Hi Platt, Woods --
[Woods]:
... It's all these dabblings early on that leads the U.S. into particular dangers that now the U.S. has to sit around and discuss what to do with Iran? The U.S. via its foreign affairs is bringing the U.S. citizens into such disastrous situations. So at this point, what else could we do if Iran does get nuclear weapons. As if the U.S. doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is in over 100 countries around the world in an empire strong-arm position. This needs to be taken into account too. I think the starting point for all of this includes a look into what the U.S. does in its' foreign affairs. What the impact of the U.S. upon the world? ...
[Platt]:
I'm all in favor of trying isolationism again. There's only one problem. Who will defend the intellectual rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, trial by jury, habeas corpus, government by consent, etc.? The rest of the world seems bent on appeasement, just as Europe did during the rise of Hitler and later while threatened by Russian communism. Even now Europeans stand idly by while Muslims, rejecting Western values and refusing to assimilate, occupy their countries. But, what the hell? If you're a multi-culturist, it makes no difference whose regime you live under. All are equally moral. Pirsig may be the only intellectual left who believes multi-culturism is bullcrap. ..."A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (Lila, 24) But, who pays any attention to Pirsig anyway? Just a few of us "cult" members.
I "feel your pain", Platt. Like you, I also lament America's drift from the constitutional republic laid out by our Founding Fathers. Appeasement was certainly not one of their principles, and they could not have foreseen the multiculturalism that would infest the free world. Rather than returning to isolationism, though, I tend to side with the "America First" philosophy of Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich. A nation has to look out for itself just as an individual does. And that means accepting moral and fiscal responsibilty for happenings within its borders and never overextending its resources in foreign causes. I think we have failed on both counts.
Multiculturalism in the U.S. was fostered by the Supreme Court's outlawing of school segregation in 1954 and became "politically correct" following the Civil Rights revolution and liberalization of immigration laws in the mid-60s. The object, of course, is to render society colorblind to cultural and racial differences. In effect, it alters our traditional value system to make discrimination in any form immoral. Thus, all people are viewed as equal and no nation is culturally superior to any other.
In an Ayn Rand Institute paper on Diversity and Multiculturalism, the authors describe this campus-driven movement as "The New Racism":
"Advocates of "diversity" claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population "reflect" the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.
"Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today's intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in "the real world" is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity - far from being sought after - is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of "political correctness" blasts the academics' pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity."
Frankly, I don't see this as a contest for biological, social or intellectual dominance. I see it as a diminution of value sensibility and discriminative judgment, which is the very core of individual freedom. If there is any truth to the "globalist conspiracy", this would be its strategy: 1) indoctrinate the masses to the immorality of thinking for themselves so that they become dependents of the state; 2) encourage immigration of Third World populations into developed nations who will then acquiesce to the multicultural differences; and 3) abolish the sovereignty of nation-states. We've already taken major strides toward toward achieving the first two steps. Do you suppose that if the world's most powerful nation were to elect a president with a globalist agenda backed by international support, he might just pull it off?
Happy Election Day! Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
