John R. Houk
© December 10, 3014
In America this is an ethical argument between Leftists and Conservatives on how to deal with illegal aliens slipping across the southern border in droves. Leftists are dedicated to the concepts involved with diverse multiculturalism. Conservatives are dedicated to the concepts of maintaining the core values and heritage that have made America an exceptional nation, the freest nation in the world and the nation which foreign nationals desire to move into seeking a better life than existed in their homeland.
The irony is Leftists would agree with the immigrants looking for a better life in America. The problem is diverse multiculturalism enables immigrants to subscribe to the legal and social traditions of the homeland they are escaping from. In the mind of Conservatives this is a problem because the refusal to assimilate to the American culture that extols the language and history dilutes that which America exceptional and great.
The largest amount of ILLEGAL immigrants to the USA today tend to be Hispanic Latin Americans. The traditions brought to Latin America come primarily from Spain which has a heritage of authoritarian elites subjugating the less fortunate as laborers that benefit those elites.
Here is an excerpt that explains Latin America’s heritage (in full disclosure if read entirely blames in part “North America” [meaning USA] and European interference):
…
… Latin America's problems resulted from the Spanish colonial system that had offered native-born whites little opportunity or responsibility in government. The tradition of autocracy and paternalism was a poor precedent for would-be democratic republics. The emphasis on executive power inspired presidents, generals, landowners, and church officials to wield authority with arrogant disregard for public opinion and representative government.
The colonial economic system, based on raw materials rather than industry, encouraged concentration of land and other forms of wealth in a few hands. The church with its vast properties, monopoly on education and welfare agencies, and command over cultural life complicated the politics of every new nation.
In addition, the new states were cursed by problems associated with the wars of independence. Some of the most productive areas were devastated. Hatred and division remained. Many men who had fought the royalists remained armed, predisposed to a life of violence and pillage and likely to group themselves about the caudillos, who promised adventure or profit in revolutions.
The colonial economic system, based on raw materials rather than industry, encouraged concentration of land and other forms of wealth in a few hands. The church with its vast properties, monopoly on education and welfare agencies, and command over cultural life complicated the politics of every new nation.
In addition, the new states were cursed by problems associated with the wars of independence. Some of the most productive areas were devastated. Hatred and division remained. Many men who had fought the royalists remained armed, predisposed to a life of violence and pillage and likely to group themselves about the caudillos, who promised adventure or profit in revolutions.
The final problem facing the new states was that of racial disunity. In 1825 there were from 15 to 18 million people in the former Spanish empire. About 3 million of them were whites, the wealthiest and most educated population. That figure remained constant until the last third of the century, when immigration from Europe in[c]reased drastically. There were about the same number of mestizos, who scorned the Indians, but were not accepted by whites. Their numbers steadily increased, as did their ambition. During the nineteenth century at least half of the population in some states was Indian. Deprived of the small protection once offered by the Spanish crown, they either sank into peonage or lived in semi-independence under their tribal rulers. Finally, in Brazil and most of the Caribbean island, blacks were in a large majority. Conflicts of interest quickly developed between these broad racial groups, particularly between the Creoles and the mestizos. The pernicious effects of these divisive factors can be seen in the experiences of each nation.
Mexico
Despite its promising beginning in 1821, Mexico suffered a … (Latin America: Establishment of Latin American States; By Allen Pikermen; International World History Project; 2002)
Mexico
Despite its promising beginning in 1821, Mexico suffered a … (Latin America: Establishment of Latin American States; By Allen Pikermen; International World History Project; 2002)
The heritage of the United States of America as brought over from the English monarchy are quite different. Future Americans came to the New World to specifically find a life better than existed in their homeland. Those non-English colonials that came had to do so under the authorization of the English Crown. So even those earliest immigrants to North America that came from non-English but European roots still owed their legal-economic foundations derived from English law.
Here is an excerpt that a quick search on my part demonstrates (I could probably find a better source but I was in a hurry):
…
… The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg's printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.
The Philosophes
Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the "darkness" of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes, scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.
One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.
John Locke
The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. … According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. …
Important English Documents
Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch's rule was not absolute. …
The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of "commoners" to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. …
The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact. (2. Foundations of American Government; ushistory.org – American Government; © 1995-2014 by the Independence Hall Association, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia, PA founded in 1942. Publishing electronically as ushistory.org.; online since July 4, 1995.)
The largest problem I have with the excerpt above is that nearly ignores the influence of Christianity on the Founding of the USA. It is typical in this day and age to bend to Left Wing humanist interpretations of history which is more often critical of Christianity than supportive of the great faith’s influence not only in America but Western culture at large in general.
