Education policy post 1

(Creative title, I know)

We need to reform how we teach high school. As I was going for a walk today I was thinking about how to learn effectively and how I have found mathematics to be the most important subject in my education in terms of the tools it has given me. All of the most important tools I have learned in political economy are ultimately mathematical. From these tools comes the rest of the work I do and it allows me to understand fields I have never studied intensely because I understand the underlying logic of what they are arguing.

A big issue for me through school was making sure I got enough math to continue to the next step in my education so I can get to where I need to go. This was extremely frustrating for me, and left me without the mathematical tools I needed to continue my science education.

But what about English? As I was thinking about this today on my daily walk the books we were reading in English had large philosophical backdrops to them which were barely covered in school. The process of effectively writing is used in every class, and should be integrated as such. When it comes to literature however, they are based deeply in philosophy. I think while teaching such subjects we should introduce students to the major schools of thought so they can start to put the pieces together and understand what other books these authors were reading so that students can make the connection between the different books and time periods. The other subject literature comes from is history. If one is reading a books based in a time and place, there are probably political overtones to it, and in order to pick those up one needs to understand what was happening in that time and place. Reading books from Latin America is all well and good (we read a few in my IB English class) but doesn't do any good if you are not at the same time learning about the history of that region. I didn't take the history class at the same time, but feel like if I had taken it I would have understood the books a lot more, like the year before when history and English went through the same events at the same time.

To fully understand the books I think it would be useful to read them in chronological order and talk about the schools of thought as they evolve in conjunction with history class since literature is so based on history which helps readers see the trends underlying the books we are reading, since in high school this is all new information to most students.

So, literature is based off of history and philosophy and in order to fully understand the literature one must understand the history. Now, to understand history at a deeper level one must understand the political and economic forces underlying those classes. To fully understand this one would then need to understand some basic political science and economics. The political science would cover basic political theory (which starts with the same philosophers as one would use to understand the underlying themes in literature), American government (which we already do to a point), international relations (so one can understand war and why they occur), along with comparative politics (so one can actually understand what was happening on Britain's side of the American Revolution or how Germany fell into the Third Reich) are the four fundamental bases to political science and would greatly supplement the studying of history and increase understanding of what is happening.

Economics as well is necessary, and would not take a lot of time to cover the basic underlying principles such as supply and demand, elasticity, monopoly, oligopoly, perfect competition, and GDP among others. This of course would be done throughout the year and would help students understand the evolution of economic history and history as a whole because economics is such a fundamental part of society and how we live day to day.

And the really beautiful thing about this is in order to fully understand what economics is and do the problems in a way so that you can apply them to history you need to understand mathematics. This is one of the primary reasons why if a middle schooler asked me for advice about their education I would say to make certain they learn their mathematics at as high a level as possible because practically everything else they will ever study will ultimately be ultimately based on mathematics.

This is why I think of mathematics is the fundamental building block to most of our education. In order to understand literature you need to understand history and philosophy. In order to understand history you need to understand economics. A great deal of philosophy has to do with economics. In order to understand economics you need to understand mathematics. The patterns in music and art can be represented using mathematics which show the patterns which we perceive as beauty. The only fundamental part of a well rounded education that does not revolve around mathematics is learning foreign languages.

Mathematics truly is the language of the universe.

Vote like your life depended on it

The Guardian published an article today by an African American claiming that he won't be voting in American elections anymore because there is racism in our system.

The problem with this article is that he is taking the worst route. Let's say we have a system for ranking parties on their social values from liberal (+10) to conservative (-10) and you look at your ballot and you have one party which ranks as a -1 and another which ranks as a -5. As long as your personal ideological score is -2.5 or higher you are always better off voting for the liberal party. Sure, you might not get everything you want and there will be more progress to be made, but you need to recognize that you can start to push the election system back to where you want it to be whether it be 2.5 or 10.

In economics we have a concept known as the Production Possibilities Frontier. The concept is that when making decisions there are factors that I cannot change. If I am a firm deciding how much I want to produce in the short run I need to work with the fixed capital (buildings, machines, etc.) that I have. I might want to have 10 factories, but it doesn't matter if I only have 5 in making my immediate decision of my next step. The same applies in political science. I might want to have a party which will smash the legacy of slavery into the dustbin of history overnight and bring equality of opportunity to all Americans next year making us a completely egalitarian land, but in the short run this is irrelevant if I don't have that utopian party. More than that, even if a utopian party existed it would take more than one election cycle at this point in history to eliminate the inequities. This does not mean I should not stop fighting for this honorable goal, and by voting for the better of two options I am doing just that.

