Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Bombers and Terrorists Repeat U.S. History

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat I read reports like Madeleine Morgenstern's, I find myself remembering a bit of history that's often overlooked because it is, let's face it, unflattering to Anglo-Americans. Not too flattering to any Caucasians actually.

Namely: When the first Anglo-Americans came to this continent, they were few, poor, and puny. They had survived long sea voyages that had left them half-starved and losing whatever immunity they had inherited or built up to the infections they brought here. Most of them weren't especially popular or powerful back in England; in fact many were "remittance men," if not convicts, who wouldn't be welcome at home if they survived a return trip. They were very, very polite to the alien nations who were already living here. If they'd come here as a war party, they would have had less chance than the proverbial snowball in July.

So how could they end up becoming the dominant ethnic group? Superior technology--no, that came much later. Those infectious diseases were probably the primary reason why we're now an English-speaking country. Whatever else you may say about the British they had built up extraordinary collective resistance to an extraordinary variety of often-fatal diseases.

But also...when Native Americans did notice that (a) one or two members of a group of immigrants looked unhealthy, and (b) after getting within ten feet of these sick people their spokesmen would bring back infections that would wipe out most of the village, they weren't all that peaceable or all that stupid. They would start issuing strong hints that the British should take their germs back to wherever they'd come from. And then the British would try European-style diplomacy. Having determined that there were different nations on this continent, they would start rumors going among each group that the other group was planning to attack them. Very often this would start a war, and then the warriors in each group would be too busy fighting serious enemies to worry about a few pathetic immigrants who seemed likely to die, anyway, if left alone. And meanwhile the British would be gathering reinforcements...and we all know the rest of the story.

Is this bit of history being repeated? Look at these news stories. A bomb for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the well-known conservative. Bombs at the Boston Marathon, a non-political event known to attract brave, strong, public-spirited people. A poison letter for a Republican in the U.S. Senate. A poison letter for President Obama, whose position is way out to the left of "Democrat" or even "progressive." A "suspicious" letter for a Democrat. And look at all the rumors...we hope a White man did it, or we hope a Black man did it, or maybe (I know this came from the Clintons) some sort of premature anniversary of the Waco holocaust, or maybe a leftie who hates Sheriff Joe or a right-wing nut who hates the President.

Why am I thinking that, before this round of attacks is over, we'll have heard them blamed on every demographic group in this country?

Whatever demographic group or groups the bombers and poisoners belong to is probably irrelevant. All they need to have in common is that they are evildoers. They are also despicable vermin who deserve neither quick humane executions nor long prison terms at the taxpayers' expense, but that's not the main point of this post. The point here is that these United States are facing another kind of invasion, again from the overcrowded "Old World" side of the planet. If we unite in opposition to U.N. power grabs, as this web site recommends we do, can we be induced to turn against one another and destroy ourselves, making things easier for our real enemies? Can people who wouldn't dream that they stood a chance in an overt war with the U.S. create enough internal chaos to...hey, it worked once, it just might work again.