A SELF-INFLICTED PROBLEM — ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

border.pngSupposedly, illegal immigration is a problem we cannot solve. Supposedly, we cannot stop people from sneaking across the border, overstaying their visas, or whatever it is someone might do to sneak into our country. Supposedly, we cannot stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. Supposedly, an intelligent person believes illegal immigration is a problem we cannot solve.

What supposedly is true is not true. We can stop illegal immigration. So why don’t we do it? Our problem is one of priorities. For a relatively small number of employers, illegal immigration equates to cheaper labor and higher profits. For nearly half of our politicians, illegal immigration translates into more votes. Unfortunately, most voters don’t really care about preserving America’s republic. Instead, they want their Social Security, their Medicare, their food stamps, their mortgage deduction, their unemployment insurance, and so forth. Don’t too many of us hope to receive a bribe from the politician we voted for?

Nonetheless, if we wanted illegal immigration to stop and for the illegal immigrants to go home (and their home is not here), we could make them leave. Here is how it could be done.

Although employment of illegal aliens is prohibited, the prohibition has been eviscerated by proliferation of fake IDs and lax enforcement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Still, while employers have little to fear from ICE, most live in dread of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ordinarily requiring even illegal employees to come up with a Social Security number for IRS reporting purposes.

The IRS shares these Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration, having issued them in the first place, knows which are invalid or being used by multiple employees. Although the administration occasionally notifies employers of Social Security number discrepancies, it has refused to share that information with ICE, notwithstanding entreaties by the Department of Homeland Security under the Bush administration. Were ICE given this information (starting with the roughly 200,000 Social Security numbers numbered 000-00-0000), it could rid the workforce of most unlawful workers simply by notifying companies that employ workers with discrepant Social Security numbers that ICE will pay a visit to any such worker who fails within a month to straighten things out at the local Social Security office. The Social Security Administration may argue that privacy considerations prevent disclosure of Social Security number abuses, but only a severely strained interpretation of our Social Security laws could outlaw sharing evidence of a possible crime, such as identify theft or unlawful employment, with responsible law enforcement agents. (excerpted from CHIP: Turning off the parent magnet on immigration – www.washingtontimes.com)

Because we let politicians bribe us, the so-called crisis resulting from children sneaking across our border is only one aspect of a larger problem. For decades our elected officials have with increasing impudence deliberately ignored their duty to enforce and obey our laws. So it is that when President Obama wants more Democrat voters, he just invites more welfare recipients into our country. And so it is that even though everyone knows what Obama is doing, he is getting away with us.

When America has finished its last days as a constitutional republic, what will we tell our grandchildren. Will they believe us when we lie and say it never was? Supposedly, they might, and wouldn’t that be easier than explaining why we did nothing?

36 thoughts on “A SELF-INFLICTED PROBLEM — ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

  1. Reblogged this on Arlin Report and commented:
    They have more history but, Israel and Palestinian wars started because of Jewish immigration (Zionists); They were however, from what I understand, returning to the land they once occupied. Are you still immigrants if you return to a land you were ran out of or abandoned? Oh, I am sure I will get critiqued on this one.

    Like

    1. The Muslims had arrived and conquered, long before, by force. The Jews bought the land (after decades of attacks by Muslims documented in the proceedings of the League of Nations) and invited any Muslims or others who remained to be part of the new nation. (Many pics on the Internet of “Arabs being pushed onto boats from Israel” are actually Jews being pushed onto those boats by the British. But that doesn’t tell the right story for some, so the captions are changed.)

      Many Arabs did stay, and Israel is now famously the only place in the Middle East where Muslims have full rights. But Muslim-led nations were aghast at the mere existence of a Jewish state, and launched their war on Israel within hours of it being announced and officially recognized by the UN.

      One interesting barometer of a peace deal’s potential: If it seems plausible, the various Muslim Brotherhood offshoots step up their suicide bombing and other attacks to make sure it doesn’t happen. If something good happens anyway, they strive to sabotage it immediately, as they did by launching rockets from Gaza within hours of that plot of land being turned over to the Palestinians.

      And Fatah and Hamas are not that far apart, as Abbas’s speeches in Arabic are quite a bit different from the “moderate Muslim” the West likes to portray. I noted this seven years ago.

