The Left Destroying America Inside Out

 

John R. Houk

© July 24, 2013

 

America’s Left – which means the Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama – preach the acceptance of Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. As benevolent as those terms are they mean one thing to Leftists and promoted as something else to the typical Joe American voter.

 

Diversity

 

Joe American is told Diversity is fair and equal acceptance of belief systems and such ungodly practices as homosexuality. Compassion for all ways of thinking and lifestyle practices sounds very high minded and agreeable, right?

 

A Latin motto that can be seen on U.S. money and the Great Seal is E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This addresses diversity in America. Below is the original intent of the motto. Also the early flow of immigrants in America expanded on the original intent:

 

On the Great Seal of the United States, the phrase appears in the banner held in the beak of the American eagle. The busy eagle is also holding an olive branch and a quiver of arrows in its left and right talons, respectively. The phrase is meant to symbolize the union of the 13 original colonies, and their close relationship with the federal government. Over time, people have also taken "e pluribus unum" to refer to the ethnic diversity in the United States. (What Does "E Pluribus Unum" Mean? wiseGEEK)

 

E Pluribus Unum does not emphasize an Out of many, ensure multiple ethnic and gender identities. Rather the motto emphasizes out of a diverse amount of people ONE America emerges. An article I found at The Road to Emmaus reproduced an essay from The Patriot Post. The essay addresses America’s immigration policy under the original intent of the Founding Fathers adoption of E Pluribus Unum. I like the assertions of the early part of the essay:

 

THE FOUNDATION

 

"[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people."—George Washington

 

Out of many, one.

 

That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America's shores, and all who would come, must be united—must all form one front—in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind constitutional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the '60s and the economic woes of the '70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged—the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.

 

Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called "The Disuniting of America." Schlesinger wrote primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups—who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many. He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in "the fragmentation and tribalization of America," the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.

 

"Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own," Schlesinger wrote, "America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities—groups ineradicable in their ethnic character." He asserts, by way of inquiry, "Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"

 

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the debate about immigration.

 

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders. (E pluribus unum? Posted by The Road to Emmaus, Written by The Patriot Post [07 April 2006    |    THE Patriot Post.US  http://patriotpost.us/   |    Patriot No. 06-14] READ THE REST)

 

The Leftist concept of “Diversity” is not an American concept.

 

Multiculturalism

 

Multiculturalism and diversity go hand in hand. Multiculturalism is the practice of upholding cultural standards that are foreign to America rather than to assimilate into American culture. Assimilation brings unity of purpose to a nation. If each diverse culture separates from America in emphasizing a foreign heritage and language above that which unifies America then disunity will ensue. Disunity in a nation magnifies conflict. Conflict leads to social chaos. Intense social chaos leads to the fracturing of the fabric of a nation. When the USA fractures kiss that which has made America great goodbye. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution which have formed a Union of States will become interests of past history rather than the center piece of American cultural unity.

 

Multiculturalism is a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights,” a term coined by Will Kymlicka (1995). Some group-differentiated rights are held by individual members of minority groups, as in the case of individuals who are granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language accommodations in schools or in voting. Other group-differentiated rights are held by the group qua group rather by its members severally; such rights are properly called group rights, as in the case of indigenous groups and minority nations, who claim the right of self-determination. In the latter respect, multiculturalism is closely allied with nationalism.

 

While multiculturalism has been used as an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities (e.g. Latinos in the U.S., Muslims in Western Europe), minority nations (e.g. Catalans, Basque, Welsh, Québécois), and indigenous peoples (e.g. Native peoples in North America, Maori in New Zealand). (Multiculturalism; Sarah Song; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.))

 

Here are some excerpts from a Thomas Sowell essay on the evils of Multiculturalism:

 

Among the many irrational ideas about racial and ethnic groups that have polarized societies over the centuries and around the world, few have been more irrational and counterproductive than the current dogma of multiculturalism.

 

Intellectuals who imagine that they are helping racial or ethnic groups that lag behind by redefining their lags out of existence with multicultural rhetoric are in fact leading them into a blind alley.

