The central theory of modern progressive/liberal thinking is multiculturalism. Why is this? Some critics of progressive/liberal orthodoxy claim that “liberals are just insane”. I don’t agree. I believe that it is more primitive than that. I believe that the orthodoxy is more like tribalism, with multiculturalism as the popular euphemism and the “politics of division” is the grand strategy. Where America was first envisioned as a melting pot, modern progressive/liberal theory would describe it as a salad bowl.

In the former, the various ingredients mix together, each contributing their distinct flavors and creating one delicious dish. In a salad, there is no mixing of essential characteristics. Each ingredient retains its own distinct identity and remains separate from the others. There is no mixing and therefore the ability is there to separate out each different ingredient – for special attention.

Just as it is simple to divide lettuce from tomatoes in a salad, it is easy to divide Democrat from Republican, young from old, male from female, white from color, thin from fat, able from disabled, rich from poor, religious from agnostic, drug dependent from sober, straight from gay, self-sufficient from dependent, givers from takers, homeowners from homeless, law abiding from lawless, citizens from undocumented immigrants, workers from the unemployed, the educated from the ignorant, athletes from academicians, celebrities from commoners and human beings from fetuses.

In America, progressives/liberals actively seek to establish, through the politics of division, a dominant tribe consisting of the Democrats, the young, the female, people of color, the poor, the overweight, the disabled, the non-religious, the mind-addled, the dependent, the takers, the homeless, the lawless, the undocumented, the unemployed, the ignorant, the (male) athlete, the sexually non-traditional, the celebrities and those condoning the termination of life in the womb.

Their converts all have something in common. They all believe that big government has the solution to all of their problems – all they have to do is to make enough noise and someone else will pay for that solution. Of course, a dominant tribe requires a submissive tribe in their zero-sum world. Don’t agree? Check this out.

“According to the common usage, ‘Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a group or groups. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.’ Tribalism has been defined in behavioral terms as “engaged theory”, a ‘way of being’ that is based upon variable combinations of “kinship-based” organization, reciprocal exchange (gift-giving, quid pro quo, etc.), oral communication and mythology. Kinship, in the political sense, means fellow voyagers in a certain political orbit.”

In this discussion, tribalism can imply the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. Based on strong relations of proximity and ideological kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a strong feeling of identity. Intense feelings of common identity can lead people to feel tribally connected.

Many tribes refer to themselves with their language’s word for “people,” while referring to “other” tribes with various epithets. For example, the term “Inuit” translates as “people,” to one Arctic area tribe but they are known to the neighboring Ojibwe tribe by a name ‘Eskimo’ translating roughly as “eaters of raw meat”, not a flattering picture. Similarities exist in modern political discourse.

Why then, are the non-PLDC members of American society not tribal? Because for almost two-hundred years they have been aggragating and assimilating into one society that was all-inclusive and stretched from coast-to-coast in city and country alike. New groups arrived and strived for inclusion. All had to overcome hardships that previous groups placed in their way but persistence and a determination to be accepted by society prevailed. Certainly the experience of the Irish-Americans, the Italian-Americans and the African-Americans (from 1865 until the Great Depression) are prime examples.

Perhaps the most common modern references to tribalism (although not labeled as such are in the discussion of the fabled “other” with respect to the perceived racist relationship of American whites to people of color. The implication is usually that the white (tribe) is primitive in its attitude towards the “other” tribes – people not ‘like’ them as evidenced by common racial epithets. Racial epithets, of course, are not new, with wop, spick, mick and Jew being some of the more “famous”.

The common reaction to this “criticism” among majority-white political “tribes” in America is interesting; with progressive/ liberal tribal advocates seeming to try and “right this wrong” with “gifts” of government assistance for all manner of needs “from cradle to grave” with an implied quid pro quo – vote for me and the gifts will keep coming. Those of the “conservative” persuasion tend to offer a “hand up not a hand-out”. Which is the most primitive (tribal) approach? At least the critics are half right.

“In the past 50 years, anthropologists have greatly revised the [theoretical] understanding of the tribe. Anthropologists …began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title of one book, the author referred to these tribal cultures as “the Original Affluent Society,” not necessarily for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want.

Some philosophical writings have led to a school of thought by “new tribalists” pursuing what author Daniel Quinn dubbed the “New Tribal Revolution”. The new tribalists use the term “tribalism” not in it’s widely thought of “derogatory” sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community. New tribalists insist that this is, in fact, the natural state of humanity, and is proven by two million years of human evolution.”

This belief, of course, is an absurdity since evolution, by its very nature, means a change to a more efficient, effective and beneficial state – one able to succeed over competing, less advanced systems. Global tribalism was a state of human civilization that has been replaced in most of the modern world by large societies who foster cooperation through common agreement between the varied members of that society and “government” institutions that provide collective benefit to all. Just compare 1st World to 3rd World countries and decide for yourself.

Some members of modern society however, seem to have reverted to the tribal stage, at least for the purposes of the leaders of that society with respect to the other members. The Democrat Party in America, for instance, has made the characteristics described by these “New Tribalists” – an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community seeking leisure and lack of want – the centerpiece of their leaders’ governing philosophy.

I recently came across an interesting and humorous piece by linguist David Logan talking about the “five tribal stages”:

“Stage 1: Despairing Hostility: “Life sucks”: If people at Stage One had T-shirts, they would read “life sucks,” and what comes out of their mouths support this adage. People at this stage are despairingly hostile, and they band together to get ahead in a violent and unfair world. [Do you know anyone in this state of evolution?]

Stage 2: Apathetic Victim: “My life sucks”: People in this cultural stage are passively antagonistic; they cross their arms in judgment yet never really get interested enough to spark any passion. Their laughter is quietly sarcastic and resigned. The Stage Two talk is that they’ve seen it all before and watched it all fail. The mood that results from Stage Two’s theme, “my life sucks,” is a cluster of apathetic victims.

Stage 3: Lone Warrior: “I’m great (and you’re not)”: People at Stage Three have to win, and for them winning is personal. They’ll outwork and outthink their competitors on an individual basis. The mood that results is a collection of “lone warriors,” wanting help and support and being continually disappointed that others don’t have their ambition or skill. Because they have to do the tough work (remembering that others just aren’t as savvy), their complaint is that they don’t have enough time or competent support.

Stage 4: Tribal Pride: “We’re great (and they’re not)”: A “we’re great” tribe always has an adversary – the need for it is hardwired into the DNA of this cultural stage. A tribe will seek out its own competitor, and the only one who has influence over the “target” is the Tribal Leader. The rule for Stage Four is this: the bigger the foe, the more powerful the tribe.

Stage 5: Innocent Wonderment: “Life is great”: Stage Five’s T-shirt would read “life is great,” and they haven’t been doing illicit substances. Their language revolves around infinite potential and how the group is going to make history – not to beat a competitor, but because doing so will make a global impact. This group’s mood is “innocent wonderment,” with people in competition with what’s possible, not with another tribe.

The first stage is pretty much about survival and safety and getting together to outsmart the cruel environment. The second stage is more personal and non-motivational in nature. The third stage is about accomplishment (outwork and outthink) and has an achievement (ambition and skill) focus. The fourth is the most tribal with social focus and a visible ‘enemy’ or competitor tribe. The fifth stage has an imaginative and innovative (infinite potential) focus about competition with what’s possible.” Now check out the political party platforms and the target audiences for contemporary political ad campaigns. You decide who’s who.

Let’s return to “Multiculturalism”. It is pedaled to the masses as “diversity” in the form of numerical goals (read quotas based on skin color) for society and is celebrated in all of the great liberal-controlled institutions. It is trumpeted as a goal in itself! We are told that the strength of a nation can be measured by its diversity, its numerical inclusion in societies’ institutions based upon physical characteristics. I say “baloney”! Diversity is NOT a source of strength; it is a source of strength-sapping diversions from the real essentials of national strength.

In the progressive/liberal lexicon, diversity celebrates difference for difference’ sake. That’s non-sensical, especially when considering the Rev. Martin Luther King’s admonishment that people must NOT be judged “…by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Every human life, of course, has value, but, a more enlightened approach, and one that can be embraced by all, is to celebrate uniqueness – a valuable difference – that measures an individual’s character through their contribution to the advancement of human society – not just another mouth to feed.

Additionally, diversity has grown popular in our “Age of Celebrity”, where the more unique – the more different – a person is, the greater his or her celebrity – or position in the celestial sphere of “stars” in our culture. The scale of celebrity is dependent upon the degree of uniqueness – how far away from the norm (the statistical term) the individual is.

Therefore, difference is to be celebrated so people should strive for success by being different. Unfortunately, society only succeeds when individuals give up some of their uniqueness for the common good. The world could not afford for everyone to have their “champagne tastes and caviar dreams” fulfilled – with apologies to Robin Leach. Want to see how the progressive/liberals use celebrity to push diversity and multiculturalism to the forefront of our culture? Here’s how:

According to journalist Todd Starnes, for years, boys and girls at South Arbor Charter Academy have been inspired by Heroes Hall – a corridor featuring an original mural that had been a part of the Michigan charter school for years. It included a diverse group of national and global “heroes” – from Gandhi to the astronauts who were killed when the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded over Texas, Mother Teresa, Betsy Ross and Albert Einstein. Those images were replaced with those of President Obama, Oprah, Maya Angelou, “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling and Walt Disney. “This is no longer a hall of heroes,” one parent said. “Now we have a hall of celebrities.”

