Minorities --ethnic or religious-- in a State ought be protected. But never encouraged to grow. Nor should the majorities ever discomfit or accommodate themselves for the sake of minorities.
It seems to me, looking back, that one of the great mistakes, perhaps the greatest, of the Founding Fathers --arrogant as that may be of me to say-- is that they took for granted who "the People" were and did not try to name them, ethnically or religiously.
Now we have an outcome that they, of course, could never have imagined* and absolutely never intended: coalitions of aggrieved minorities running the country. At the very least, it offends common sense.
I am aware that my current thought brings me into line with the position of Islam on the dhimmis, and with the various regimes of England that once excluded Catholics and Jews from education, the profession and politics. Oh, well. In both cases, as unpleasant as it was/is for the excluded groups, the policy works.
Traditional Asian countries like China, Japan, etc. are not susceptible to moral suasion on abstract grounds apart from the realities of blood and soil. And the State of Israel is quite clear that it is a state for Jews. Try emigrating there if you are a Gentile, much less an Arab. Or an illegal alien from Africa.
I suppose my current feeling is just the logical outcome of my rejection of multiculturalism as nothing less --nothing less-- than a program of depotentiation, pathologization, marginalization, dispossession, domination and erasure of Whites. Multiculturalism is to Whites as Marxism-Leninism is to the middle and upper classes.
*Jefferson is an exception. As everyone knows, he rejected slavery in principle on moral grounds but not in practice. He still believed Blacks to be inferior to Whites and could do this without contradiction. (You can reject child labor without favoring child suffrage). With his image of holding the wolf by the ears, he felt that some kind of win/lose endgame would evolve, that the two races could never live together without one of them destroying the other.
---
It seems to me, looking back, that one of the great mistakes, perhaps the greatest, of the Founding Fathers --arrogant as that may be of me to say-- is that they took for granted who "the People" were and did not try to name them, ethnically or religiously.
Now we have an outcome that they, of course, could never have imagined* and absolutely never intended: coalitions of aggrieved minorities running the country. At the very least, it offends common sense.
I am aware that my current thought brings me into line with the position of Islam on the dhimmis, and with the various regimes of England that once excluded Catholics and Jews from education, the profession and politics. Oh, well. In both cases, as unpleasant as it was/is for the excluded groups, the policy works.
Traditional Asian countries like China, Japan, etc. are not susceptible to moral suasion on abstract grounds apart from the realities of blood and soil. And the State of Israel is quite clear that it is a state for Jews. Try emigrating there if you are a Gentile, much less an Arab. Or an illegal alien from Africa.
I suppose my current feeling is just the logical outcome of my rejection of multiculturalism as nothing less --nothing less-- than a program of depotentiation, pathologization, marginalization, dispossession, domination and erasure of Whites. Multiculturalism is to Whites as Marxism-Leninism is to the middle and upper classes.
*Jefferson is an exception. As everyone knows, he rejected slavery in principle on moral grounds but not in practice. He still believed Blacks to be inferior to Whites and could do this without contradiction. (You can reject child labor without favoring child suffrage). With his image of holding the wolf by the ears, he felt that some kind of win/lose endgame would evolve, that the two races could never live together without one of them destroying the other.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment