Filed under: Capitalism, Freedom, History, Law, National Security, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: American Exceptionalism, Multiculturalism, The Melting-Pot
There are two stories going on in the news concurrently that are related. One is the Boston Marathon bombing, and the other is the attempt to pass a new immigration law in Congress.
The American melting-pot is broken. We have traditionally had an outstanding assimilation process for new immigrants that develops them into citizens, and it is broken. Traditionally, our new immigrants, upon completion of the citizenship process and taking the oath of citizenship — became proud Americans, more patriotic and more knowledgeable about American history and the U.S. Constitution than most of the rest of us. Unlike immigrants to many European countries who had no possibility of ever becoming ‘real citizens’, in America there is no difference between a Mayflower descendant and the latest immigrant. That is no longer working.
In his book Plagues of the Mind, Bruce Thornton tackles the problem of false knowledge. “We are subsumed in the ideology of “Multiculturalism”, the dominant narrative used by popular culture and many intellectuals alike to explain our historical moment and public moral goals:”
Despite what we are led to believe by its apologists, Multiculturalism is not about respecting cultural differences or the diversity of ethnic groups in America. Multiculturalism is instead a melodramatic tale of the wickedness of the West and its role in destroying the peaceful paradises in which other peoples (usually “of color”) lived before Europeans and then Americans came along to inflict on them racism, sexism, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, homophobia, technology, and environmental degradation.
Multiculturalism, the ideology — the false knowledge of the left — sees little in Western heritage beyond Western crimes. The Western tradition, “American exceptionalism” is inherently racist, sexist, classist, hegemonic, repressive, and oppressive. It has spread not through any innate quality of the American culture, but simply through the spread of Western power. Of what importance then is patriotism, reverence for tradition, pride in heritage and history?
The high-tech media multiplies the mischief that false knowledge can work, even more insidiously because we are a democracy. Jean-Francois Revel has written:
democracy cannot thrive without a certain diet of truth. It cannot survive if the degree of truth in current circulation falls below a minim al level. A democratic regime, founded on the free determination of important choices made by a majority, condemns itself to death if most of the citizens who have to choose between various options make their decisions in ignorance of reality, blinded by passions or misled by fleeting impressions.
We have two ethnic Chechen brothers, one a naturalized citizen, the other a permanent resident. For whatever reason, America’s patriotic assimilation system didn’t work for them, and that fact is important.
The Hudson Institute has released a new study by John Fonte, examining the differences between native-born American citizens and naturalized citizens. •By a 21 percentage point difference native-born citizens are more likely than immigrant citizens to view America as “better” than other nations. •Native born citizens are significantly more likely to think that Americans share a unique national history based on shared beliefs, values and culture. •Native born citizens think of themselves as American citizens rather than “citizens of the world, by about 30 points •Thirty percent more Native-born Americans believe the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority for Americans than international law. There is much more in the study.
The Study concludes that there can be no comprehensive immigration reform without comprehensive assimilation reform. We cannot determine immigration policy unless we seriously examine what our assimilation policy should be.
Why is there a patriotic gap between native-born and naturalized citizens? Undoubtedly there are many different reasons. One in particular, however, strikes us as responsible, at least partially, for this gap. Since the 1970s American elites have altered our “de-facto assimilation policy” from Americanization (or patriotic integration) to a multiculturalism that emphasizes ethnic group consciousness at the expense of American common culture.
In short, we have sent immigrants the wrong message on assimilation. It is our fault, not theirs that this gap exists.
Administrative-legal barriers to patriotic assimilation have developed gradually through a combination of federal bureaucratic policies, congressional activities, executive orders and court decisions. There’s the root cause of the patriotic integration gap. It’s time to stop giggling at how stupid political correctness and multiculturalism are, and start understanding that it is seriously damaging propaganda.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Latin America, Law, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Euphemisims Mislead, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness
Mr. Virtual President Bill Whittle speaks at a Virtual Town Hall about the problem of immigration, and has some important things to say.
Also in the news, the Associated Press has refined their Stylebook to eliminate the phrase “illegal immigrant”. Also “illegal alien,” “an illegal”, “illegals” or “undocumented”).
Back in October of 2012, AP had reaffirmed use of the term “illegal immigrant.” Why do we not say “undocumented immigrants” or “unauthorized immigrants?”
To us, they said, these terms obscure the essential fact that such people are here in violation of the law. It’s simply a legal reality….What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.
Jay Leno considered the AP change and asked why they just don’t consider them “Undocumented Democrats?”
We are deep into a territory where political correctness is so rampant that the language no longer represents reality. If reality is too uncomfortable to face, we shall just change the language that describes it. Like putting a tire patch on a hot air balloon, and hoping it holds.
Filed under: Liberalism, Religion, Statism, Terrorism | Tags: Diversity, Multiculturalism, Religion of the Universities
It was only eight days ago that I was writing about U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s public denunciation of multiculturalism, along with the leaders of France and Germany, and his declaration that it was a proven disaster and a threat to society. Multicultural values had led to segregated communities and Mr. Cameron said, imposed policies of blind toleration that had helped to nurture radical Islam’s terrorist cells.
This was a major, major event. Multiculturalism and it’s accompanying religious tenet diversity have been “the unofficial established religion of the universities, the faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years.”
This happened just when a report was released, reported Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal, titled “A Ticking Time Bomb” that provided the most complete disclosures about the multiculturalist zeal that had caused the Army and medical school superiors to smooth Nidal Malik Hassan’s way through training, promote him, and in spite of plain clear evidence of his unfitness, raise not one single concern. Major Hassan, now a U.S. Army psychiatrist, was assigned to Fort Hood where he opened fire on his fellow soldiers in November of 2009, killing 12 plus a civilian employee and wounding 32 others.
The report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs led by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) concerns the Department of Defense’s official report on the Fort Hood bloodbath. It made no mention , none, of Hasan’s well documented jihadist sympathies.
During his medical training at Walter Reed, and his two years at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, multicultural taboos reigned. Walter Reed required a presentation on a psychiatric theme, Hasan produced a draft largely from the Quran “arguing for the painful punishment and liquidation of non-Muslims.” When he was told that the presentation was “not scholarly”, he revised slightly and was allowed to graduate. In his medical fellowship, he delivered a class lecture on the theme that the West in general and the U.S. Military specifically had mounted a war on Islam and continued with themes sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. His classmates were outraged.
Hasan’s contacts with terrorist suspect came to the notice of the FBI, but the agents were lulled by the impressive evaluation reports that described Hasan as an authority on Islam, whose work had “extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy.” He was commended as “a star officer” who was focused on “illuminating the role of culture and Islamic faith within the Global War on Terrorism.” Rabinowitz adds “No single word of criticism or doubt about Hasan ever made its way into any of his evaluations.”
His superiors noticed all right, but as Ms. Rabinowitz says:
Some of those enthusiastic testaments strongly suggested that the writers were themselves at least partly persuaded of their reasoning. In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taught—magical thinking reigns.
He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible.
A decision should be made soon about whether Major Hasan will go to trial before a military court-martial. He is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder. The trial will probably go forward. But the Department of Defense still has not specifically named the threat which is represented by the Fort Hood bloodbath.
Multiculturalism and Diversity live on in the nation’s colleges and universities and in the human resources departments of most major corporations, always concentrating on exactly the wrong thing.
In his book Plagues of the Mind, Bruce Thornton described the problem:
Despite what we are led to believe by its apologists, Multiculturalism is not about respecting cultural difference or the diversity of ethnic groups in America. Multiculturalism is instead a melodramatic tale of the wickedness of the West and its role in destroying the peaceful paradises in which other peoples (usually “of color”) lived before Europeans and then Americans came along to inflict on them racism, sexism, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, homophobia, technology and environmental degradation.
If it was intended to make sure we were all nice to people of different colors and ethnicities, multiculturalism and diversity have evolved into a sort of required tolerance that does not distinguish. Required equality. Differences in behavior will not be noticed, because it might mean that you are noticing ethnicity or skin color.
Oddly, differences in skin color or country of origin are seldom problems, but bad behavior, which is to go unnoticed can cause all sorts of problems. Honor killings, female circumcision, forced marriages are to be tolerated, and major attempts to blow up Americans are simply “man-caused disasters.” Terrorism and Islamic jihad are preferably not mentioned. Tolerance in all things.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, History, The Constitution | Tags: Diversity, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness
Perhaps it began in the European Union. The continent of Europe has been the site of one bloody war after another for centuries. The nations of Europe, exhausted after the Second World War, wanted to stop. Anti war rallies were very much in vogue while the Cold War left an aggressive Soviet Union threatening from the East.
The European Union’s birthrate has dropped below replacement rate. Which means, if nothing else, that the young workers to support Europe’s aging welfare state simply would not be there. The EU encouraged immigration, particularly from their former colonies. Immigration did not necessarily mean assimilation, immigrants were not always welcomed, and belonging wasn’t necessarily a part of the multicultural vision.
All the differences people brought with them were theoretically to be melded into the colorful tapestry of the modern multicultural state. Differences in language, custom, religion and race were to make the tapestry richer and more interesting, and anyone who publicly disagreed could be investigated by the thought police and charged with the sin of racism. Careers could be destroyed by incorrect thought by anyone indigenous, white and male. Freedom of thought was officially out of fashion and official language was closely controlled. Keeping your head down became a way of life.
