Is that assumption reliable? What country in history has made it a pillar of national policy -- as we have -- that huge numbers of foreigners from extremely dissimilar cultures should be encouraged to enter the country to reside permanently?
We are justified in being able to rely on the enormous assimilative power of American culture. There are huge payoffs to "buying in," as any fool can recognize. (And the benefits of not buying in are happily rather sparse. The "youths" recently arrested as suspected terrorists near Toronto -- which is sort of like the U.S. -- face a bleak future by any standard not formulated between the ears of Osama bin Beelzebub.) Why would the benefits of assimilation not be obvious to any reasonable and same person? we ask ourselve
For the majority of Americans "immigrant" historically meant primarily "person of European background." Starting in the 60s, the door was thrown open with a vengeance and a lot of "diversity" showed up to make their contribution. This was unquestionable a good thing. If you weren't trying to compete with the sons and daughters of our Vietnamese friends in trying to get into med school, that is. (Nowadays your competition for the "level flight" portion of airline pilot training is unquestionably Arab, which tells you something, though who knows for sure what?)
It turns out there was plenty of room for all these new people, the assimilation juggernaut rolled forward, and we were enriched by Hindus, Haitians, Cubans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and so forth. (The Colonel himself met some awesome East Indians back in Our Nation's Capitol, one of whom was one of the finest gentlemen the Colonel has ever known.)
This new wave of immigrants created no fundamental conceptual problem for Americans in their trying to understand the issue of immigration, if they even thought about it at all.
Except for the one group. For the first time in our history, it is now necessary to examine critically the long-term significance of having gambled with allowing in Muslims. (The issue of tolerance of Saudi meddling in U.S. domestic affairs is a matter for another series of posts.)
It's a horrendously difficult issue to grapple with and, in our opinion, the only effective measures will require Americans to make radical changes in their assumptions about automatic, effortless assimilation where the "M" word is mentioned and for them to make radical and uncomfortable discriminatory judgments in a way that flies in the face of our most celebrated national goals since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Equality of
The pussyfooting around on the issue of profiling is testimony to the weakness that experience created for us as a nation when our leaders are not making the case for salutary discrimination and cojonical measures that will take care of the jihadi swine and their secret pals.
The problem of dilution:
The same mistake had been committed by the Romans in former days, when they had granted the citizenship to barbarians. "An exchange was established between Italy and the Provinces. Italy sent her sons to die in distant lands and received in compensation millions of slaves. Of these, some were attached to the land, cultivated it, and soon enriched it with their bones; others, crowded together in the towns, attentive to the vices of a master, were often freed by him and became citizens. Little by little the sons of freed men came to be in sole possession of the city, composed the Roman people, and under this name gave laws to the world. From the time of the Gracchi, they alone nearly filled the Forum. Thus, a new people succeeded to the Roman people, absent or destroyed."Please don't bother to cry that it can't happen here. The very President of the United States cannot bring himself to name the obvious enemy -- Islam. Islam has that power within our own borders.
Disgrace!
Weakness!
Shame!
"musulmanbook." 11/2/05 (quoting from Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman, by Andre Servier.
No comments:
Post a Comment