We are faced with a situation today where the Republican Party denies global warming, denies that issue of police violence, does not recognize the barriers to people making a life for themselves and is directly in the hands of the Koch Brothers and similar individuals. The Democratic Party also takes money from corporate elites (for similar reasons as to why people need to vote even if neither party is absolutely perfect) but also takes a lot of money from unions and are brought into this system from the start which has so many inequities. They have made progress with social welfare programs which disproportionately benefit minorities along with more direct legislation like affirmative action while Republicans have only moved us backwards.

This article makes a major fallacy in that he is looking at the system as it stands today when judging Democratic politicians and not how the system has changed under such individuals. He brings up Governor Martin O'Malley and claims he has no right to talk about criminal justice reform because Maryland still has major incarceration problems. This is however a major mistake for two reasons: 1. The Governor (pr President) may not, cannot, and has not unilaterally decide to overturn decades of law at the stroke of a pen. Such action requires the legislature. To do so without them would completely undermine the Federal constitution or constitution of any state. 2. Our system by design makes it incredibly difficult to get legislation through. These are both extremely good things. While I agree it would be nice to simply overturn legislation because it is immoral (which is what the courts have done in many instances eg Brown v. Board) it would come at a horrible cost because a Republican President could dismantle Social Security at the whiff of a pen. Our system is designed to be inefficient so that we can't have one politician undo the progress that has been made, which is the flip side of what would definitely happen if O'Malley could simply completely overturn the racism of Maryland's long-standing institutions. (it was a slave state after all before the Civil War) What has frequently happened in State legislatures and Congress is that the President will frequently propose legislation which is then significantly diluted by Congress, on both sides of the aisle. The most striking recent example is the Affordable Care Act which stands as a testament to this balance. On the flip side we also have the Americans With Disabilities Act which was vetoed by President George H.W. Bush but was fortunately overriden by Congress. His simple analysis of this issue gives him the wrong results and makes me wonder how much he really understands of how our government works.

This existence of a system set up for deadlock is not empty promises as he goes on about but instead a protection against us from things like C-51 which passed easily in Canada, and is a complete erosion of Canadian Civil Liberties by Stephen Harper.

He is correct however that grassroots activism is a useful tactic in getting politicians to listen, but it will only work in the end if they use their political leverage to force the politicians to respond. If they then just get more Republicans elected to state legislatures in the Deep South you can bet that they will not respond to such movements. Changing the guard and replacing the legislature like he mentions happened in Reconstruction however is a fundamentally different scenario.

History teaches us that we need to use our voices and need to vote to make a significant difference. If the Quakers had abstained in 1860 in protest for James Buchanan's racism Stephen Douglas would have become President and nothing would have changed. That is however not happened with the Civil War, 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and Reconstruction which lasted until people stopped voting for liberal Republican candidates and Hayes was elected ending Reconstruction. It was disengagement which ended reconstruction, and postponed the healing of our country. I have no reason to believe another Republican President is going to make our country better relative to a Democratic President, even in the now unlikely chance that person is Hillary Clinton.

So, fine, don't vote if you want to. But when you don't vote you are in effect increasing the margin of victory for the worst party and shooting the civil rights movement in the foot. This makes it so they will move us even further from where we want to go which is what happened in 2000 when people didn't vote for President and we got our worst President in history (judging based on the changes he made from where we started and where we ended up).

I maybe white, but my Quaker ancestors did not get the 13th amendment passed simply through the Underground Railroad (my great-grandfather's hometown of Richmond, Indiana was one of the most important hubs in the network), but we got it done in the end because we had strong people in Congress such as Thaddeus Stevens and President Lincoln who got the job done. I continue to do what I can to make this country a better place every day. That is the only way we have ever made the world better in a way that is very difficult if not impossible to simply revert in 4 or 8 years. This author's choosing not to vote only shoots our movement in the foot and is giving up on centuries of very hard work which I find personally insulting. This is why I find the author's giving up on our country's future so absolutely despicable.

