claimed that it was caused by the “poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair” in Muslim countries and that America’s job was to raise the prospects of children around the world in order to cure this ‘helplessness’. Mr. Obama would have been better served had he first learned about the lives of the 9/11 terrorists, all of whome were born wealthy and had a life of luxury and opportunity. Obama’s empathy for the terrorists shows why he is such a dangerous person.

2) The Elites and the Nation: In the days of old the elites of the nation were expected to fight and die for their nation. While they may have enjoyed excess and great wealth they were also willing to sacrifice all of it. Today’s supremely wealthy, especially extreme-leftists, such as George Soros, have no loyalty to any nation. Their loyalty is only to themselves and they proclaim themselves ‘internationalists’. If they love the world so much they should indeed be citizens of it and countries should consider first requiring its elites to do some sort of service for the country before they are allowed to have citizenship in it. With the right to critique your country should first come the responsibility to serve it.

3) Stereotypes and the end of diversity: Those who hate stereotypes should consider the road they are traveling down. A world without stereotypes is a world without diversity, that other most cherished god of post-humanism. If each person is exactly equal and exactly the same and free from judgement then how can there be any diversity. The ability to judge is a pre-requisite for diversity.


Poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair: Obama's lie
Seth J. Frantzman
July 22nd, 2008

On September 19th, 2001 Barack Obama, who is may be the next American president, wrote an editorial in the Hyde Park Herald that claimed the September 11th, attacks stemmed from a lack of "empathy" on the part of the hijackers who suffered from "poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." He claimed that "I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy…we must…engage in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness…such a failure of empathy, such numbness…is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. More often, thought, it grows out of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair….we must be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe, not just in the Middle East but also in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe."

This is Barack Obama. It is his essence. For all of those that have believed that rumors and accusations against him have been spread by fear-mongers this lays it all to rest. His minister's decision to say 'God damn America'. His wife's decision to say 'this is the first time I've been proud of my country.' These were accusations of guilt by association. But this editorial was not written by a friend of Obama. It was written by the man himself, just 7 days after the deaths of 3,000 Americans. This editorial expresses the essence of the Obama view of America and the world.

For Obama the September 11th hijackers are the real victims. They are the ones who suffered first. They suffered poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. Lets just remind ourselves of who the hijackers actually were. Mohammed Atta was an engineering student who later studied at the American University in Cairo for a degree in architecture. In 1992 his father was met by two high school aid workers from Germany who offered to bring Atta to Germany. He moved to Hamburg where he stayed with these Germans, receiving free room and board. He studied urban planning in Hamburg. He received a free trip to Syria from his German professor in 1994 for an archeological dig and in 1995-1996 a German foreign exchange program, Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft, provided him with free trips to the Middle East and financial support. He arrived in the U.S in 2000 sponsored by Al Quaida. Saeed, Ahmed and Hamza al Ghamdi were all from the same place in Saudi Arabia and were all born middle class. Saeed and Ahmed both journeyed to Afghanistan in the 1990s to help the Chechans in their war against Russia (another 9/11 hijacker Mohammed al Shekri, also was there). Hani Hanjour was the son of a wealthy food supply businessman in Saudi Arabia. He was born in 1972 and came to the U.S in 1990 to Tucson Arizona where we was given a free apartment by his friend and able to enroll at the University of Arizona. In 1996 he came back to the U.S and enrolled at Holy Names College in Oakland California and stayed with a host family which provided him with free room and board.

When one reads the biographies of the 9/11 hijackers and the stories of their activities in the U.S and Europe they find that these men were all born into middle or upper class families. They all attended college numerous times. They all lived plush lifestyles, frequently living for free on the dole of others. Many of them took 'time off' to go to Russia and murder Russians as part of the Chechnya war. These were not people suffering from any 'helplesness' or 'poverty' or 'despair'. They had purpose in life. They had money. They lived well. In the U.S they visited and became regulars at strip clubs. They flew from place to place and rented numerous apartments and rental cars. They lived the high life in Vegas. These were all men who had many opportunities in life, more opportunities and free-rides than most Americans. They chose to devote themselves to murder. They did so in Chechnya first, in a conflict that was not theirs, and then they chose to murder Americans. Their hatred was not 'channeled'. They choose to hate. They were not manipulated. These were men in their mid to late twenties. They were educated.

