tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post6472582395635260219..comments2024-03-16T00:26:41.051-04:00Comments on Scaramouche: Hirsi Ali 'Splains What Multiculti Has Wrought: War Between Jihadists and European Traditionalistsscaramouchehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04380374512378209528noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6573533210099052368.post-53348337476681700882011-10-23T18:14:38.005-04:002011-10-23T18:14:38.005-04:00What made the American melting pot--and, I should ...What made the American melting pot--and, I should think, the Canadian one as well--feasible was the fact that, whatever the purely religious differences among the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews who made up the great, overwhelming majority of the post-Anglo-Saxon waves of immigrants, there was common moral ground (as Christian moral theology, both Protestant and Catholic, was inherited wholesale from the Pharisaic Judaism of Jesus' time), along with a willingness to create a separate space ("Render unto Casear . . ." ) for a non-theocratic government, which was nevertheless informed by the moral consensus among the three faiths. That non-theocratic government also insisted that, whatever quaint and exotic cultural traditions the new immigrants wished to perpetuate in the privacy of their homes and ethnic enclaves, they had to cede the public square--including the public schools--to the great Anglo-Saxon tradition of law and liberty; you were free as free can be to speak Italian or Yiddish or Hungarian or whatever at home, or in church, or in the local ethnic society, but full participation in the broader society required becoming "ideological" Anglo-Saxons. That was the melting pot.<br /><br />Multiculturalism has managed to undermine the consensual arrangement that made the melting pot possible by (a) undermining the moral consensus rooted in Pharisaic Judaism and driving it out of the public square and (b) insisting on the right of immigrants with alien values--e.g., adherents of the Religion of Peace--to repudiate the Anglo-Saxon norms of law and liberty, indeed, to demand that the greater society accept those values within their enclaves (for starters!). Enforcing that acceptance has involved the legal persecution of those who publicly refuse to bow to the dictates of the Multiculturalist Elite regarding what is or is not licit speech. Indeed, even the most scrupulous adherence to extant law is not enough to allow the anti-Multiculturalists to prevail legally, as the courts have repeatedly disregard law and ancient precedent in favoring Multiculturalist doctrine.<br /><br />When people are denied the recourse of law, one should not be surprised if they turn to other means. In Europe, more and more "traditionalists" are beginning to conclude that they must turn to other means if they wish to preserve what they value in their ancient civilization. We are drifting in that direction in the New World as well, though the disease is not as advanced. Let us hope we can turn present trends around using legal means, while that option is still possible.Carlos Pererahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00253355647824872032noreply@blogger.com