Presidential rankings and what-ifs

I have made a list of the Presidents of the United States where I rank every President who served for over a year based solely off of what they did and attempted during their time as the President and campaigning to become President. Here is my list:

1. George Washington - for his formation of treaties and respect of Native Americans
2. Abraham Lincoln - for his effort in keeping the United States together and the Emancipation Proclamation
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - For his efforts and success in setting a strong foundation for the 20th century economy, he would be our best if it weren't for the Japanese Internment camps
4. John Fitzgerald Kennedy - For his efforts towards science and combating poverty
5. Dwight David Eisenhower - For his diplomacy, protection of the economy, and prophetic farewell speech.
6. Thomas Jefferson - For his exploration of the American west, preserving trade in the Mediterranean, and diplomacy
7. James Earl Carter - for his strong efforts towards peace around the world, and attempts to gain energy independence for America, he worked towards ending nuclear proliferation, 
8. John Quincy Adams - For his economic wisdom, respect of Native Americans,
9. Harry Truman - For his continuation of building the foundation for the 20th century his predecessor built. He is ranked lower for his dropping of the bombs.
10. Theodore Roosevelt - For his valiant efforts in preserving America’s treasures and national parks, he is ranked lower for his intervention in Latin America.
11. Lyndon Baines Johnson - For his efforts on combating poverty and his overall human rights record. He ranks lower for his intervention in Vietnam.
12. Ulysses S. Grant - For his continuation of Reconstruction
13. Benjamin Harrison - For his advocacy of civil rights, reformation of the civil service
14. Warren G. Harding - for supporting the 8 hour work day, child labor laws, opposition to lynching, and good neighbor policy
15. William McKinley - For his advocacy of civil rights at home and abroad
16. Woodrow Wilson - For his breaking his promise on World War I, anti-German sentiment, his support of the League of Nations keeps him from falling farther.
17. Martin Van Buren - his cowardice in face of anti-Mormonism which he opposed demotes him, he kept peace with Mexico, advocated free trade, and opposed slavery
18. Richard Nixon - EPA, improved relations with China, set up AMTRAK
19. Gerald Ford - environmental regulations, strengthened AMTRAK
20. James Madison - he opposed the national bank which hurt our economy, he started the War of 1812, and protected Native Americans.
21. Zachary Taylor - For his attempts to set up the Western states as free states
22. James Monroe - He started the Seminole Wars, did the Missouri compromise meaning each slave state had to be matched with a free state, his expansionist Monroe doctrine which paved the way for future abuses of Latin America,
23. Chester Alan Arthur - For his signing of the Pendleton Act which put rules against favors, he opposed Mormon polygamy (bad), opposed racism against the Chinese (good), and favored better relations with Native Americans.
24. John Adams - His largest accomplishment was the Alien and Sedition Acts
25. Bill Clinton - he signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, DOMA, DADT, and failed to pass meaningful health care reform. But he balanced the budget and didn’t hurt Medicare, which prevents him from falling further.
26. Barack Obama - For his efforts towards universal health care, ending the Iraq war, and standing up to warmongerers, and his attack on Social Security, and constant giving in to Republican demands when his party controlled both houses of Congress
27. James K. Polk - He was extremely expansionist,
28. Grover Cleveland - For racism, opposition to labor, and imperialism
29. Herbert Hoover - For his obsession with the deficit, protectionist policies, and limited response to the great depression.
30. Calvin Coolidge - His small government rhetoric and lack of leadership made his Presidency unsuccessful albeit popular
31. Franklin Pierce - For his unsuccessful compromise the Kansas-Nebraska Act
32. William Howard Taft - for his attacks on President Roosevelt’s environmental policy
33. Rutherford B. Hayes - For ending Reconstruction
34. John Tyler - For his refusal to form a national bank in the face of an economic collapse
35. Millard Fillmore - For passing the Fugitive Slave Act
36. Andrew Johnson - For his opposition to Reconstruction
37. Andrew Jackson - For his deportation of Native Americans
38. James Buchanan - For his unwillingness to use his power to keep the Union together
39. Ronald Reagan - For negotiating with terrorists to hold Americans hostage until he was President, selling arms to Nicaraguan terrorists, attack on Grenada, and deregulation of the financial sector.
40. George H.W. Bush - For vetoing every good bill that came his way and using the United States military to his benefit (an oilman used the US military to defend a major oil exporter with dreadful human rights, I’m sure there is no conflict of interest.)
41. George W. Bush - For attacking Iraq, destabilizing the financial markets, the PATRIOT ACT, No Child Left Behind Act,