Overnight, all has changed. Angela Merkel, chancellor of a country where political correctness is carefully nurtured, has just told us that multiculturalism “has failed utterly.” France’s President Sarkozy has been saying the same thing for some time. Prospect, Britain’s leading left-wing intellectual monthly carried a headline “re-thinking race; has multiculturalism had its day? And now Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has delivered a reasoned demolition of “state multiculturalism” and made a start at rooting it out of official British policy. In Switzerland a referendum about minarets revealed the population’s concerns about Islamism. In Canada a leader of the country’s Muslim community, Tarek Fatah, has spoken out to say that just like Britain, Canada’s multiculturalism will fail.
Cameron delivered the analysis at the annual conference on international security in Munich. It removed multiculturalism from the categories of welfare and anti-discrimination policy to that of national security and anti-terrorism, where conservatives have an advantage over the left.
His argument is that terrorism is threatening the West, not only in Afghanistan, but also at home. It has its roots in the underlying “extremist ideology” of Islamism. Young Muslim men in Britain begin their road to jihad by picking up this ideology from institutions, leaders and organizations subsidized by government money and official favors. It is further promoted by multiculturalism which encourages different cultures to live separate lives, and delivers impressionable young men into the hands of state-funded extremists. It would have to be confronted by denying funds to bodies that preach hatred and separatism, and ideologically as well.
Both Mark Steyn and John O’Sullivan have insisted that one reason for the success of extremist Islamism is the absence of British patriotism. Multiculturalism has refused to offer its new citizens the real opportunity to become British. To offer real assimilation and pride in their country’s national identity. Multiculturalism and political correctness have created a vacuum where British patriotism ought to be.
America has been a melting pot from the beginning. And when we wrote a Constitution, we wrote that into it. American was already a blend of immigrants from many countries with many languages and many religions. Our national identity became a country of immigrants united by ideas of freedom and opportunity, protected by a Constitution in which the people gave the government some few limited powers, with lots of checks and balances.
That has not made us immune to the liberal elite’s embrace of multiculturalism and diversity to enhance their push for radical equality and insistence that racism is the greatest problem in American life. Our history and deep national patriotism have made multiculturalism and diversity more often the subject of jokes, but it is there and needs to be rooted out.
Americans who made multicultural jokes, and laughed at diversity and got kicked out of college by the faculty language police were in the right. Our elites should take notice of what is happening across the water.
Filed under: Freedom, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Food Nannies, Multiculturalism, San Francisco
Democrats think you are dumb. Or at least a lot dumber than they are. They think you are too unintelligent to get along in the world without their guidance and care. They are so sure that you need their expertise that they are developing a vast catalogue of rules and regulations to control your lives.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (yes I know he is temporarily a Republican, but he is a liberal through and through) has banned smoking and transfats, and is now waging war against the demon salt. (There is no evidence that transfats are bad for you).
The United States Congress is interested in telling the nation’s schools what they can and cannot serve in school cafeterias. If they have their way, the U.S. Agriculture Department would be given the authority to regulate all food sold in schools, including in vending machines — when Congress renews their child nutrition programs. You can lead a child to a tofu hot dog, but you can’t make him eat it.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (candidate for governor) has banned spending any money to buy bottled water and mandated composting citywide. Now he has issued an executive directive that gives city departments six months to conduct an audit of unused land — empty lots, rooftops, windowsills and median strips — that could be turned into community gardens or farms that could grow food for residents. Citizens could work the farms or purchase the fresh produce.
And effective at once, city workers may no longer make runs to the donut shop before meetings and conferences. A new ordinance will mandate that food served in city jails, hospitals, homeless shelters and community centers must be healthy.
Guidelines will include cutting bagels into halves or quarters so people can take smaller portions, and serving vegetables instead of potato chips.
As one wag commented, he thought most San Franciscans were already doing a lot of farming, but it was going on in closets with grow lights. Can you imagine the lead content of the veggies grown on median strips?
Republicans believe that you are perfectly capable of running your own life without guidance from city mayors or busybodies in Congress. They believe that you can probably decide what you want your children to eat as well.
Mayor Newsom’s administration provided directives for “healthy” and “sustainable”. (Could we please drop that bologna word?)
- Safe and healthy: No pesticides, high nutritional value.
- Culturally acceptable: Chinese veggies for the Chinese, multicultural and religiously acceptable veggies for SF’s diverse population.
- Sustainable: At last, a definition — use manure, not chemical fertilizer. Yep, manure. That’s appropriate.