      The MB-Israeli war will stop when the Muslim Brotherhood forces get reasonable, or when Israel gets destroyed. And the latter situation would solve nothing; the MB folks have no idea how to govern, despite Palestinians being the recipients of the largest per-capita charity contributions in the world. Including a great amount from Israel itself.

      Of course, it would free up the Muslim Brotherhood to concentrate more of their efforts to take down “the Great Satan,” the US. They are busy enough here as it is.

      ===|==============/Keith DeHavelle

      Like

        1. You’re welcome. We are all, hopefully, still learning; it is one of my favorite activities.

          This post from STRATFOR is of interest, but rather than discussing the past and “causes,” it predicts possible futures. A little bias is shown, but not much. At some point the writer describes an Islamist (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood) takeover of Egypt as “far-fetched,” which surprises me as it JUST happened two years ago and was only undone last July. The article is worth reading for its description of the goals and prospects for both sides:
          Gaming Israel and Palestine is republished with permission of Stratfor.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

        2. Well, that was a surprise. I was not expecting this to turn into discussion of conflict between Israel and Islamists, but I suppose many consider the topics related.

          There was a time that I had not studied this war between Israel and Islamists. I just knew what the corporate news media had to say about it. So I thought removing the Israelis from Israel would in the end be the only practical solution. Supposedly, because the Israelis had immigrated there, they really did not belong there.

          Frankly, I think the term Palestine misleading. The people living in the area did not invent it. It was only after they saw the political advantages that the Islamists adopted it. Check that out for yourself.

          When the Israelis moved back into Israel, the people we now call the Palestinians were not in charge. The Israelis did not return as conquerors. They returned as genuine political refugees seeking escape from horrid persecution. You might say that persecution was over, but what the Nazis had done was only its most recent manifestation.

          Somehow the Jews have remained a distinct people for hundreds of years without a land they were allowed to call their own. A miracle? I think so, but the Jews have suffered immensely just because they did remain a distinct people. When they returned in desperation to Israel, they reestablished the state they had loss. Did the Israelis actually wrong the so-called Palestinians? I don’t know, but I have a difficult time figuring out just exactly what the so-called Palestinians lost. What is readily apparent is that the Islamists advocate a solution for this “immigration problem” that sounds too much like what the Nazis tried to do.

          Since I find it difficult to compete with Keith’s historical knowledge, I too usually find it difficult to disagree with him. Hopefully, that puts you in good company. 😀

          Like

  2. It matters not whether I agree (I don’t) but the Israeli & Christian people in the Middle East view the land as a gift to Israel from their god – which is (btw) the same god that the Muslims claim to worship, yet the Muslims seem to have not gotten the memo.

    Almost everything going on in the Middle East for the last 6 Thousand Years can be summed up as one thing – sibling rivalry. If you believe the record in the Old Testament (Torah, Koran) this all boils down to Abraham casting out his eldest son & his mother because the mother was a servant in his household. Abraham was just like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton – couldn’t keep it in his pants. When he later had another son and named THAT son heir to his estate, the elder son became jealous and resentful, and the land wars began.

    Like

    1. It seems a bit over simplified to me. A major change occurred in the early 600s AD, when Muhammad’s little band of fanatic caravan thieves became an army of fanatics, conquering Mecca (from Medina) and spreading out to conquer the Middle East, northern Africa, and a fair chunk of Europe. They’ve lost a bit of this, but gained in other places like Indonesia. This “conversion by the sword” has been the Islamic trademark for nearly fourteen centuries, and is going on today in Iraq though we are ignoring the plight of those forced into Islam upon pain of death. No other religion behaves this way in modern times, and this is unfortunately not limited to a small fringe element.

      From Palestinian Muslim Nazi troops to Egyptian Hitler adherents to Iran, a country that got its name from Hitler himself (from “Aryan”), the Muslim countries have been bad actors. Some have fought off these effects; Egypt did last July (and we “rewarded” them with rejection since Obama greatly favors the Muslim Brotherhood). Turkey cast off jihadism decades ago, a success that was only recently lost to the new jihadist takeover there a few years ago. Tunisia had done well, but is now also lost to the jihadist-enabling, Obama-pushed “Arab Spring.”