It is my opinion that the Left has acquired the keys that disseminate education in the USA which is not a good thing for Christians. The Christian Right the best defender of the faith in the 21st century has reacted by perhaps overemphasizing Christianity’s influence of the Founding Fathers. In turn the Left has reacted by overemphasizing the non-Christian influences amplified in the above excerpt. I like the middle ground taken by Mark David Hall, Ph.D. written in 2011. Dr. Hall explains why the far Left and the Christian Right are both wrong on a limited basis. Yes the influences of the great Philosophes were paramount to the Founding Fathers, YET every single Founding Father (even Jefferson and Madison) and the majority of the new USA’s voting enfranchised citizens attributed their social foundations to Christianity especially as they governed their individual lives by morality. Even the most deist of the Founding Fathers believed that without Christian ethics and morality, government would fall into chaos or tyranny. Read Dr. Hall’s essay entitled “Did America Have a Christian Founding?”
Ergo it is my assertion that that the Left’s political motivation in encouraging open borders to a Latin American culture will ultimately lead to a dilution of the American culture that has made our nation exceptional and free. Immigrants must be welcomed into America but not at the cost of American culture. Immigrants must assimilate! Sure immigrants can honor their heritage by maintaining their memories on an individual basis. However, to maintain the American culture the maintenance of the American version of the English language is a paramount stepping stone for assimilation.
This leads me to an emerging multicultural immigration problem. That problem is the willingness of our government (largely under the tutelage of the Obama Administration) to bring foreign born Muslims to the USA. Before the Left Wing multiculturalists and Muslim apologists scream Islamophobe racist, I actually believe individuals that idiotically choose to worship an antichrist religion like Islam should be free to do so according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The thing is that Muslims that revere Allah, Islamic holy writings and the religion’s false prophet Mohammed WILL BE INTENT to refuse assimilation into American culture.
Islam’s Sharia Law is absolutely contradictory to the Liberty and Freedom inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Most adherents to any religion have supremacist ideals about their faith. I know I do pertaining to Christianity. HOWEVER the Islamic faith supremacists requires the blood of all humanity that refuse to submit to Islam or insults Islam (including its crazy prophet).
Any foreign culture that develops an ideology among individuals living in or outside the USA that rejects assimilation into American culture and our constitutional government is a threat to the USA remaining free with individual rights and liberty.
It’s bad enough that illegal Latin American aliens are coming to America just as much to send money back to their homelands while enjoying taxpayer supported programs, it is worse to take in legal immigrants that have no intention to assimilate but rather to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law.
Those Muslims that identify the Quran and Mohammed as perfect and that people must be in submission to Islam are individuals that have the imperative to bring down our Constitution and culture of Freedom and Liberty. If those particular Muslims tell you differently they are either intentionally lying or are unintentionally self-deceived. Allah commands Muslims to eradicate or reduce the non-believers of Islam to a cruel second class citizenship of obeying the rules of Sharia (or else!).
This is as evil as when the old Soviet Union cultivated American Communists to use the American system to bring down America or a few radicalized self-starting Communists acting as anarchists (cough can you say Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn – friends to Obama) to bring down the Constitution and the American heritage.
These thoughts are largely inspired by some Geert Wilders information posted by the Gatestone Institute. In case you don’t know who Wilders is, he became known to me largely through a mini-documentary entitled “Fitna”. Wilders takes the title from the same Arabic word that means “a state of trouble or chaos”. “Fitna” is roughly about 16 minutes long and worth the view. The tiny documentary caused quite a stir in the Western World and in Muslim dominated nations. Wilders’ home nation of Netherlands even prosecuted him for hate speech when the documentary is actually truth speech. The Netherlands prosecution lost.
Lo and behold the Leftist government of the Netherlands is once again going after Geert Wilders’ free speech rights by interrogating him about a speech encouraging his Dutch constituents (he is a member of whatever the Netherlands calls a Parliament) to support legislation that limits the immigration of Moroccan Muslims who refuse assimilation into Dutch culture.
Under heavy pressure by the Dutch left, national government, and the North African immigrants themselves for a rallying cry where Wilders asked a campaign-stop crowd in The Hague if they wanted 'more Moroccans or 'less Morrocans' in Holland (followed by predictably raucous cheers for the latter), the Dutch politician is fighting back and -per usual- speaking his mind...
With the new left-leaning government in charge, they now have the top public prosecutor attempting to build a case against Geert for 'hate speech', asking the the (sic) police to retain and question him, etc.
But of course, as a man of deep thought and clear logic, he says things for a reason- Wilders had no trouble explaining himself, and even issued a public statement. As is his manner, the Dutch Freedom Party leader didn't back down a millimeter... while offering an eloquent defense of his position.
· I name the problems that I see.... That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures....
Because they are the truth.
Because they are the truth.
· I do not intend to hurt or offend people, either
· In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by … READ THE REST (Geert Wilders in Interrogation by State Police: 'I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands...'; By The Reaganite Republic; 12/10/14)
Geert Wilders has made a statement about the interrogation according to what I have read was released while being subjected to the police questioning. I discovered through Google Wilders’ statement is all over the web but I am going with the Gatestone Institute version.
JRH 12/10/14
****************************
Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police
December 9, 2014 at 5:00 am
As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see.... That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures.... Because they are the truth.
I do not intend to hurt or offend people either... Already for over 10 years, I have lost my personal freedom.
In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.
To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: "I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It's worth going to jail for. It's worth losing a job for. It's worth dying for."
The Hague, December 8, 2014.
Today, Dutch parliamentarian and PVV leader Geert Wilders made a statement during his interrogation by the Dutch State Police. The State Police interrogated Mr Wilders on behalf of the Dutch Public Prosecutor, who is considering to prosecute Mr Wilders because the politician had asked his voters during the election campaign whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Our freedom is being threatened. Threatened by a violent totalitarian ideology – Islam – that brings with it death and devastation. Threatened by a politically correct elite that does not tolerate criticism of Islam and mass immigration, and that nurtures cultural relativism.
I rise up against this.
As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see. I name the dangers and disadvantages that we experience in the Netherlands as a result of cultural relativism, mass immigration and the ongoing Islamization. That is my task. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. That is the reason why I am in politics and why I founded the Party for Freedom (PVV).
I am fighting for a better Netherlands.
To preserve our own culture.
Our own identity.
Our safety.
Our freedom.
To preserve our own culture.
Our own identity.
Our safety.
Our freedom.
I do not discriminate. I do not spread hatred, nor do I incite to it. I do not intend to hurt or offend people either. However, I do not mince my words when I defend our established freedoms and name the dangers to our society.
I dedicate my life to the fight against this evil ideology and the defense of our liberties. Every day, I pay the price for this fight. Already for over ten years, I have lost my personal freedom.
During the past 10 years, I have drawn attention to the Moroccan problem which we have here in the Netherlands. These include serious problems with integration, crime and welfare dependency. The majority of the jihadis travelling from the Netherlands to Syria is Moroccan. In order to see the whole context, the contents of the attachments that I deposit with you here today must be taken into consideration.
I rely on objective facts and figures. Facts that I must name. Because they are the truth. If we had had the same problem in the Netherlands with Canadians, I would have named them.
Those who do not understand that we have an enormous problem with Islam and with Moroccans in the Netherlands, though seeing, they do not see, and though hearing, they do not hear.
For the reasons above, while on campaign in The Hague, I argued that there need to be fewer Moroccans. And, at an election meeting in The Hague, I asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?"
Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)
Indeed, I want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands for the reasons and context that I have previously expressed in this statement as well as in Parliament and for which I refer you to the documents that I now deposit.
I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands. Asking for fewer Moroccans is something totally different than if I were to want all Moroccans to leave the Netherlands or than if I were to object to every Moroccan.
Like me, 43% of all the Dutch and 95% of my supporters want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. I have said what millions of Dutchmen think.
I also want less Islam in the Netherlands.
And like me, 65% of all the Dutch and 100% of my supporters think that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands.
Since the establishment of the PVV, I have advocated fewer immigrants from Islamic countries.
Since the establishment of the PVV, I have identified the Moroccan problem and presented (democratic) solutions for it, such as:
· limiting the immigration of people from Islamic countries, hence also Morocco
· promoting the voluntary remigration of non-Western foreigners, hence also Moroccans
· expelling criminals with dual nationality after denaturalization, hence also Moroccans. Since Moroccans living in the Netherlands are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics and often have dual citizenship, this would also lead to fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.
I do not retract anything of what I have said.
Because I have said nothing wrong.
In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.
To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: "I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It's worth going to jail for. It's worth losing a job for. It's worth dying for."
For these above reasons, I assume that the Public Prosecutor will decide not to prosecute me.
Any other decision cannot be interpreted otherwise than politically motivated.
Geert Wilders
_________________________
Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert
John R. Houk
© December 10, 3014
_________________________
Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police
No comments:
Post a Comment