Assimilation And Cultural Identity Or Quien Cojones Eres?

america_decay_credit_presstvI commend you on delivering an admirable response to my immigration article, Zano, but there’s still one unacknowledged point of contention that is at the heart of my argument. You’ve been dancing around this point since our very first debate, and I am determined to pin you down, you slippery sophist. The main point behind virtually every one of my Discord articles is the question: what is our nation’s cultural identity? And, no, I don’t believe it is relevant or appropriate to explain our cultural identity as it relates to the subject of midget porn.

Here’s Pokey’s first article and Zano’s rebuttal for those suckers for abuse among you.

My first step in framing this subject is to state the obvious importance for immigrants to be assimilated into our nation’s culture, rather than to be socially accommodated to exist within isolated pockets of independent communities. However, the very nature of assimilation requires that our nation have a definable and recognizable cultural identity to which immigrants can assimilate. I will be defining the United States’ cultural identity on the basis of the traditions and documents that have been passed on through our nation’s history. Then I will show how the political ideology of Democratic Socialism is incompatible with, and destructive to, our Constitutional Republic. I assume from your stated concerns about the refugee overload in Germany that you do acknowledge that our nation’s immigration policy must lead to an assimilation of immigrants, rather than the mere accommodation of pockets of isolated foreign communities inside our nation’s borders. I claim this is, indeed, what incrementally occurred in France and Belgium.

Of course, Islamic immigrants offer great resistance to assimilation by the very nature of their religious convictions. There is no traditional separation between church and state in Islam, nor has there been substantial reformation in Islam. The question arises: how can a faithful Muslim honor their oath to U.S. citizenship where they “…absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, or whom or which I heretofore been subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” and also honor Sharia law?

For the American Muslim, does loyalty to Sharia Law overrule their loyalty to the United States Constitution? That’s what is now happening throughout much of Europe. Isolated pockets of unassimilated Muslim communities have been socially accommodated and encouraged by their host nation to produce a generation of people whose loyalty and values are destructive to that very host nation. We, the citizens of the United States, have a responsibility to ensure that this never happens here.

This issue transcends all of the political bullshit being spewed by both parties.

Now, how can we best define the United States cultural identity to which all immigrating citizens shall assimilate? If we have no tangible identity, then how in the world can we expect immigrants to assimilate into our culture, even if that is their desire? I assert that the our nation’s cultural identity is comprised of the orthodox traditions by which our nation was formed and through which our nation has been sustained: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the writings of our founding families, the Bible, the traditions of Judeo-Christianity, and the English language. It is upon this foundation that our nation was born, and it is upon this foundation that our nation’s survival depends.

Zano, can you even argue that the Democratic Party openly encourages a cultural movement that undermines these principles upon which our nation depends? I’m simply wondering whether you personally encourage such a cultural movement. Take a good hard look at Belgium; they are the poster child for a progressive democratic socialism. For years they have democratically implemented socialist policies, they have abandoned their Christian (Catholic) roots, while embracing secular humanism. They increased their sexual appetite while decreasing their procreation, while merrily promoting multi-cultural diversity, and now they are overrun with zealous communities of people who share none of their values. This can happen here; it is happening here.

Democratic Socialism is incompatible with our Constitutional Republic. You have many insights on many subject, but your apparent blind spot on this issue threatens to eclipse your otherwise meaningful contributions. Do you really support a Democratic Socialism that can only exist in our Constitutional Republic by “changing our history” (Michelle Obama) and “fundamentally transforming” (President Obama) our nation. So progressive judges are planted in the courts to re-interpret the Constitution so that the federal government and unions can forcibly take money from private citizens and non-union members without that being viewed as a violation against those individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Progressive educators teach children that the Constitution is not meant to be interpreted literally, but rather as a “living breathing document” that requires highly educated career government “experts” to tell us what the living document really means. It’s probably best that we make a new Constitution that more clearly expresses the “evolved” culture that is emerging.

Ultimately, it’s impossible for a person to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America and to support a Democratic Socialist agenda. I do give Bernie Sanders credit, at least he is being honest. Virtually all of the Democratic Party is now Socialist but most members don’t find it politically feasible to market themselves in such a manner (yet). Modern Democrats take incremental steps toward the goals of Socialism, so that they can market themselves as “moderates,” right Zano? In a similar manner, 8 years ago, virtually all of the Democratic Party was actually in favor of gay marriage, but they were in the closet marketing themselves as defenders of traditional marriage, a “bedrock foundational principle…of our civilization.” (Hillary Clinton 2004). That’s how proggressives work; they take small incremental steps so that they can market themselves as moderates. But when gay marriage became the cool fad, the hip fashion, and the new style that was now a rave with all the kids, then the Dems all jumped into feet first. So yeah, at least Bernie Sanders is consistent and honest about his political ideology, but his conviction are honestly wrong (just like yours, Zano).

To push forth a Democratic Socialist agenda is to destroy our nation’s traditional cultural identity. To destroy our cultural identity is to ensure that those people immigrating to this nation will not be able to be assimilated, and that ultimately leads to the progressive destruction of our Constitutional Republic.

Can you even argue with this, Zano? I’m sure you’ll at least try to argue around it.

This is not about the political crisis facing the Democrats and Republicans. This is about what it means to be an American citizen. The lines are drawn, Progressive Democratic Socialism is attacking the Orthodox foundation of our Constitutional Republic as we speak.

Every citizen is not asked the question: who the fuck are you?


(Visited 115 times, 1 visits today)