As a reader will tell, I am very progressive and focused heavily on not just outcomes but the meaning behind the act. I am a HUGE Washington fan. People can be great people in terrible circumstances, and that can test their character strongly, like the top three on my list. People can be trapped in situations where they can't get out, like Herbert Hoover was where he tried to pass a lot of legislation but as President he was caught by Congress. A President that doesn't try will not get high on this list (Coolidge), a President who does the wrong thing will get demoted (the Bushes), and a President who in the face of insurmountable odds perseveres for the right thing will get very high on this list (Washington, Roosevelt, Carter, and especially Lincoln).

A graph of Presidents by their time and ranking on this list has some outcomes of order. The longest time a top 10% President was in office was President Roosevelt's term. (no two Presidents of the top five served next to each other) The longest time that the top 10% were in office was from 1933-1963. Johnson almost makes the cut, but no cigar. Depending on how future Presidents perform he might someday be in the top 10%. The longest time the top 50% were in office sequentially was from 1933-1981 from Roosevelt to Carter. The longest time the bottom 10% and bottom 25% were on this list was 1981-1993. The longest time the bottom 50% were on this list in light of Obama's decision to target college funding and Social Security means we are currently breaking this record (nice going Obama).

A few notes of what could have happened if history was different for certain Presidents, and my defense for my decision.

• President Obama would rank higher, and until last week he did (I have been working on this for a few years) but after his proposals last week he sunk about 10 places from where he was before. His decision is not compromise, it is a surrender. His largest failure of what I look for in a great leader is perseverance for good, standing for a needed change for a long time.
• President Carter is ranked especially highly because he chose to do what was right over what was easy throughout his term. No other President comes close to his attempts to foster peace between nations and attempts to make America energy independent. I would propose that what makes Carter usually decided to be an undistinguished President are the forces that he was pushing against from foreign oil and when he proposed the best solution to solve an energy embargo against the economy of the United States he was blockaded by Congress which had turned against him in the midterms. While his accomplishments while in office didn't come close to what was needed, he did what he could to do what had to happen to strengthen our economy and bring peace as President. No other President has seen as much pushback as President Carter, and by my criterion of persevering for the right thing whatever the odds Carter gets big marks from me that pushed him to the top 10. Our country needs leaders who are willing to stand against our enemies, foreign or domestic, people or ideas. He earned his Nobel Prize.
• President Lyndon Johnson would be our greatest President on this list if it weren't for Vietnam which was like every war an ultimately unnecessary war. I know support was started by President Eisenhower but the decision to set up the war lies with Johnson sadly. He was the last Democrat to push through major legislation with major compromises (read surrenders) with the Republicans and to effectively wield the power of the Presidency for good (Although Carter certainly tried, he was fighting a force obviously too powerful). I highly recommend the biographies that Robert Caro has put on and am only 2% into the volume he wrote on his time as President and I am absolutely fascinated by how he lived his life to the fullest.
• President Wilson would rank higher if it weren't for his racism and anti-woman views.
• President Theodore Roosevelt would be much higher if he wasn't so expansionist.
• If President McKinley had served longer he would probably be a greater President on the accomplishment front, but was unable to complete his second term which probably would have allowed him to pass some human rights legislation. His greatness lives in his successor, President Theodore Roosevelt.

I am a big fan of the policies of the top 13 Presidents after which my enthusiasm wanes.

So, those are a few of the opinions I have developed after looking at the successes and failures of every American President who served for over one year, which would be William Henry Harrison and James Abram Garfield.

I hope to post in the near future of what a future President would have to do to climb to the top 5 of this list, which is as possible today as it was in 1961, and given our current challenges, maybe more for my criterion of perseverance over large odds.