Barack Obama finds only sympathy for the terrorists in his editorial. There is no sympathy for the poverty and helplessness of Americans. There is no sympathy for the helplessness of those trapped on the upper floors of the World Trade Center who had to jump to their deaths because of the heat from the flames. Barack Obama does not have empathy for them. He has only empathy and understanding for the murderers and their culture which he claims to understand. The way in which Barack Obama came to believe that the 'real' victims of 9/11 were Muslims and Arabs living in America and that 9/11 was caused by America's foreign policy and by the poverty of those in Middle East is typical of a deep hatred for the United States.

His view is predicated on two radical views. The first view is that it is acceptable for people to murder others so long as they are poor. Barack Obama ascribes to this view completely. He claims the hijackers were poor in order to excuse their actions. This is an extraordinary view of human affairs. It envisions a world in which people can be randomly murdered by those suffering from 'poverty' and the world should be sympathetic to the murderer rather than the murdered. What about the impoverished people who died on 9/11. Didn't they deserve to have a full life? Why did they deserve to die just because someone else suffered from poverty? The Nazis also used this poverty excuse before they launched their invasions of various European country. According to the Nazis the impoverishment of the treaty of Versailles forced them to become nationalistic and seek 'living space'. What would Barack Obama have said in 1939? Would he have excused the Nazi crimes as stemming from 'helplessness', 'despair' and 'poverty'?

The second view of Barak Obama is his belief that America is responsible for "raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe." This is an extraordinary burden that no country deserves. First Obama blames the U.S for 9/11, excusing the murder of Americans by claiming it stems from poverty and then he claims the U.S is responsible for raising the world out of poverty. This prescription views a world in which America is forever responsible for being attacked unless it can help everyone else in the world become wealthy. Once again we see the profound and extreme vision of Obama. For him the world is one in which a person deserves to be assaulted unless he can help others become wealthy. This is a world without any right and wrong, where the victim is always the murderer and the murdered person is always responsible for his own death because he has not helped the murderer.

We face a terrible fate in the U.S. People are enthralled by Obama. From the 'I've got a crush on Obama' videos on Youtube to the Obamamania in Europe, the world is obsessed with this person. Yet Mr. Obama is a demagogue. He and his wife and his circle of friends constitute a very real and terrifying threat to the lives of Americans. If Obama is sworn in as the next president of the United States we must prepared to live under an administration that believes that Americans deserve to die for things they have no control over. We will have a president that excuses our deaths and manufactures the truth so that our murderers are called 'impoverished and helpless' and we are told that we are guilty for not raising our murderers out of their poverty.

What more could America have done for the people of Saudi Arabia? What more could we have done before 9/11 to raise them up? Since the 1930s America has been Saudi's closest ally. We helped the Saudis during the Gulf Crises of the 1980s. We helped the Saudis in Afghanistan when they, like America, were fighting godless Communism. We helped them against Saddam Hussein. We pay huge amounts of money for oil so that most Saudis do not have to work. We have enriched the entire country so that Saudi's GDP per capita is $23,200 compared to the U.S which is $45,000. The UAE's GDP, where one of the hijackers came from, is $37,300. Out of 229 countries Saudi Arabia has the 54th highest GDP per capita. What are we supposed to do, Mr. Obama? Are we supposed to make them number 1? A gulf Arab state, Qatar, is already number one in the world with GDP per capita of $80,000. That’s right, Mr. Obama. An Arab Muslim country has the highest GDP in the world. Yet they suffer from 'helplessness'? What helplessness? Is it that they are helpless in finding enough ways to waste their oil billions? Are they helpless at finding enough prostitutes from enough ethnic groups to import to give them the sexual pleasure they so require? Is it the helplessness of not finding enough extremist causes to go fight in, such as Chechnya, where they can go murder civilians from other countries? Is it that they don't already receive enough welfare and compassion wherever they go in the form of people taking them, accepting them to Universities, giving them free apartments, providing them with homestays and being interested in their 'exotic' culture? What more do they need?

I am an American. I've seen poor people all my life in America. I've seen them living in the wretched circumstances. When they go to work one day and they are murdered by a Gulf Muslim Arab terrorist for no reason I am supposed to accept the fact that one of my presidential candidates will excuse their murder because America didn't do enough to make the Gulf Arab wealthier and the terrorist suffered from 'despair'? America's poor deserve better. Americans deserve better. Americans deserve a president who cares about them. Americans deserve a president who doesn't spit on them when they are dead. Never, in American history, has an American president excused the deaths of his fellow Americans. Even the worst and most mediocre American presidents, such as Milliard Fillmore, didn't excuse the murder of his own people.