      Moderate (i.e., Westernized) Muslims are still the majority, but they have learned to keep their mouths shut upon pain of death. A great many moderate imams were assassinated in the 1990s and early 2000s. Who among Muslims denounces jihadism now? Few indeed, and they travel with armed guards. Instead, Muslim Brotherhood branches like CAIR and MSA in the US produce apologetics for jihadists, regretting the necessity of suicide bombing but, after all, it’s the Jews.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

      1. I was trying to trace the problem to it’s origins, but you are right about the modern situation. I wrote an entire piece on my blog about the current appearances – concluding that if the “modern” Muslims do not stand en-mass against the horrors committed in the name of their prophet, the rest of the world will have no choice but to include them in the punishments when the terrorist extremists are brought to justice. If that is allowed to happen, ALL Muslims will be branded terrorists, and all non-Muslim nations will be forced to excise the cancers from within while repelling it from without. IMHO.

        Like

        1. For the most part I think we agree. Because what people believe makes a difference, majority Muslim nations tend not to be good neighbors. What Koran teaches about unbelievers does not lead Muslims to want peaceful relations with unbelievers. That, of course, Keith well explains.

          There is just one small point I think you may wish to reconsider. That involves Abraham’s. What did Abraham do to start this conflict? Was Abraham a woman-chaser? I think not. Please go back and reconsider Genesis 16. In particular, look at how that chapter starts. “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” In fact, look at how how Sarai is introduced to us in Genesis 11.

          Genesis 11:30 New King James Version (NKJV)

          30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

          Try to imagine Sarai’s shame and Abram’s desire to please her. In our time, we don’t appreciate the desire for children as much as men and women once did, but Hagar, a slave, had the nerve to shame her mistress because her mistress was barren. Barren. Think about that word.

          For a little while Abram’s and Sarai’s faith failed them. Instead of trusting in God, they tried to do his work for Him. Because we develop faith slowly, that is the sort of sin we all commit too easily.

          Like

        2. Though I am familiar with the Bible, I do not accept it as authoritative. I think we’ll have to accept that we’re in agreement that majority Muslim nations are not good neighbors, and leave it at that.

          Like

        3. It is pointless to try force anyone into a discussion they do not wish to have. So I won’t. Instead, I will just observe that in order for people to understand each other they must study each others beliefs. Therefore, since it forms the foundation of the world’s largest religious group, I congratulate you for having read the Bible.

          Like

      2. I was not aware that Hitler named “Iran” to celebrate Aryanism ( if there is such a word). I don’t doubt that “Iran” and “Aryan” are cognates, but this is the first that I heard that Hitler bestowed the name on what used to be Persia. I’m surprised that the Brits would have allowed that, Keith.

        I also was in the dark about the “jihadist takeover” of Turkey a few years ago. Funny that this has escaped mention virtually everywhere but here. Perhaps you are thinking of somewhere else.

        Like

        1. Even Wikipedia has traces of the story:

          By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi’s close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8][not in citation given] Germany’s modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]

          The Shah went on to ask the international community to use the native name of “Iran” in 1935 to address to his country, which in Persian means ‘Land of the Aryans’ and refers to Airyanem Vaejah, the Avestan name of the original homeland of the Aryans. Although the country has been known as Iran to the native people themselves for many centuries, Westerners came to know the nation as Persia through Ancient Greek accounts. Iranians were immune to the racial Nuremberg Laws on the grounds that they were pure blooded Aryans. In 1939, Nazi Germany provided Iran with what they called a Germany Scientific Library. The library contained over 7500 books selected “to convince Iranian readers … of the kinship between the National Socialist Reich and the Aryan culture of Iran”.[10] In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn between the Shah of Iran and Hitler, and praise the charisma and virtue of the Führerprinzip.[11]

          Wikipedia omits a step, the Fuhrer suggesting the name change through an ambassador. But the Aryan aspect and Nazi close connections should now be evident even to you.

          As to the Islamist takeover in Turkey, the New York Times writes it up as a positive thing, in this instance back in 2011:

          Erdogan, once jailed for jihadist rhetoric, has led that country for the past decade. He spent years consolidating his power, always watchful of the military who guarded Turkey’s secular nature. Once he was able to utterly gut the opposition there, he was free to show (and encourage) his Muslim Brotherhood ties, which even the NYT writes about. With approval, of course, since the new jihadist Turkey is an enemy of Israel (and is preparing to attack the Gaza blockade again as I write this). I mused lyrically about the prior attempt, supported by Turkey less openly, here:
          http://level-head.livejournal.com/464516.html

          Turkey now tacitly approves while its jihadist gangs regularly torture Christians to death, but I suspect that this sort of thing matters to me more than you, since you evince such little connection to Christians.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

  3. Fear, while not the best motivation, does work. When reality sets in that all USA social security benefits and government charity is going to become bankrupted because the almighty dollar is no longer being accepted as the worlds most abused credit card, voters will react. Unfortunately, it may be too late by then to salvage the mess caused by voter apathy.

    It won’t be the first time it has happened in the world, as history recorded. However, the sun will still come up every morning as it has for eons and we who are still around will reminisce about the good old days and what could have been………………………..if only we had the courage and fortitude to address the problems before it got out of control. .

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Like

  4. Keith, thanks for clearing up that Hitler didn’t “get its name form Hitler, himself” per your earlier comment. The nameIran had been around for a long time. Most of my Iranian friends use Persia or Persian to describe the culture (or cuisine), and the name Iran to designate the country. But “Iran” as a descriptor has been around a long time. Your second approach is much more on the mark.

    “Jihadist” and “Islamist” have very different connotations, I think, and it is an enemy of understanding to confuse the two. Erdogan is a retrograde politician with Islamist leanings who has tried to unwind the secular approach to government in Turkey bestowed by the legacy of Ataturk. That’s a problem for Turkey and concern for Europe and NATO. The culture and history of Turkey are such that I don’t think he would even qualify as an “Islamist” in the sense of someone like Morsi in Egypt, although he clearly has sympathies with the Brotherhood (which is hardly a “jihadist” organization). Erdogan probably can’t get to that point in Turkey. It is too secularized. But “jihadist” more accurately describes people like bin-Laden, people who invoke religion to sanction violence against other sects and other religions and who prey on the high rate of illiteracy in the Muslim world to distort scripture in the service of violence.

    Like

    1. Keith, thanks for clearing up that Hitler didn’t “get its name form Hitler, himself” per your earlier comment.

      It was passed by Hitler through the Iranian ambassador, at minimum, plus likely other contacts and channels that history has not preserved.

      Yes, “Iran” as a cognate for “Aryan” and an alternate internal name for the country existed for a long time. But the Shah suddenly announced that this was to be the new official name after the German suggestion, and this was as different as if the US began calling itself “Columbia,” which is indeed an alternate name for the country (and the reason DC is called that, for example).

      Islamist is a leftist’s way of avoiding saying “jihadist.” Have fun with it, and with your notion that “Kill the Jews” Erdogan is somehow a moderate Islamist.

      The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, Hezbollah, ISIL/ISIS, and CAIR along with many dozens of others. Some are more overt, some are more subtle. All advocate (often just privately) jihad to destroy the enemies of Islam and to establish a world caliphate.

      For example, Usama bin Ladin’s mentor was the brother of famous Muslim Brotherhood figure Qutb, who came from Egypt to Saudi as a radical college professor. The young bin Ladin ultimate decided to pursue jihad rather than architecture, his original plan, thanks to his college professor. Usama bin Ladin’s second in command was also a Muslim Brotherhood man, as is the radio host with the 60 million listeners across the Middle East, Yusef Qaradawi, the greatly respected Muslim Brotherhood imam who preaches the destruction of Israel and the West.

      The Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for America have long been known, from their own documents, as “the destruction of their miserable house” from inside. They’ve been remarkably successful at getting inside, beginning in earnest during the Bush administration and greatly accelerating during Obama’s. Bush seems to have been fooled as you seem to be, though Bush was remarkably honest. Obama knows exactly what’s going on, and openly favors the Muslim Brotherhood at every juncture.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

  5. I don’t think of Erdogan as particularly “moderate”, and I don’t know where you got that idea. I think he’s a very real threat to the Ataturk legacy and that he very much complicates Turkey’s participation in both the EU and in NATO. I said that in my comment. As I have recommended previously, it sometimes helps to read the comments before replying to them.