Study your history

Seriously though, most of the mistakes we are doing today are repetitions of mistakes our ancestors have made. There are a lot of huge similarities between today and the Great Depression, and our leaders don't seem to understand that in their religious zealotry for Milton Friedman. They are repeating the same mistakes that historical figures have made, namely Andrew Mellon (head of the Federal Reserve from 1921-1932), Herbert Hoover (US President, 1929-1933), and Heinrich Bruning (Last Chancellor of the Weimar Republic 1930-1932). Besides being contemporaneous, these three fine gentlemen (at least they would be if Friedman's guesses were correct, you need some evidence to make a theory, so I will call his writings guesses) followed the assumptions of Milton Friedman while they were in power, before they were replaced by Keynesians in the United States and Nazis in Germany. They desired a limited role for their governments and central banks to play in stimulating their economy, firing of public workers and decreasing wages, and cut government spending. If Milton Friedman was correct, the great depression would have never happened or would have finished before 1933 under their policies, because they did exactly what he and similar guessers would have them do. I hope I don't have to mention that did not happen.

Unfortuntately for the libertarian/Republican/CDU/pseudo-economics etc. movement, this didn't happen. The policies of Mellon, Hoover, Bruning and others with the same mentality led to the worst economic crisis in history. GDPs fell, wages fell, unemployment rates rose, everything that Milton Friedman says wouldn't happen given the situation did. Why do we want to emulate these three crooks?

President Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Prime Minister David Cameron, Chairman Ben Bernanke, President Jens Weidmann, President Mario Draghi, Governor Mervyn King, Secretary Jacob Lew, General Director Christine Lagarde, and Speaker John Boehner, if you people value your legacies, please choose the right path, proven economics over unproven speculated pseudo-economics. Every single one of you has been choosing to emulate the three people I mention above, and you are all doing close to what Milton Friedman would tell you to do, either through austerity or not fighting hard enough for proven economics. Fortunately you aren't doing the last major part of the policies of 1929-1932 which was the shutting down of the global market through tariffs, which created economies that approached that of modern North Korea which is the only country to currently pursue self-sufficiency, but you have managed to do every other important policy that set the great depression in motion and kept it going those four horrible years!

I don't consider the monetarist theories valid economics because they have absolutely no proof for their claims and every single time their ideas have been done the countries that try them have been worse off in the end with higher unemployment, lower GDPs, and other major failures of the global economic system. Please switch to scientifically proven Keynesian economics as soon as you can, because the people of the world need to have a system that works, and we don't have the time or patience to disprove Milton Friedman yet again. Nobody wins with your system in the end, not even the banking crackpots who tell you to do this. We need a system that works now!

Our unemployment is at a 30 year low right now in America, don't make it go any lower!

This post was inspired by Gerald Silverberg, an economist who is willing to do the legwork and prove things before he says them. If only Milton Friedman did the same the world would be a much better place.

BEDA post #7

How to Eliminate Them

Are you a country with a new majority that recently immigrated to find work? Are there people there that are pesky with their strange languages, religions, and cultures you don't want to understand? There is a 3000 year old Indo-Aryan patented 100% satisfaction guaranteed method to eliminate those pesky Thems from society so you may live in luxury.

Step 1 Isolation
Hopefully you have some land you don't want so that you can place Them on it to keep them different from your society. We can't have our children learning about their culture for that would mean integration, the devil's work. This will make sure that you can improve your lifestyle without having to share power with Them.

Step 2 Seperation
You need to be the good leader, and you care about them, their land (infertile as it is) is their land now (they only just moved onto it.) so they should be able to govern themselves. They may not have citizenship because that will give them a voice in your democratic government. They cannot be allowed to travel and under no circumstances may they vote in your elections. This will ensure satisfaction and only a small pesky minority will be discontented and will be easily silenced as you choose without press coverage. There may be no visiting their conditions because they are going to live in poverty for not being part of your master race.

Step 3 Crack down
Why do they need so much land? Their population is rapidly diminishing. It would be acceptable to take some of it off their hands to mine and get resources.

For extra security no one is allowed to visit the homelands because that would only bother the masses. They must be allowed to live in peace.

Does this sound familiar? It should. The United States used this method in the 1800s and South Africa before 1994. It worked beautifully for a while. Any nation that looks similar should be analysed thoroughly to determine that it isn't committing this crime against humanity. Look past whatever the history of the ruling ethnic group is because any group is capable of committing this grave crime.

This is satire. I believe this system is the most cruel and despotic of all systems, but wanted to make it clear in a way on what the values are, separating it from any current biases we all have towards or against any one ethnic group.