Another parent said that the new mural sends the wrong message to children in the K-8 school. “My biggest concern is my kid seeing these murals for the next four years – thinking they represent what a hero is. They might be successful business people [and/or politicians] but they aren’t really heroes.”

The school’s new mural really transforms the concept of what makes a person a hero. Another parent: “The mere fact that you have talent doesn’t mean you are a hero. I want someone who made a life investment – perhaps they even sacrificed their life – so that our society and so our world could be a better place.”

So what the heck is going on here? Why did the South Arbor Charter Academy remove a mural memorializing the fallen Columbia astronauts and replace it with one honoring President Obama? The school spokesperson said it was part of an intentional shift from “historical heroes” to “modern-day heroes.” “Heroes Hall has been a part of the school’s fabric for years,” she said. “In fact, the old mural had been on the wall for at least 11 years. As with all things over time, it was showing its age from the activities of being an active school and needed some repair.”

(Another progressive/liberal trick – through deliberate, inappropriate usage – remember “deconstruction” – change the popular meaning of a common word and then hope no one notices until it has become part of the vernacular that sounds good, but now furthers the liberal cause. The best example – marriage – but, in this case, historical – as in ‘difference maker’ – has been deconstructed to mean ‘opinion maker’.

So why not just hire an artist and touch up Mother Teresa? Why paint over her entire face? And who made that decision? The principal appointed a blue-ribbon panel of four staffers to select who the new heroes should be. There was no parental involvement. “The principal of the school hand-picked and self-appointed the group.”

Once they gave her their final decisions, she solely approved the list. “Previously, it was very well-balanced and respected a lot of different thoughts,” parents said. “Instead, it’s become more of a political issue. There’s definitely a certain genre of pictures here.” Judging from who they selected – it’s pretty clear the “new and improved Heroes Hall” is not fair and balanced [in a political sense – it reflects the progressive/liberal ideology that, apparently, holds all of the power at the Academy].

The school spokesperson said Heroes Hall is a “tangible way for students to see that despite circumstances in life, you can achieve great things through hard work, dedication, and the moral focus virtues.” What, pray tell, are “moral focus virtues”? According to the school spokesperson, the school culture is built on virtues that emphasize “wisdom, respect, gratitude, self-control, perseverance, courage, encouragement, compassion and integrity. “And the new heroes, she said, embody those virtues. [The implication, of course, is that Mother Theresa did not represent these virtues.]

She said Rowling shows the children wisdom, Steve Jobs shows the children integrity [as in denying his daughter who, with her mother, lived on welfare?], Oprah represents compassion [rather than massive handouts to her audiences that brought her fame and fortune], Disney represents courage [ huh?] and Maya Angelou shows the children perseverance [her first book, an autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969) brought her international fame and fortune. Perseverance connotes struggle – not the case here.] As for President Obama – well he shows the children encouragement. “Our goal all along is to encourage our students to believe in themselves, work hard and be brave enough to dream,” she said. [Like winning the Nobel peace Prize for no apparent reason.]

But that’s just not sitting well with the parents at the school. “They may be some of the most influential people in American history, but they are not heroes,” they said. For the record, the children are not required to sing praise songs or genuflect in the presence of the president’s mural.

Starnes concludes; “At the end of the day – the school is going to do what the school is going to do. But it’s really a shame the principal didn’t ask the public for their recommendations. How about the Navy SEALs who got Usama bin Laden? What about the firefighters and police officers who died on 9/11 or those who defended our consulate in Benghazi or the child who asked for donations to charity instead of birthday presents? Those are true American heroes.”

It’s obvious why the principal and his chosen few decided who was a hero and who didn’t meet the “new and improved” criteria. They reject the primary standard definition of “hero”, which states: “…somebody who commits an act of remarkable bravery or who has shown an admirable quality such as great courage or strength of character.” Beyond the definition, of course, is the true cultural meaning – one who has done truly selfless and remarkable things that no ordinary person could be expected to do.

The “new and improved” criteria that were used to select this group of “heroes” obviously does not include personal bravery and enormous personal sacrifice for a truly altruistic goal. The criteria are pure deconstruction. The most common demonstration of such altruistic qualities is found in the American military. Two examples:

Tennessee’s own Alvin York received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in France on October 8, 1918. During an attack by his battalion to capture German positions near Hill 223 along the Decauville rail-line north of Chatel-Chéhéry, France. He later recalled:

“The Germans got us, and they got us right smart. They just stopped us dead in our tracks. Their machine guns were up there on the heights overlooking us and well hidden, and we couldn’t tell for certain where the terrible heavy fire was coming from … And I’m telling you they were shooting straight. Our boys just went down like the long grass before the mowing machine at home. Our attack just faded out … And there we were, lying down, about halfway across [the valley] and those German machine guns and big shells getting us hard.”