    I do, however, see a substantive distinction between the categories of “Islamist” and :Jihadist”. LIke any other labels, they have their weaknesses, but, in my mind, Islamists tend to be Muslims who would impose religious principles on governance in their own countries and are more than willing to use existing laws and procedures to achieve that end, if such avenues are available (and often they are not in the Middle East). I would regard the Saudi Ruling family as Islamists as I would the Muslim Brotherhood. Jihadists, by contrast, are essentially violent universalists who don’t really have much of an earthly context other than to generally create mayhem on their way to the next world (where they apparently believe they will be amply rewarded for their butchery here). Again, given the weaknesses of labels, I can think of examples where Islamists (in the sense I think of them) have transformed over time into Jihadists, but I do find the distinction meaningful.

    As for the HItler meme, the problem with glib toss-offs like Hitler “giving Iran its name” is that there may be gullible, credulous people who read this type of thing and take such hyperbole at face value. We don’t want that, do we?

    Like

    1. As for the HItler meme, the problem with glib toss-offs like Hitler “giving Iran its name” is that there may be gullible, credulous people who read this type of thing and take such hyperbole at face value. We don’t want that, do we?

      You want it desperately, so you can use such gullibility to disprove history. There is no question that the idea for Persia to begin using Iran as its public name came from Nazi Germany’s leadership. The only question is to what extent Hitler, who wrote favorably and extensively about Iran and directed others to do so, personally originated this idea as several contemporary accounts indicate. The New York Times in 1935 noted that it came through a Nazi German delegation to Persia:

      At the suggestion of the Persian Legation in Berlin, the Tehran government, on the Persian New Year, March 21, 1935, substituted Iran for Persia as the official name of the country.

      At the time, the New York Times traced the meaning of “Iran” as “noble.” — ignoring the proto-Iranian cognates. But the suggestion clearly came from Nazi Germany. Will you admit that much of reality?

      The country was never called “Iran” in the outside world until Reza Shah Pahlavi requested it in 1935. The world’s peoples did not recognize the name, and it caused confusion for years. But clearly the Nazi influence over Persia at the time was gargantuan, with Germans working within Persia’s government and Germany as Persia/Iran’s biggest trade partner and cultural influence.

      Here’s a riddle for you: To the Obama administration, what’s the difference between an Islamist and a jihadist? Answer: There’s no such thing as a jihadist. The administration is no longer allowed to use the term “jihadist” after extensive meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood during which they made clear that it offended them. And even the use of “Islamist” is rare, as it implies that these people’s motivations for killing non-Muslims and uncooperative Muslims has something to do with Islam — also offensive to the MB. Obama’s people were at one point lamely passing off the word “jihad” as “struggle” on a level of wrestling with one’s excess weight. As if “I’m at war with my diet” means that “war” is just some sort of personal motivation issue.

      Obama has said that offending Islam is a very bad thing: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” (during his UN speech wherein he was still lying about what happened at Benghazi). When Egyptian MB jihadists were killing Christians and burning their churches, Obama strongly cautioned Egypt to handle these killers with moderation and restraint, and he supplies aid to Egypt to the extent that the jihadists are in power. Perhaps to you, killing Christians and killing Jews, happening all over the Middle East where any are left, is merely “Islamist” political activity. But the Muslim Brotherhood and the leadership of jihadist nations including Turkey’s Erdogan, actively support these jihadists with weapons and cash. And in Erdogan’s case, the use of Turkey’s navy supporting the jihadists against the Israelis.

      But if you choose not to call them jihadists, despite their own clear verbal statements (and physical actions) supporting the spread of Islam by jihad, who WILL you believe?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

  6. The murder of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Baha’is, Parsees, Buddhists, Mormons, or any other religion under the flimsy cover of religious righteousness is not, in my mind “merely political activity”, regardless of who is doing the killing, Keith. Do I really need to say that? You have already charged me with deception and dishonesty, now you charge me with trivializing murder. I suppose once one makes one outrageous personal attack on someone that they don’t know, one might as well double down. I look forward to your next level display of personally directed illogic.

    But, back to the substantive point: I consider the term “jihadist” to have its place and there are definitely groups out there in the world to which I view the term as being appropriately attached. Al- Quaeda is a useful obvious example. My sense of how to deal with those people is fairly stark. They are an existential threat to everything I value in this country and in civilization generally. My quarrel with you is that I think you over-use the term to apply to things that are not, in their nature “jihadist.” I certainly do not agree that Turkey is a “jihadist nation.” I don’t view Hamas, problematic and reprehensible as it is in other contexts, as a “jihadist” group. Hamas would be Hamas even if Palestinians were Scientologists. Muslim-based rhetoric is used to stir the masses, but the festering underlying issues are territorial and have been territorial for nearly 100 years.

