Author: jetbrane

“Critics who branded (Huntingdon’s) book as a work of undisguised nativism missed an essential point. Huntington observed that his was an ‘argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people.’ The success of this great republic, he said, had hitherto depended on the willingness of generations of Americans to honor the creed of the founding settlers and to shed their old affinities. But that willingness was being battered by globalization and multiculturalism, and by new waves of immigrants with no deep attachments to America’s national identity. ‘The Stars and Stripes were at half-mast’ he wrote in ‘Who Are We?’, ‘and other flags flew higher on the flagpole of American identities.'”

Faoud Ajami
Wall Street Journal Article On Huntington

1.) It is difficult to see how one can get to Anglo-Protestant culture apart from a majority of Anglo-Protestant people. Huntington desired A native America maintaining its original meaning but manned by a people shaped and drawn by a plethora of alien cultures. This is the ridiculous notion of America as a “proposition nation.” Now certainly people from other cultures and nations can become American but only as America remains a majority of Anglo-Protestant people. When America becomes a majority of non Anglo-Protestant people America will no longer have a Anglo-protestant culture.

2.) The third sentence of that quote above is also questionable. During the war of Northern Aggression many immigrants did not honor the creed of the founding settlers and did not shed their old affinities but instead forced those old socialistic affinities on the South and the country through the war and the reconstruction that followed. An argument might be made that what happened in the war of Northern aggression was that America was battered by the use of those immigrants who had no deep attachment to America’s national identity.

This can be seen in how the Union cause attracted to itself numerous German revolutionaries who had fled to America after collapse of the European uprisings of 1848. Though they had left the Deutschland behind, these Germans had not abandoned a radicalism that was anything but American. As a result they were among the greatest haters of all things American. Professor Clyde Wilson reminds us of an encounter between one of these German radicals and Confederate General Richard Taylor. In his elegant memoir, “Destruction and Reconstruction,” General Taylor recalled the occasion in 1865 when the duty fell to him to surrender the last Confederate army east of the Mississippi River. At Union headquarters, a German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily accented English, lectured General Taylor that now that the war was over, Southerners would be taught “the true American principles.” To which General Taylor — the son of Zachary Taylor — replied that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on to him these “true American principles.”

It is not politically correct or multi-culturally proper but the fact of the matter is that you can not sustain Anglo-Protestant culture apart from a clear majority of Anglo-Protestant people who have been trained to cherish what makes them uniquely them which includes their ethnicity, family ties, faith, language, traditions, customs, and land. If this is not pursued what will result is that those who are Anglo-Protestant will be ashamed of their own unique culture and exchange their unique culture for the mono-culture of multi-culturalism.

“Three possible American futures beckoned, (Samuel) Huntington said: cosmopolitan, imperial and national. In the first, the world remakes America, and globalization and multiculturalism trump national identity. In the second, America remakes the world: Unchallenged by a rival superpower, America would attempt to reshape the world according to its values, taking to other shores its democratic norms and aspirations. In the third, America remains America: It resists the blandishments — and falseness — of cosmopolitanism, and reins in the imperial impulse.”

Culled From A Wall Street Journal Article By Foud Ajami

The synopsis of Ajami is taken from Huntington’s last work, “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity.” Huntington was a Harvard academic whose name became big in 1993 when he wrote, “Clash of Civilizations.”

Huntington’s observations, as summarized by Ajami, is exactly what I’ve been trying to get at for years on the political scene. In Huntington’s plausibility structure it is the Democrats who are seeking to push the Cosmopolitan America. Democrats wish to remake America into the World’s socialism image. On the other hand it is the Republicans who are seeking to push Huntington’s Imperial model where we export our socialism image on the whole world. The twist though is that Democrats want to use Imperial efforts domestically in order to force us to be Cosmopolitan while the Republicans desire Cosmopolitanize the world with their definition of multiculturalism. The end though is that both parties are working towards the same end. The only difference is that they are working towards that same end from different directions. In both scenarios the World, will in the end, look very much the same. Whether Huntington’s Cosmopolitan vision triumphs or whether Huntington’s Imperial vision triumphs, the result will be the same egalitarian, socialistic, tyrannical bland sameness. For the Cosmopolitans American becomes the World. For the Imperialists the World becomes America. But in the end it all becomes the same. If you mix Coke and Orange Juice or if you mix Orange Juice and Coke, in the end its all the same. Just so with the Cosmopolitan and Imperial visions.

Huntington’s third way recommends itself the most. However, in order for their to be a third way we have to return to the Christian version of what America was intended to be. If America will be America that automatically means that we discontinue with the Wilsonian nonsense of making the world in our image by means of the forceful extension of “freedom and democracy” — whatever the hell those words mean anymore. Huntington’s vision requires us to return to an “America First” mindset. It means that we have to quit with the notion that America is a “proposition nation” (could their be any more of a Cosmopolitan notion?) and return to the idea that America is a distinct place that is defined by its traditions, customs, land, people, and faith. It means a return to an America that is defined by distinctly Christian (and yes Protestant) ethos. It means that we drive a nationalistic spear through the heart of Cosmopolitan political correctness and multiculturalism and through the lungs of Imperial over-reach.

Personally, though I like Huntington’s call for America to remain America I wonder if it is to late for us to be able to do that.Are there enough Americans who know what America means? Are there enough elites who desire for America to remain America? (See Christopher Lasch’s “Revolt Of The Elites”) I know there aren’t enough Churches who would be willing to articulate a Christian Protestant vision of America. The Church has embraced the Cosmopolitan vision and is to busy trying to destroy itself by embracing all cultures.

(Remember culture is created by faith. In order to embrace all cultures it means that at the same time we must embrace all faiths.)

So I’m walking through the living room where my family is watching the New Year’s Days Parade, and a commercial comes on with the lead sentence, every 10 seconds some animal is abused in America.” From there they went to camera shots of pets that had been abused. It was obviously an appeal to sympathy.

Now, I’m as sensitive a guy as the next guy but personally I was disgusted by the commercial. Here we have a culture that is killing 1.3 million babies annually and I’m expected to feel sorry for a bunch of dumb animals? Certainly, seeing any of God’s creation abused is sad but can we get a sense of proportion?

I also noted the power of imagery. They put these poor suffering animals on the screen and instantly the instinct is to feel sympathy and yet it is considered taboo to show pictures of slaughtered babies.

This commercial reminded me how hardened and cynical this culture is. It disgusts me that this is “my culture.”

Anybody want to bet a large sum of money that the very people who made this “feel sorry for the pets of the world” commercial are also people who strongly support abortion?