 

…

 

Multiculturalism, like the caste system, paints people into the corner where they happened to have been born. But at least the caste system does not claim to benefit those at the bottom.

 

Multiculturalism not only serves the ego interests of intellectuals, it serves the political interests of elected officials, who have every incentive to promote a sense of victimhood, and even paranoia, among groups whose votes they want in exchange for both material and psychic support.

 

…

 

The biggest losers in all this are those members of racial minorities who allow themselves to be led into the blind alley of resentment and rage even when there are broad avenues of opportunity available. And we all lose when society is polarized. (READ ENTIRETY - The Dogma of Multiculturalism; By Thomas Sowell; National Review Online; 3/15/13 12:00 AM) 

 

Frosty Wooldridge on the evils of Multiculturalism:

 

…

 

Those people with hyphenated nationalities manifest "multiculturalism."

 

By its very name, it destroys one culture by breaking it into many. It's like throwing a baseball through a window in a house, fracturing it into many pieces. The window can no longer protect that house from rain, winds or snow. Additionally, with numerous cultures come multiple languages. Linguistic chaos equals unending tension. The writer, Kant, said, "The two great dividers are religion and language."

 

…

 

On the other hand, millions respond and respect their one allegiance as that of being an "American." Thus, we grow as a country at odds with itself. We lose our national identity with every added citizen who calls him/herself a hyphenated American.

 

Europe provides a peek into our future. Their Muslim-British immigrants stand at odds with everything English. If you visit London, you will find two separate societies. The Muslim-French immigrants balk at everything French. The Muslim-Dutch backlash against everything in Holland. Ethiopian-Norwegians will not assimilate into Norway's culture.

 

…

 

Today, America's grand 232 year run fractures, falters and degrades under the march of "multiculturalism." The word sounds unifying, inclusive and respectful. Yet how unified can a nation remain where a foreign language forces its way into our national character?  Los Angeles provides a peek into our future where Mexican culture "overtook" its way into dominance.

 

….

 

A recent PEW report shows America adding 138 million people in four decades. Of that number, 90 million immigrants will reach America's shores by 2050. One in five citizens will be born out of our country. They drag in 100 incompatible third world cultures.

 

The mind-boggling first question remains: should all these immigrants that arrive from failed cultures succeed in their demands that we respect the injection of their culture and language into ours?

 

…

 

Yes, integrity mandates respect for all cultures and people. However, when will Americans leap past "political correctness" to stop the death of America? (READ ENTIRETY - Multiculturalism – Destroying American Culture; By Frosty Wooldridge; Rense.com; 3/13/08)

 

Regardless of what Leftists tell you, Multiculturalism is nation destroying and NOT nation building.

 

Equality

 

“Equality” is another one of those words that evoke fairness. Here are three online dictionary definitions of equality:

 

1.     [T]he state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities – Oxford Dictionaries

 

2.    [T]he state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. 

 

[U]niform character, as of motion or surface. (Dictionary.com)

 

3     [T]he quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.

▪ racial/gender equality ▪ the ideals of liberty and equality ▪ women's struggle for equality (Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary)           

 

As a Conservative Equality and Liberty are not interchangeable as Leftists view the terms. The best concise differentiation I have found on Equality and Liberty that I have ran into so far is from the website Community Of Liberty:

 

…

 

Here is the overview of this lecture by Thomas West, the Paul and Dawn Potter Professor of Politics at Hillsdale.

 

The Declaration of Independence

 

The soul of the American founding is located in the universal political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of equality and liberty in the Declaration is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern progressivism.

 

Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.

 

Equality means no one is by nature the ruler of any other person. Each human being is equal in his right to life, liberty, and property which the Declaration calls “the pursuit of happiness.”

 

Equality, liberty, and natural rights require a certain form of government: republicanism, based on consent of the governed. Legitimate government, based on the consent of the governed, must accomplish three things: the establishment of civil laws that protect man’s natural rights; the punishment of those who infringe on others’ natural rights; and the protection of natural rights through a strong national defense.

 

The people themselves also play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge.”

 

Modern liberalism uses the same language of “liberty” and “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something other than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means equal access to resources and wealth, while “liberty” means the ability to utilize a right, rather than the right in itself. Both of these ideas necessitate government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”

 

The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” and “liberty” threatens not just the Declaration of Independence, but the whole of the American constitutional and moral order. (What Did the Founders Mean by Equality and Liberty? Community of Liberty)

 

Equality under the Founding Fathers is closer to equality of opportunity rather than an egalitarian Equality in the State that takes from some to distribute others that are less innovative or less entrepreneurial in their financial portfolio. Equality is not providing the same benefits to an immoral person as a moral person. Equality does not mean equalizing ungodly lifestyles to godly lifestyles. Equality does not mean shutting out Christianity in order for Secularism and other religions enjoy extra rights to equalize with the majority cultural religion America.

 

Liberty means individual autonomy beyond the collective to accomplish a financial portfolio according to one’s ability and to live a life of any ideology or religion that does not break the equal protections in the rule of law that is dispersed on a collective basis. The rule of law must be enforced equally to the entire collective of the nation regardless of Race, Religion or Personal Beliefs. If ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs diverge from the rule of law then it is the ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs that transform to the rule of law. In America the rule of law is influenced by the first British and Europeans that came to America for Religious Liberty not experienced in the Old World where the State Established Church was preeminent. Another group of British came to America seeking economic opportunity that was not available back on the European continent. People that became the intelligentsia of early America were trained in the classical academics and Christian theology of the period. Ancient writers from Greece and Rome were an influence in an emerging political philosophy that the Founding Fathers combined with Christian principles that coalesced the nascent socio-political structure that became a part of America’s Founding Documents culminating in the United States Constitution.  

 

Political Correctness has been kind to ideological appellations of the left side of the political spectrum. Such names as “Progressive” and “Liberal” are as misleading as the terms Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. People who wittingly or unwittingly (unwitting = mesmerized by altruism) look leftward for a principal of life are LEFTISTS.

 

I originally intended these thoughts as an introduction to a Eugene Delgaudio email that informs about how the Leftist influenced government is silently criminalizing Christianity. The silence is because the Leftist natured Mainstream Media (MSN) does not report on the slow criminalization of Christianity on a National basis. On the other hand the MSM is quick to denounce anything related to Christianity that prays in a public forum that taxes are associated. Also the MSM is quick to denounce Christianity that confronts moral degradation in America such as homosexuality or pornography. This secret persecution of Christianity is reprehensible. I will use Delgaudio’s email in the next post so you too can feel my outrage.

 

JRH 7/24/13

SlantRight 2.0 Needs Your Support – Support Generously

A jihadist hiding in plain sight

Mark Stein hits the hammer squarely on the nail head in his slam of multiculturalism and diversity. Stein correctly fingers the two politically correct evils for allowing an obvious Muslim terrorist like Major Nidal Hasan to kill fourteen Americans on Ft. Hood army base in Texas. The signs were there but ignored even though terrorist watch government agencies actually flagged Hasan. Why was Hasan’s radical Islam not pursued to the point of removing him from being an army psychiatrist? BECAUSE it might offend the poor victim Muslims in America!

Oh by the way: in case you wonder the reason for my stating the death toll was fourteen instead of thirteen as reported by most MSM outlets. The reason is one of the murdered Americans was pregnant. As Stein correctly pointed out her murder was the death of two individuals not one.

JRH 11/16/09

****************************

A jihadist hiding in plain sight

By Mark Steyn
Nov. 15, 2009 / 28 Mar-Cheshvan 5770
Jewish World Review

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again — not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The "Shoebomber" attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

But the years go by, and the mood shifts. You didn't have to be "alert" to spot Maj. Nidal Hasan. He'd spent most of the past half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying "JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK." But we (that's to say, almost all of us; and certainly almost anyone who matters in national security and the broader political culture) are now reflexively conditioned to ignore the flashing neon sign. Like those apocryphal Victorian ladies discreetly draping the lasciviously curved legs of their pianos, if a glimpse of hard unpleasant reality peeps through we simply veil it in another layer of fluffy illusions.

Two joint terrorism task forces became aware almost a year ago that Maj. Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaqi, the American-born but now Yemeni-based cleric who served as imam to three of the 9/11 hijackers and supports all-out holy war against the United States. But the expert analysts in the Pentagon determined that this lively correspondence was consistent with Maj. Hasan's "research interests," so there was no need to worry. That's America: Technologically superior, money no object (not one but two "joint terrorism task forces" stumbled across him). Yet no action was taken.

On the other hand, who needs surveillance operations and intelligence budgets? Maj. Hasan was entirely upfront about who he was. He put it on his business card: "SOA." As in "Soldier of Allah" — which seems a tad ungrateful to the American taxpayers who ponied up half a million bucks or thereabouts in elite medical school education to train him to be a Soldier of Uncle Sam. In a series of meetings during 2008, officials from both Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences considered the question of whether then-Capt. Hasan was psychotic. But, according to at least one bigwig at Walter Reed, members of the policy committee wondered "how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents." So he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood, Texas.

And 13 men and women and an unborn baby are dead.

Well, like they say, it's easy to be wise after the event. I'm not so sure. These days, it's easier to be even more stupid after the event. "Apparently, he tried to contact al-Qaida," mused MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "That's not a crime to call up al-Qaida, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?" Interesting question: Where do you draw the line?

The truth is, we're not prepared to draw a line even after he's gone ahead and committed mass murder. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy," said Gen. Casey, the Army's chief of staff, "but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." A "greater tragedy" than 14 dead and dozens of wounded? Translating from the original brain-addled multicult-speak, the Army chief of staff is saying that the same fatuous prostration before marshmallow illusions that led to the "tragedy" must remain in place. If it leads to occasional mass murder, well, hopefully it can be held to what cynical British civil servants used to call, during the Northern Irish "Troubles", "an acceptable level of violence." Fourteen dead is evidently acceptable. A hundred and forty? Fourteen hundred? I guess we'll find out.

"Diversity" is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in "multiculturalism" doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing "Muslim" garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn't until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He is an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress — that's to say, a "Punjabi suit," as they call it in Britain, or the "shalwar kameez," to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about "diversity" across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up — with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaida. In other words, Maj. Hasan's outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.

Mr. Fatah would seem to be a genuine "multiculturalist": That's to say, he's attuned to often very subtle "diversities" between cultures. Whereas the professional multiculturalist sees the 7-Eleven video and coos, "Aw, look. He's wearing … well, something exotic and colorful, let's not get hung up on details. Celebrate diversity, right? Can we get him in the front row for the group shot? We may be eligible for a grant."

The brain-addled "diversity" of Gen. Casey will get some of us killed, and keep all of us cowed. In the days since the killings, the news reports have seemed increasingly like a satirical novel that the author's not quite deft enough to pull off, with bizarre new Catch-22s multiplying like the windmills of your mind: If you're openly in favor of pouring boiling oil down the throats of infidels, then the Pentagon will put down your e-mails to foreign jihadists as mere confirmation of your long-established "research interests." If you're psychotic, the Army will make you a psychiatrist for fear of provoking you. If you gun down a bunch of people, within an hour the FBI will state clearly that we can all relax, there's no terrorism angle, because, in our over-credentialized society, it doesn't count unless you're found to be carrying Permit #57982BQ3a from the relevant State Board of Jihadist Licensing.

Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this past week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a "tragedy" but a national scandal, already fading from view.

[SlantRight: Bill O’Reilly on Ft. Hood Massacre]
___________________ Stein’s book: “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.” From the book description: In this, his first major book, Mark Steyn--probably the most widely read, and wittiest, columnist in the English-speaking world--takes on the great poison of the twenty-first century: the anti-Americanism that fuels both Old Europe and radical Islam. America, Steyn argues, will have to stand alone. The world will be divided between America and the rest; and for our sake America had better win. It’s the end of the world as we know it… Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are. And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"—while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn’t violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy. If you think this can’t happen, you haven’t been … READ ALL.

JWR Steyn Archives

© 2009, Mark Steyn

Here I Go Riling Leftists Again

John R. Houk
© November 12, 2009

Typically Leftists get upset when I accuse multiculturalism of destroying America rather than uniting it. Here is a comment to a picture I posted at my VOX blog:

Disuniting with multiculutral (sic) change.....I'm not sure I know what that means.

I'll guess that in your America, a melting pot is out and by "Accept American values" you mean that we just blindly agree with everything you say. Oh and Arabs will be deported. Am I on track?

Disunity:

Lack of unity.

Multicultural:

ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures.
2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

Change:

VERB:
tr.

1. a) To cause to be different: change the spelling of a word.

b) To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform: changed the yard into a garden.

2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: change places.

3. To exchange for or replace with another, usually of the same kind or category: change one's name; a light that changes colors.

4. a) To lay aside, abandon, or leave for another; switch: change methods; change sides.

b) To transfer from (one conveyance) to another: change planes.

5. To give or receive the equivalent of (money) in lower denominations or in foreign currency.

6. To put a fresh covering on: change a bed; change the baby.

VERB:
intr.

1. To become different or undergo alteration: He changed as he matured.

2. To undergo transformation or transition: The music changed to a slow waltz.

3. To go from one phase to another, as the moon or the seasons.

4. To make an exchange: If you prefer this seat, I'll change with you.

5. To transfer from one conveyance to another: She changed in Chicago on her way to the coast.

6. To put on other clothing: We changed for dinner.

7. To become deeper in tone: His voice began to change at age 13.

NOUN:

1. The act, process, or result of altering or modifying: a change in facial expression.

2. The replacing of one thing for another; substitution: a change of atmosphere; a change of ownership.

3. A transformation or transition from one state, condition, or phase to another: the change of seasons.

4. Something different; variety: ate early for a change.

5. A different or fresh set of clothing.

Disuniting with multicultural change means: Lack of unity with many cultures changing (i.e. altering, substituting, transforming or making different) the design of the mainstream culture in America.

It is not my vision. Mainstream culture provides cohesion while the confusion of many cultures destroys the fabric of society. Leftists have utilized the Constitutional tools of a Representative Republic (Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) to tear the societal fabric. The good intentions of an altruistic Leftism will guide the Leftists further and further from the mythic utopia they seek. The concept of many cultures will NOT form a cohesive unified nation. The secret of America’s melting pot used to be that immigrants conform to the American culture and learn English.

I am willing to bet that the majority of Americans with an Italian, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, or whatever language/culture that formed the bulk of the American melting pot in the 19th and the 20th centuries (until approximately the 1960’s) eschewed their European dialects for English and the American dream began by the Founding Fathers. Leftist propaganda, political clout and money has depreciated American morality so much that homosexual, transgender and open hedonism is practiced so much that people are not shocked when two males or two females are in lip-lock groping each other in public. Adultery is merely irreconcilable differences. Unwed mothers is nearly a societal rule rather than a frowned upon exception. Teen pregnancies are huge today even though the American Left has enabled birth control via baby murder (Leftists call it termination of a fetus). School children in primary and secondary schools are concerned enough about guns and knives on a school campus that metal detectors or armed guards are there for protection. If the metal detectors or guards are lacking than a kid might go Columbine on his or her fellow students.

To be fair to the Left, their existence has brought some good changes to America. For example more legal equality for women including the right to vote (though women still fight the boys club today). Another example is giving the right to vote to young men and women that are eligible to be placed in a combat situation in the American military. Most importantly legalized racism has been terminated. The Civil Rights Movement has brought American Rights to African-Americans so that segregation has been swept from American culture.

On the other hand I can see you don’t agree with a vision of a moral fabric creating a unified mainstream culture to roll back the evils of diversity.

JRH 11/12/09