No man deserves to die. No man deserves death at the hands of the cowardly Muslim terrorist. There is no excuse for the murder of a human being. It doesn't matter if he is wealthy or poor. It doesn't matter if the murderer is wealthy or poor. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and it said that 'without the pen of Paine, George Washington's sword would have been wielded in vain.' Obama has lost that American common sense. For whatever reason he has a profound contempt for Americans and their way of life. He has a deep seated hatred for the American people and a deep empathy for other people throughout the world. How else can one judge his excusal of the murder of Americans, his lies about the lives of the 9/11 hijackers and his prescription that America must raise the 'hope' of children throughout the world.



The Elites and the Nation
Seth J. Frantzman
July 24th, 2008

In his excellent study of command, control and communications in war, Command in War, Martin Van Creveld offers a number of vignettes of the role of officers in battle throughout the ages. In Greek times Creveld informs us that once the armies had met "there was nothing more a commander could do; so he picked up his own shield and joined in the fray." In Medieval times "the Black Prince, and after him Henry V at Agincourt in 1415, ended up by personally charging the French, as knights should." But Creveld tells us something else interesting. "As the knightly ethos declined, fewer commanders felt inclined to fight in person…when Ney at Waterloo fought with musket in hand this was a clear sign of mental derangement." Creveld offers readers a very clear understanding of the decline of effectiveness and instinct of leaders to find themselves at the point of greatest danger.
The distance of the leader of the army from the front is not all that has changed in the history of war. There has also been an ebbing and flowing of the percent of society that is trained and ready for war. In earliest times, the time of the nomadic tribe, one finds that every man was expected to be a fighter. This was true of the Native American tribes of the American West and it is one reason they were unable to comprehend and, in the end, were dismayed to realize, that when they fought the U.S cavalry they were only fighting the smallest toothpick of the 'white man' and any casualties they inflicted were meaningless. In contrast when Geronimo or Sitting Bull lost an engagement he was apt to lose so many able bodied warriors that the affects might well be catastrophic to his entire nation. When Custer blundered upon the Sioux at Little Big Horn in 1876 he ran into an encampment of 10,000 but while Custer was only commanding a small proportion of the American army the Sioux who rode out to meet him were leading their entire people to war. The rest of the world had already experienced a great diminishing in the number of men who were trained and expected to go to war. By 1870 in Europe only 1 in 74 Frenchmen were trained and available for war. In Germany it was one in thirty-four (owing to the fact that, at the time, the Germans were a warlike people). By 1914, only forty years later, the numbers were one in ten in France and one in thirteen in Germany (owing to the fact that the population of Germany grew greatly in the intervening years). Thus France could and would muster 3,200,000 men in 1914 to go fight in the Great War. In total France would lose 1.6 million killed and 4 million wounded by 1918. By 2008 the percentage of men in most countries, industrialized or not, that are expected to serve in the army is quite small. Less and less nations contain provisions for mandatory national service. This means that in a large country like the U.S the percentage of people asked to shoulder the burden in times of war is quite small.