    At some level, this is elective semantics and taxonomy. But my point in challenging your use of these terms is that over-use and misapplication of certain terms leads to confusion about the problem. If there is no difference between a Muslim nationalist like Erdogan and a jihadist like bin Laden, and a Palestinian militia group like Hamas, then the policy response is the same. I suppose we just send SEALs to kill them all (which was indeed the appropriate response to bin Laden). My impression is that the problems are a bit more complex than that, and require a number of different approaches.

    As for Iran, I’ll rest my case with the fact that Iranians call Iran “Iran” for centuries before Hitler and thus, contrary to your assertion, it did not get its name from “Hitler himself.” “Persia” is a term applied to what is now Iran by outsiders, just as Japan is what outsiders call Nihon.

    “Hitler himself ” did not name Iran. That was your statement. That statement was inaccurate (I’ll check my swing on calling it “false”, because the term “false” carries with it a connotation of having been uttered for the purpose of deception. I spot you credit, whether deserved or not, for your having actually believed what you said). If you now want to regroup and say that Iran started using the term “Iran” in official correspondence because some folks in the Iranian Embassy in Berlin in the 1930s thought it would be a good idea, perhaps because they were sympathetic with 1930s Nazi zeitgeist hokum, yes, I’ll buy that. That leaves me, however, puzzled as to why you said it in the first place in terms of anything that has any relevance to Iran today. My guess is that you thought it useful to sloppily try to imply that there is some sort of substantive link between Hitler (a very real evil in his day, but now of value primary for his boogeyman value) and the current government of Iran. My opinion is that the current government of Iran has no connection to the most recent Shah’s forebears other than geography and is influenced not in the least by what some guys at the Persian legation in Berlin decided to do in the 1930s. So what is the point?

    Like

    1. Nice trick, trivializing the jihadist terrorism by so broadening the statement as to make it utterly vague and unspecific to the issues at hand. No other religion is currently involved in major campaigns to kill off members of other faiths because of their faiths, or even members of their own faith deemed insufficiently devout or the wrong flavor.

      Hamas has declared that they are dedicated to jihad, to destroying Israel, to driving Jews into the sea, and to establish the world wide dominance of Islam — in other words, a global caliphate. They teach this to the population from the earliest days of school. How is it that you have determined that this does not make them jihadists, and they would be the same if they were Scientologists?

      I know you a lot better than you know Hamas, and my judgments of you are based entirely upon what you have written in hundreds of comments, mostly here. You actually do those things I accuse you of.

      Incidentally, you are confusing a cognate of “Aryan” in the proto-Iranian language with the everyday name that people used for their country, which was not “Iran” though it was broadly similar. Proto-Iranian is not Farsi, nor even Iranian.

      Also, a great many expatriots from that country are in favor of throwing out the jihadist leadership (which started out as Nazi jihadism and is now more Marxist jihadism in influence) and with it the name ‘Iran,” and these folks invariably refer to themselves as Persians.

      The name change received many objections from within the country, which would hardly have made sense if they were already using the name. Secondly, your phrase “in official correspondence” misstates the issue: The Shaw changed the name of the country, based on suggestions from Nazi leadership. That’s well established, but you claim to know that it wasn’t Hitler. I’ve seen reports that it was, and Hitler was a big fan of Iran and ordered the launch of a periodical dedicated to them as the “ancient Aryans.” How do you “know” Hitler was not involved with the name change?

      You came into this cold; a couple of days ago you assumed that it could not have happened because Britain would have objected. But now you’ve had a chance to learn a little of the history, and you are still making flat assertions already disproved by evidence. Even a glance at Wikipedia would have told you much of this, and pointed to real sources to pursue. Why insist on your original wrong impressions in the light of this?

      I know why. But as I said, I have come to know you pretty well.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

      1. I don’t know that Hitler wasn’t involved. If he were, there would be good evidence of that, Keith. There is none and you haven’t offered any. That’s probably a good place to leave it. Your original idea that “Hitler himself” designated Iran Iran isn’t holding any water. Let’s get on to something else.

        My impressions are that Hitler himself didn’t give Iran its name. What are my “misimpressions”?