A Politically Inconvenient History of Immigration

I am currently taking American History II which spans from 1850-1914 at the local Community College. My book is highly uncensored, talking about all the major aspects of American History, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the politically inconvenient. I have read about my ancestors over the past few weeks, the Irish and German immigrants who settled in the Midwest and East Coast. They also hated the Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the West. According to The Irish Americans: A History 5 million German and 4.5 million Irish immigrants immigrated to America, with concentrations in the Midwest and New England. This was fiercely opposed to by the American "Know-Nothing" party. They used the arguments "steal our jobs," "take over our government" sending us all to the lower class. They wanted a ban on Irish and German immigrants to prevent us from destroying American culture. They didn't work in 19th century business jobs, they worked on farms, and if they were in a city they worked in factories or other low paying hard labor jobs. Their descendants now include most of the powerful people in America who are also descended from people who have been here for hundreds of years.


Fast forward 150 years. There are many immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Many come to work on farms where native-born Americans do not work anymore. They do not work in high-paying jobs and live in poorer areas of America. People opposing these immigrants use the arguments "steal our jobs," "take over our government" sending us all to the lower class. They want a ban on immigrants if not a strict quota to prevent them from destroying American culture.


This is not a new issue. People have been immigrating to America for years to escape poverty and famine or political turmoil in their homeland. Because of this, I am firmly opposed to laws that prevent hard-working people from moving to America. These are recycled arguments, and they are not running out as they should. Somebody in power needs to make this connection in a gigantic speech and destroy the racism that is prevalent in our nation.


There is one difference though between current immigration and historical immigration and it has to do with American foreign policy and economics. In the 1970s America started to cut down on the supply of drugs in America, but people who made the drugs in Central America kept making them. Because the demand didn't drop the cost of the drugs went sky high. In order to fulfill the demand for the drugs drug cartels are transporting drugs at high prices to fulfill the demand. They are the perfect capitalistic businesses, doing anything to fulfill the demand and make a profit. Not to say that drugs are not dangerous, because they are, but the economies of Mexico and Central America are not diverse or strong enough to stand up to the great demand for their dangerous resources. The governments of these countries do not have enough resources to cut down on the cartels and they run rampant.


This would be bad enough, but because we have strict immigration quotas that prevent good workers from migrating on a visa to work here that then as perfect capitalists fulfill the unfilled demand for work here in America they have to come over at places where they will not get their visa. Racist people in the media who oppose any immigration then make a false connection between the drug dealers and the farm workers which causes people to believe that their false connection is the truth. This makes political clout that prevents any reform to fix the problem. That is just what that side of the issue is, racist hence unamerican.


Another issue of this is that the workers on the farms who do not have visas then are not paid the same as their native born competitors which as businesses many farms will want the cheapest  worker to expand their personal income. They do not get any benefits and if any abuse happens they cannot go to any authority to report it because they will be returned to Mexico jobless and impoverished, back to square one.


How do we solve this problem? I think what we need to do is rewrite our immigration policy to allow workers to get visas to do farm work. Another bonus for everyone would be that the workers on visas would pay into social security and income tax, eliminating the argument that they do not pay for their government services. This would allow workers to report abuse on the farms and end their need to come across at unguarded and dangerous spots on the border. The only people who would come across at those spots would be drug dealers. If we write the law so that people coming across who are suspected to be drug dealers have to get their car sensed for drug fumes and then arrested than the problem with the drug trade would diminish. This would make the dangerous parts of Mexico and central American safer because the cartels would not have the money and power that they currently have. Everybody wins, except for the drug cartels.


America, the fate of the hemisphere is in your hands.

Them

"They did it again those no-good, ungodly, sinning Thems. Can you believe as a good Christian American what They did? They want to take Our jobs, leaving Us out on the street. They are going to marry and then rape Our women, They are going to take over Our government, and to top it off They are going to become the leading class leaving Us to the dogs. They are going to be elected President. They are already in Congress. If you ask me, I think we should deport Them all. Send Them back to where They came from I say, and if We want Their land We will take it and They will have less because They are not God-fearing. Not only that but They have already taken over entire cities, entire states that We used to control. They don't even speak the same language as Us with all of Their culture's nonsense words that We don't use. For the sake of Humanity, They must be destroyed."
~ Leader of the West Secure Klan Inc.

Sound familiar? Good, you read your history. Sound familiar? Good, you have been watching the news.