The role of the upper classes and elites of society in defending their nations has also changed over time. Taking Europe as an example we see that there has been a decline in the participation by elites in war. In the Feudal period the very nature of the feudal system was based on the fact that each local nobleman was expected to do his duty in time of war. The knights of Europe, although they exploited the peasants and were part of what the Marxists called a 'parasitic class' were also the very same people who laid down their lives most frequently to defend their stations in life. At Agincourt in 1415 nobles from many of the houses of France were slaughtered on the field of battle. Literally thousands of them fell. In the Crusades the kings and nobility of Europe journeyed to a far off land and more likely than not laid down their lives, something most modern leftist historians who accuse the Crusaders of seeking wealth have ignored. They couldn't be wealthy for so few of them returned home. Richard I, who was born in 1157 and assumed the throne in 1189 spent more than half of his ten year reign on Crusade, dying in 1199. Far from being the lazy and overweight gentry that were lampooned in the 19th century the nobles of Europe were expected to, and often did, die for 'king and country'.
The First World War marks the end of a period in which the elites of European society were expected to serve their countries in exposed and dangerous situations during times of war. One reason for this were the catastrophic number of casualties that were suffered by front line units. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme 60,000 casualties (20,000 killed) were suffered by the British army. Losses of 90% were common for the first units sent 'over the top'. The destruction of the 1st Newfoundland regiment from Canada serves as an example. Of 801 men who left the trenches on July 1st only 69 men could be mustered for action the following day. Some have remarked that "nearly an entire generation of Newfoundland's future leaders were killed." The First World War witnessed, for the first time, the removal of much of the officer class to stations far behind the lines. Creveld notes that "with their units' orders going into such detail, there was no need for commanding officers from battalion (Lt. Colonel) upward to accompany their men…they were, accordingly, forbidden to go forward-a prohibition that, to their credit, many of them chose to ignore." Field Marshall Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front in the First World War, was station forty-five miles behind the lines at Montreuil. His Generals were likewise five to fifteen miles behind the lines. But this did not prevent the destruction of so much of Europe's upper classes as to cause a continent wide state of emptiness, loss and depression. This period, the 'lost generation' became one of national morass, low morals and chaos, which was filled only by the rise of low-born dictators who were able to wield the power of the right wing working class (it is therefore no surprise that those who sought to kill Hitler in 1944 were almost entirely composed of German low nobility whose military families had hitherto been linked with the rise of Prussia and who now that their nation's destruction at hand.).
As a smaller percentage of the nation is required to serve in the military it should follow that a smaller percentage of the upper classes should serve in the military. This is not historically true, however. In the old feudal period the percentage of men who were knights was quite small. The small armies of Europe were nevertheless composed entirely of the nobility. The situation has reversed itself today. Today's small armies are composed primarily of the upper classes with sprinklings of the middle classes to serve as officers. The reason that the upper classes no longer serve in the army can be directly connected to that 'loss of self worth' found in the years between 1918 and 1939. One commentator describes the Lost Generation as "disillusioned by the large number of casualties of the First World War, cynical, disdainful of the notions of morality and propriety held by their elders, and ambivalent about 19th-Century gender ideals." These survivors of the slaughter of the Great War decided that they could remake the world they lived in. With so few intellectuals and men of susbtance around it was up to this small band to remake Western Civilization. Rather than working to pick up the pieces they sought to re-arrange them altogether. This was not neccesarily what the men who had returned from the Great War wanted, but being shell-shocked into silence these returnees were unable to have as much of a 'cultural' impact as those who had managed to sit out the war in French coffee houses sipping lattes.

These 'cultural critics' who had survived the war unscathed set about reconstructing a reality. Their reality would include two classes. There would be a class of cultural elites who would do no work and would be paid to think and critique, sort of a professional art critic class. Below that class would be a class of beasts, poor people who would be worshipped for their romanticism but would be kept dependent on the state, poor, wretch and savage, forced to live in a Hobbesian world of urban decay in which they would fester but never be allowed out. There would be no social mobility in this new society. There would be only the chosen 'right thinking' people and the beasts who would be expected to do most of the work. The old gods, such as money and religion, those 'opiums of the people' would be pushed aside to form a 'just' society where wealthy cultured people would all be 'equal'.

This new creation of a society based on inherited wealth, lack of work, lack of nation, lack of religion and lack of responsibility or morality, could only be created so long as class divisions could be exploited to play different races, religions, and classes off against eachother. This is exactly what happened. From 1914 to 2008 the world has been rocked by a series of wars based on race (The Second World War), economics (The Cold War) and Religion (The current war with Islamism). But all the while the elites of western society, who have benefited from the fact that the poor can be convinced to go die for their country, have created a lifestyle without borders where those who have benefited the most from capitalist society can go from country to country without loyalties. The likes of George Soros is but one example. Born to a Jewish family of Esperanto afficianados in Hungary he moved to England after the war. By 1956he was in New York working in the financial markets. He gained a reputation for financial piracy and brilliance, 'breaking' the Bank of England and preying on southeast Asian currencies, for which he was called an "economic war criminal." At some point he became involved in politics and 'political activism.' Soros then went on to tear down and insult the leaders of the country that had taken him in and allowed him to gain such wealth. His organization, Moveon.org, compared Bush to Hitler and accused the U.S General Patreaus in iraq of being 'General betrayus'. A victim of Nazi and Soviet oppression one might have thought he would be on the side of gunowners who wish tod efend themselves from an overeaching federal government, but Soros is an advocate of gun control. As a Jew one might think he would by sympathetic to victims of anti-semitism, but once again he blames his own country, claiming that "Bush" is responsible for anti-semitism. In the greatest hypocrisy of all he is a critic of "globalization", perhaps forgetting that it was the global linking of markets and currencies that helped make him billions of dollars. Today George Soros is one of the greatest haters of America, one of those who believes the "American empire" must fall. IN yet another irony, it is that 'empire' that helped him make his billions. Had he stayed in Hungary he would be a middle class marginal person.
George Soros is representative of the new class that emerged in the wake of the Great War. He represents the ideology of hating the hand that feeds you and of having no loyalty to anything. A person like George Soros would not have been able to fill even the lowliest shoes of the knights around Henry V. The ideology of a man such as this prevents him from ever putting himself in harms way or doing any sort of self sacrifice. His story is not unlike all the stories of wealthy Americans who, after 9/11, chose to leave America because they didn't like the 'patriotism' that was sweeping the country. Hollywood actresses and actors such as Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda have been at the forefront of such extremism. Sarandon for one said people in America didn't want to "risk the lives of their sons for Iraq." This is a modern interpretation of war, since in the old days, as has been seen, it was actually people risking their own lives, not their children. Robert Redford believes that the real American patriotism lies in ending the reliance on fossil fuels. But Mr. Reford flies his own helicopter and has a private jet, both of which require those same fossil fuels.
One can see the same problem in Israel. In the three recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem it has been armed civilians and off-duty soldiers who have shot the terrorists. They have also all been related to one another ideologically as part of what is called the 'national religious' movement in Israel. While even the leftist newspaper Haaretz has praised this movement in the wake of the last terrorist attack for inculcating 'self-sacrifice' in the minds of their youth it is clear that the thanks is only half hearted. These are, after all, the same people who the left would like to evict from their homes (which more often than not consist of trailers) in the territories since these are the 'settlers'. By removing these nationally inclined religious people the left hopes to preserve its own status as an elite. When one examines this elite, for instance the family of the current Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, they find that they are entirely composed of 'internationalists' with loyalties to none but themselves. Olmert's children all live in the West where they receive money working for various kinds of NGOs, some of which are anti-Israel. In addition Olmert's wife received, for many years, money stolen from his own political party to fly back and forth to the U.S to sell her paintings. Such is the disdain of the modern elite for his state.
Some have said that the solution to the problem of having so many of the elites avoid military service and at the same time hate their own country and actively work against their country would be to reinstate national service in the U.S and Europe. This solution might work to force the elites to go to the military but it would also be massive drain on the economy since a country like the U.S would have nothing to do with millions of men between the ages of 18 and 23 under arms. A better solution would be to enact a twist on what the Romans did and give only those who have served in the armed forces the right to vote. This would be a small step towards disenfranchising those who are,in fact, parasites, feeding on nations throughout the world but who have loyalty to none. The Old aristocracy was not as parasitical because it expected to be called upon to fight and die to preserve its status. The 19th century and early 20th century proved a turning point for these old elites, when modernity provided them the creature comforts to relax and grow fat and the expansion of industry allowed for the creation of mass armies of citizens. The destruction of the last serving generation of aristocrats in the Great War led to a profound disillusionment. This led also the creation of a new class of elites dedicated only to themselves who did not see their nation's interests as dovetailing with their own. Their interests in the modern world were only selfish and they could find the same five star hotels and lattes in any country of the world.
Countries should not have to give rights to those that hate them. George Soros, like Emma Goldman, should be deported. There is no reason he should call himself an American. He is not an American. He is an 'internationalist' and he should therefore be a citizen of the world, if such a citizenship exists, but there is no reason he should be allowed to have an American Passport. Wealthy elites and 'cultural critics' should be deprived of their citizenship until they have done some service towards their country. We operate under the false impression that being born in a certain place gives someone the right to be a member of the country in which they were born. Citizenship should be earned, not given. It should come with certain responsibilities, much like the knights of old had responsibilities. The fact that people do not earn any of their rights makes them take them for granted and this causes the present obsession with being a 'citizen of the world' and a 'citizen of humanity'. One may well call themselves a citizen of the word, but then they should go live in that world and not plague their host country with their bile.




Stereotypes and the end of diversity
Seth J. Frantzman
July 22nd, 2008

One is forever asked to stop stereotyping people. I recall this trend beginning in my high school in the years 1994-1998. There was an ever-increasing obsession with the word 'stereotype' and the idea that any generalization against any group of people, especially those considered minorities, was unacceptable and racist. Since that period the idea that any generalization is unacceptable has grown to the most extreme proportions and penetrated the minds of people worldwide. At a recent gathering I was explaining to a person the way in which minorities tend to dominate certain niches in society. This is an observable fact. Minorities, due to discrimination, expertise, history or poverty, tend to gather in certain places and affix themselves to certain trades. I gave the example of the way in which the Irish found themselves in the police departments of many American cities. In the same period Italians found themselves at the heads of crime families, the mafia or cosanostra. The leftist objected to this characterization and said "you should be careful with your stereotypes." If we were living in a utopian leftist-Stalinist world in which thoughts and certain types of 'hate' speech were illegal than I would indeed have to be careful. The insinuation that one must be 'careful' and 'watch what they say' in terms of stereotyping is a threat. It is a threat predicated on the idea that one may be expressing 'racist' views and that one is thus outside the realms of acceptable society. What is most interesting is the fact that a society hung up on stereotypes must necessarily do away with that other liberal god, diversity.

Diversity and a lack of stereotyping are at odds with eachother. The theory that there can be no stereotypes and no generalizations sees a world in which everyone is exactly the same. In this world there is no difference between a man from Tamil Nadu and a man from the Chaco. This world is one of color-blindness. It is one in which people are no more or less likely to do, say or act a certain way based on where they come from or based on their race, ethnicity or culture. This world has no diversity. How can there be diversity if all people are exactly the same? If there is no difference between a Sikh and a Sinti then they are the same. It doesn't matter that one is a religious group with a diaspora that holds to certain values. It doesn't matter that the other is an ethnic group of former nomads from India who live in Europe.

The death of stereotypes leads necessarily to the death of diversity. Once diversity dies then man's ability to reason dies. Once man cannot reason he becomes worse than the dumbest of beasts for he cannot tell the difference between things. Think of a simple stereotype such as 'Dennys serves large breakfasts'. This expresses a very clear distinction between what Dennys offers and what other restaurants in a similar category, such as IHOP, offer. The preference for Dennys over IHOP represents a discriminating taste. If Dennys were Hispanics and IHOP was Japanese people we would call this racist because it means someone has expressed a value judgment against a certain group. But the truth is that Japanese people do not eat large breakfasts. To make a distinction based on a simple thing that does not rule out that one group can be perfectly decent and equal in other areas does not represent some terrible form of racism. It does, however, represent a stereotype. But stereotypes are how people live there lives.

The leftist often claims to abhor the stereotype. But his claim does not correspond to reality. If one sits and listens to leftists speak for more than a short period of time they will soon here the hatred come pouring out. They will hear things like "Republicans are liars" or "the Orthodox beat their children" and "Catholic priests are pedophiles." The leftist is full of anger and disdain for the other. What the leftist has constructed is a world in which worthwhile stereotypes must be pushed aside. Those stereotypes and inform of the very real and present differences between groups of people in society, the ones that make society so interesting, are the ones we are asked to do away with. We are supposed to replace our benign judgments with harsh and hateful accusations against certain groups, such as Catholics, Serbs or Republicans or whomever the current bogeyman is.

The stereotype is the most important characterization in society. It is everything that society is made up of. The diversity of the world and its people requires the stereotype. Without the lazy Mexicans, the Italian Mafia, the Muslim terrorist, the miserly Jew and the arrogant WASP we would be in a world full of dull android-like beasts, something akin to living in a society of water buffalo, sitting forever in a swamp waste-deep in our own filth, unable to see more than a few feet in front of out faces. Some people want such a world. They desire a world free from stereotypes, generalizations, racism and discrimination. But such a world would be dull, like all those futuristic worlds in which everyone lives in a bubble and wears the same clothing. Racism is a curse but its cure is not to white-wash the world and try to control our minds. The cure is to have healthy stereotypes and generalizations. All things in moderation leads to a decent world of interesting people.