        By the way, my suggestion is that you not depend on Wikipedia for much. Anyone can put anything there.

        Like

        1. As I said, and you know but are just trying to score some silly point, “Even a glance at Wikipedia would have told you much of this, and pointed to real sources to pursue.” I explicitly contrasted Wikipedia with “real sources.”

          You said “‘Hitler himself’ did not name Iran.” Later, you contradicted yourself: “I don’t know that Hitler wasn’t involved.” Indeed, though we know a lot about this man, we do not know everything and cannot even guess at what percentage is unknown.

          We do know that, beginning years before:
          — Hitler was a passionate believer in Persia’s “ancient Aryan” culture.
          — Hitler caused a periodical to be published full of pro-Persian, specifically pro-Aryan stories.
          — Hitler was aware of the Iran-Aryan cognate that was part of the language now called proto-Indo-Iranian, and wrote about it. (But the county was a mix of different cultures, many of which were not only not “Aryan,” but resented the connection and later objected to the name change.)
          — Hitler was delighted with the name change, and sent lavish gifts to the new “Iran” as well as becoming Iran’s largest by far trading partner, and he excluded them from Germany’s racial restriction laws.
          — Anecdotal evidence has reported that Hitler suggested the name change. But in fact, Hitler’s periodical made a good case for this name change many times before. His banker buddy has been more directly implicated.
          — The German government was clearly the source, the suggestion to change the name was made in Germany, and the Iranian ambassador to the Nazis carried this message back. That part is reasonably well-documented.

          But you insist that Hitler didn’t suggest it. And you do this based upon your impressions that Britain wouldn’t like it, and that “Iran” (or variations of it) was a word that already existed, and that there is “no evidence” other than many people’s second-hand statements proving he did so. His involvement, in any event, was large at several levels; the name change would not have happened had not the Shaw been a devotee of Hitler, and Hitler, in turn, such a keen enthusiast for the “Aryan” origins of some Persians.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

    2. As for Iran, I’ll rest my case with the fact that Iranians call Iran “Iran” for centuries before Hitler and thus, contrary to your assertion, it did not get its name from “Hitler himself.” “Persia” is a term applied to what is now Iran by outsiders, just as Japan is what outsiders call Nihon.

      Is the term “Persia” of Greek origin? Does the term “Iran” an indigenous origin? Yes and Yes.

      Iran
      from Persian Iran, from Middle Persian Ērān “(land) of the Iranians,” genitive plural of ēr- “an Iranian,” from Old Iranian *arya- (Old Persian ariya-, Avestan airya-) “Iranian”, from Indo-Iranian *arya- or *ārya- (see Aryan), a self-designation, perhaps meaning “compatriot.” In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia. (from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Iran)

      The issue all along is what induced the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi to request governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran. That issue you have avoided.

      Anyway, I think Keith has won his points.

      Liberals (that is you scout) engage in arguments over semantics and whether it is appropriate to say something just to silence their opponents. Then they proceed to warp the language and say the nastiest things they can imagine about their opponents. Thus, they shamelessly abuse the good manners of others. Hence we weaken our defenses and waste trillions of dollars just because the soft-hearted and soft-headed do not want Liberals to slander them as racist, uncaring of the poor, child haters, misogynists, religious bigots, and so forth. So while I cannot say this game with words does not work, it sure is a stupid way to destroy a country.

      Like

    1. If I were to reply in the same vein you are mining, I would say: “Great! I am pleased to see you have come around the Keith’s view on this subject! It takes a big man to admit he is wrong.”

      However, were I to continually engage in such sarcasm, I too would be reduced at best to a useful foil or at worst to a fomenter of confusion.

      Rest assured, Keith and I intend to keep you at your best.

      Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

John Liming. Blog

JUST ANOTHER WORDPRESS.COM SITE

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

The Latin Community

"You will be my witnesses." Acts 1:8

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Derecho

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

Settled In Heaven Blog

A text & video blog striving to honor Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through Bible lessons, devotionals, Sunday School studies and small group studies.

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

I Refuse To Follow Your Blog

Stop being a follower!!!

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Defining the Narrative

Discussing the Soul of America

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

Necessary and Proper

Returning to common sense in America

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

The Ancients

Awakening From Adam's Sleep

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

%d bloggers like this: