[MD] the empire

[Ham Priday]

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