Four non-commissioned officers, including recently promoted Cpl. York, and thirteen privates were ordered to infiltrate behind the German lines to take out the machine guns. The group worked their way behind the Germans and overran the headquarters of a German unit, capturing a large group of German soldiers who were preparing a counter-attack against the U.S. troops. While the men were contending with the prisoners, machine gun fire suddenly peppered the area, killing six Americans. The fire came from German machine guns on the ridge.

The loss of the nine put Corporal York in charge of the seven remaining U.S. soldiers. As his men remained under cover, guarding the prisoners, York worked his way into position to silence the German machine guns. York later recalled:

“And those machine guns were spitting fire and cutting down the undergrowth all around me something awful. And the Germans were yelling orders. You never heard such a racket in all of your life. I didn’t have time to dodge behind a tree or dive into the brush… As soon as the machine guns opened fire on me, I began to exchange shots with them. There were over thirty of them in continuous action, and all I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting… All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn’t want to kill any more than I had to. But it was they or I. And I was giving them the best I had.”

During the assault, six German soldiers in a trench near York charged him with fixed bayonets. York had fired all the rounds in his Enfield rifle, but drew his .45 Colt automatic pistol and shot all six soldiers before they could reach him.

Captain John Philip Cromwell (born September 11, 1901!!) was the most senior submariner awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II and one of the three submarine officers who received it posthumously. In some ways similar to his fellow honoree, Howard Gilmore, Cromwell consciously chose to sacrifice his own life to safeguard the lives of others in combat that took place in November 1943. During 1942–43, Cromwell commanded Submarine Divisions 203, 44 and 43, flying his pennant in USS Sculpin (SS-191). He went to sea in Sculpin as commander of a mid-Pacific submarine wolf-pack. Sculpin was commanded by LCDR Fred Connaway, making his first war patrol. If conditions warranted, Cromwell would form a wolf-pack with four other fleet submarines under his direction.

As a senior officer, Cromwell was completely familiar with the plans for the upcoming Battle of Tarawa, Operation Galvanic, and knew a lot more about allied codebreaking – ULTRA (British) and MAGIC (American) – and its source (Navy cryptographers had broken the Japanese Naval Code just before the Battle of the Coral Sea in April 1942 and confirmed it just before the Battle of Midway in July 1942) – than anyone else on Sculpin. While attacking a Japanese convoy on November 19, 1943, Sculpin was forced to the surface, fatally damaged in a gun battle and abandoned by her surviving crew members. This action left CAPT Cromwell facing a fateful choice. With his personal knowledge of both ULTRA and GALVANIC, he realized immediately that to abandon ship and become a prisoner of the Japanese would create a serious danger of compromising these vital secrets to the enemy under the influence of drugs or torture.

For this reason, he refused to leave the stricken submarine and gave his life to avoid capture. He and 11 others rode Sculpin on her final plunge to the bottom, where their secrets would be safe forever. Forty-two members of Sculpin’s crew – three officers and 39 enlisted men – were pulled from the sea by the Japanese, though one of the latter, badly wounded, was thrown back. The 41 survivors were taken to the island of Truk and interrogated for ten days by Japanese intelligence officers.

The group was divided in half for transport back to Japan on two escort carriers – 21 on IJS Chuyo and 20 on IJS Unyo. Those on Unyo arrived in Japan in early December and spent the rest of the war working in the Ashio copper mines, after which they were repatriated to tell their story.

On the evening of 3 December 1943, 240 miles southeast of Yokosuka – with some help from ULTRA – USS Sailfish (SS-192) sank Chuyo, and only one of the Sculpin prisoners onboard survived.

For his sacrificial heroism in preventing the enemy from obtaining this information, Captain John Cromwell posthumously received the Medal of Honor.

Finally, Republican President Ronald Reagan, in Normandy, France in June 1984, introduced America to an immortal group of heroes on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day, the 6th of June 1944.

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For 4 long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 [U.S. Army] Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.

Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers — the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine-guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing.

Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After 2 days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought — or felt in their hearts, though they couldn’t know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

Something else helped the men of D-day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: ‘Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we’re about to do.’ Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: “I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.”

These are heroes! No one in the “new and improved” group of “heroes” has demonstrated anything close to the qualities demonstrated by real heroes – not President Obama, Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and Maya Angelou, “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling or Walt Disney. They may all be nice people but they are merely famous – not heroic – but in the pursuit of political power, true heroes can be dangerous because they are altruistic and selfless – not self-absorbed.

These “new heroes” do however; suit the progressive/liberal agenda. If we all learn to identify people like the “new heroes” as true heroes, then almost anyone can consider themselves heroes and feel good about it. No need to stand for some noble principle – like liberty or freedom – just be successful in your own eyes, or in the eyes of the right people and – presto – you’re a hero.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s