Category: Culture

“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?

“… why do you allow these people who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing — nothing — will be left but a mechanized homo state gulag presided over by the very worst phlegm our culture can cough up? Is your spirit so crushed by abuse, your intellect so numbed by your “education” and television viewing habits, your resolve so diluted by the state’s economic threatening, that you have forgotten that it is your right — or rather your moral duty — to forcefully say to this Kakistocracy, “this far and no farther”?

Toledo is only about two hours from Charlotte. Yesterday’s Toledo’s Mayor Carty Finkbeier lobbied Congressman Henry Waxman to implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” It seems that Mayor Finkface has had some problems with radio station WSBD actually exposing and opposing “His Honors policies.” Some time ago Speaker Pelosi indicated her support of re-instituting the Fairness doctrine. (If this “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t a classic example of government euphemism doublespeak I don’t know what is.) Many have opined that they will go after freedom of speech on the radio through the back door of what is called “localism” which invokes an arcane aspect of policy that encourages radio stations to be sensitive to local programming concerns.

Now, to be honest, I have a large problem with the depth of much of talk radio, but for all its depth problems it still remains a cut above the New York Times, L. A. Times, Washington Post, and most major newspapers. Talk radio for all its Hannity shallow cheer- leading is still above all the shallow cheer-leading of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and all the other mindless talking heads of main stream media television.

This is all about State control. The State doesn’t like not being able to control the flow of information and it doesn’t like talk radio rallying the troops to melt phone lines down when significant mindless legislation is being pushed.

I heard Senator Shumer of New York recently try to make the case that if the FEDS are charged with making sure pornography doesn’t go into American homes then why is it so bad to think of the FEDS being in charge of what can and can’t be said on the radio. I will have to say that I would prefer pornography being an option for television viewing if that would mean the FEDS couldn’t control the flow of information on the radio.

You know this statist paternalism is getting suffocating. Shortly, you will be able to murder the unborn, born (remember Obama’s opposition the “Infant Born Alive Act”), and the elderly but not be able to choose to whom you can listen to on the radio. The State is working on total control.

Fellow Americans you better wake up. Fascist nationalization has already begun. The banks, the mortgage companies, the financial industry and the money supply are in government control. It won’t be long until our health care will be nationalized. Having nationalized the economy the next step will be the propaganda step. Talk radio, and the internet alone stand in the way of the total control of information and propaganda.

This is some serious reality we are living through.

“Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.

The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html

I know people may be bored with hearing it but no country can survive as a multicultural, multifaith society. Cultures can not survive by being radically heterogeneous. The idea that Britain is moving from the singular culture of Christendom based upon the singular faith of Christianity to a multi-culture of Pluralisdom based upon a multiplicity of faiths is rubbish. What is happening is that Britain is moving from the singular culture of Christendom based upon the singular faith of Christianity to the singular Unitarian culture of Humanismdom based upon the singular faith of humanism.

There is something we need to see here. Christian culture insists that the Christian faith alone is true. Multiculturalism insists that many faiths are true. However, each are claiming that their way alone is true. Thus we see that pluralism isn’t really very pluralistic. Multiculturalism is every bit as mono-cultural as Christianity is. In reality multiculturalism is a singular faith that is built up from a Unitarian religion where people live move and have their being in the State. All faiths are welcome in multiculturalism as long as no faith takes their God more seriously then the State-God who polices to make sure all the gods stay equal and don’t go beyond their boundaries.

Britain is not moving to a culture of one faith to a culture of many faiths. Britain is moving from the one faith of Christianity to the one faith of Statism.

Sorry, I know I’ve said this before.