Tweet
Immigrationists and the Death of America
American Thinker
Selwyn Duke
6/28/2013
Excerpt:
Let's do a little thought exercise here. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people's lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land's culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
Of course, in America we call it "immigration policy."
Now, when King Edward I "Longshanks" said about dominating the Scots in the film Braveheart, "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out," it was to be expected from an enemy of Scotland. And how should we characterize America's immigrationists?
Before answering, let's first consider the testimony of Fredo Arias-King, ex-aide to former Mexican president-elect Vicente Fox (hat tip: Timothy Birdnow). About how he and his colleagues spoke to 50 U.S. congressmen and senators back in 1999 and 2000, he writes:
This isn't unusual in the West, either. In fact, it was revealed in 2009 that the U.K.'s immigrationists sought to socially engineer a "multicultural" Britain because they wanted to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date" but didn't want to divulge the scheme lest they lose their "core working class vote." With friends like that...
Now, what would you call people who visit such a thing upon their own culture solely to gain power? And what fate do they deserve?
G.K. Chesterton's comment -- "It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged" -- comes to mind.
In fairness, Mr. Arias-King's experiences predate the Tea Party revolution, and the House GOP did defeat John McCain's shamnesty bill in 2007. I also suspect that it was legislators partial to immigration who were inclined to meet with him in the first place. And while I don't doubt that closeted culturally genocidal maniacs still exist (in abundance), there are also those who genuinely believe that diversity should be "an end in itself." Unfortunately, bad policy is equally destructive whether implemented out of malice or stupidity.
Speaking of which, multiculturalism can only ever be what it is, an ideology; it can never be a workable reality. Having many different cultures within the same borders is actually called balkanization, and its consequences have been repeatedly observed throughout history. If the differences among the disparate peoples become great enough, the nation is partitioned, and they go their separate ways; the only possibility for avoiding this is if an iron fist of tyranny holds the competing cultures together, as Marshall Tito did in the former Yugoslavia (and we all know why it's "former"). Another possibility is that one group will prevail over and subsume the rest, as the Japanese have largely done with the Ainus, an aboriginal people who once dominated the island of Hokkaido.
This is absolutely the norm. Do the names Saxons, Alans, Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Avars, Alemanni, and Frisians sound at all familiar? They were once distinct groups that occupied early medieval Europe, but they are no more, having been subsumed into a wider culture. This may be a good thing if it's a superior culture, it may be a bad thing if beauty was lost, or it may be a mixed bag. But it is an undeniable thing.
This brings us to the myth of diversity. All it can ever be is a liability to, hopefully, be overcome; it can never be the "strength" it's billed as (without even a shred of evidence in support of the notion). And, interestingly, here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary tells us about the origin of the term "diversity": "mid-14c., from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) 'difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity,' from L. diversitatem 'contrariety, disagreement, difference[.]'" "Contrariety" and "disagreement"...it certainly worked out that way in Yugoslavia, in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in India (when two regions broke away and became Pakistan and Bangladesh). Why, even in Canada, where Quebecois and other Canadians are racially identical, there has often been talk of secession.
So how much more of a problem it is when a group not only has a different language, but is different racially, economically, culturally, and ideologically? And what about when that group of diversifiers supposes it has a rightful claim to your territory (a poll showed a majority of Mexicans believing that the Southwest belongs to Mexico and that they have a "right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission")? What about when you try to teach these newcomers American history and they say, as a teacher respondent reported to me some years ago, "We don't care about this -- we're Mexican"? When people have come to your land mainly to make money and have loyalty lying elsewhere, it doesn't bode well for assimilation.
....................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...f_america.html
American Thinker
Selwyn Duke
6/28/2013
Excerpt:
Let's do a little thought exercise here. Imagine that some force was flooding an indigenous people's lands with millions of unassimilable foreigners, and it was understood that this influx would irretrievably change that land's culture and replace the population. What would anthropologists call this phenomenon? Cultural genocide comes to mind.
Of course, in America we call it "immigration policy."
Now, when King Edward I "Longshanks" said about dominating the Scots in the film Braveheart, "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out," it was to be expected from an enemy of Scotland. And how should we characterize America's immigrationists?
Before answering, let's first consider the testimony of Fredo Arias-King, ex-aide to former Mexican president-elect Vicente Fox (hat tip: Timothy Birdnow). About how he and his colleagues spoke to 50 U.S. congressmen and senators back in 1999 and 2000, he writes:
Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.
...[Moreover] [m]ost of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.
... [The Democrat legislators] seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers[.]
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew ... that they may not now receive their [the naturalized Mexicans'] votes, [but] they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did.
... Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People[.]
... I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.
...[Moreover] [m]ost of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.
... [The Democrat legislators] seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers[.]
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew ... that they may not now receive their [the naturalized Mexicans'] votes, [but] they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did.
... Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People[.]
... I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.
This isn't unusual in the West, either. In fact, it was revealed in 2009 that the U.K.'s immigrationists sought to socially engineer a "multicultural" Britain because they wanted to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date" but didn't want to divulge the scheme lest they lose their "core working class vote." With friends like that...
Now, what would you call people who visit such a thing upon their own culture solely to gain power? And what fate do they deserve?
G.K. Chesterton's comment -- "It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged" -- comes to mind.
In fairness, Mr. Arias-King's experiences predate the Tea Party revolution, and the House GOP did defeat John McCain's shamnesty bill in 2007. I also suspect that it was legislators partial to immigration who were inclined to meet with him in the first place. And while I don't doubt that closeted culturally genocidal maniacs still exist (in abundance), there are also those who genuinely believe that diversity should be "an end in itself." Unfortunately, bad policy is equally destructive whether implemented out of malice or stupidity.
Speaking of which, multiculturalism can only ever be what it is, an ideology; it can never be a workable reality. Having many different cultures within the same borders is actually called balkanization, and its consequences have been repeatedly observed throughout history. If the differences among the disparate peoples become great enough, the nation is partitioned, and they go their separate ways; the only possibility for avoiding this is if an iron fist of tyranny holds the competing cultures together, as Marshall Tito did in the former Yugoslavia (and we all know why it's "former"). Another possibility is that one group will prevail over and subsume the rest, as the Japanese have largely done with the Ainus, an aboriginal people who once dominated the island of Hokkaido.
This is absolutely the norm. Do the names Saxons, Alans, Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Avars, Alemanni, and Frisians sound at all familiar? They were once distinct groups that occupied early medieval Europe, but they are no more, having been subsumed into a wider culture. This may be a good thing if it's a superior culture, it may be a bad thing if beauty was lost, or it may be a mixed bag. But it is an undeniable thing.
This brings us to the myth of diversity. All it can ever be is a liability to, hopefully, be overcome; it can never be the "strength" it's billed as (without even a shred of evidence in support of the notion). And, interestingly, here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary tells us about the origin of the term "diversity": "mid-14c., from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) 'difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity,' from L. diversitatem 'contrariety, disagreement, difference[.]'" "Contrariety" and "disagreement"...it certainly worked out that way in Yugoslavia, in the Soviet Union, in Czechoslovakia, in India (when two regions broke away and became Pakistan and Bangladesh). Why, even in Canada, where Quebecois and other Canadians are racially identical, there has often been talk of secession.
So how much more of a problem it is when a group not only has a different language, but is different racially, economically, culturally, and ideologically? And what about when that group of diversifiers supposes it has a rightful claim to your territory (a poll showed a majority of Mexicans believing that the Southwest belongs to Mexico and that they have a "right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission")? What about when you try to teach these newcomers American history and they say, as a teacher respondent reported to me some years ago, "We don't care about this -- we're Mexican"? When people have come to your land mainly to make money and have loyalty lying elsewhere, it doesn't bode well for assimilation.
....................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...f_america.html