The unraveling of America

One of my favorite commentators is Mark Steyn, born in Canada but now an American resident, living in New Hampshire.


Steyn and I concur on the unraveling of America.

First, let’s look at one dictionary’s (The Cambridge Online) definition of the word nation:

A large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history.

This not only does not apply to the United States in 2012, it defines something the ruling elites are naively and intentionally attempting to eliminate. The definition of nation runs completely counter to the goal of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism, the worship of diversity, is undermining national unity. This is happening not only in the United States, but in other areas, particularly in Western Europe, where multiculturalism also is seen as a glorious thing.

In Europe, multiculturalism — and the Arab immigrants who are rapidly taking advantage of it — has brought a new word into our lexicon: Eurabia.

Most parts of the world still embrace the Cambridge definition of nation. That would be Latin America,* the Middle East, Africa and Asia, areas which will take advantage in many ways of the West’s ongoing cultural suicide.

You will never see Mexico, Brazil, Burma, Uganda, India, Japan, China, Russia, et al., telling themselves: Let’s get as many people within our borders who are of other religions, languages, customs, races and beliefs. It’s only fair.

Venture outside the Western World, and tell a man on the street of the glories of a multicultural nation, where different religions, races and cultures coexist in peace, and that citizen will burst out in hilarity. He knows better.

* * * *

But back to Mark Steyn. He contends, and rightly so, that culture forms politics. Unlike Europe where intolerant Islamists are welcomed, America is increasingly becoming Hispanic, and that is changing both culture and politics.

Let’s turn the lectern over to Mark:

“A population perhaps the size of Australia’s or four mid-sized EU nations’ strolled into America and decided to stay. In doing so, they broke the law. Literally.

That’s to say, some of the most basic laws of the nation lie shattered and discarded. Municipally, we have “sanctuary cities.” At the state level, Illinois is merely the latest to consider issuing driver’s licenses and other legal ID to persons who are in the country illegally.

Federally, the president himself has decreed by executive order that the laws of the nation not be enforced — and, indeed, anybody minded to try enforcing them (Arizona) gets hauled into court.

This is a highly legalistic society with laws against everything and most of them with stiff jail sentences attached. Yet a group of squatters has rendered the law irrelevant.

Four of the September 11 terrorists obtained the picture ID they used to board the plane through the illegal-immigrant, day-worker network in the parking lot of the 7-Eleven in Falls Church, Va.

But 3,000 corpses wasn’t enough to persuade either the citizenry or their representatives to end their indulgence of such networks. Indeed, it’s estimated that half of the “undocumented” have come here since 9/11. That’s to say, they broke into a country on Code Orange alert.

The culture frames the issues, starting with the appropriation of language: These are “hard-working families” willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do,” notwithstanding the strains they place on hospitals and schools, the contributions they make to gang crime and drunk-driving statistics.

Once upon a time they were “illegal,” then “undocumented,” now just “immigrants,” a word with longstanding emotional resonance in America but nevertheless one that used to mean guys who stood in line at consulates, filled in the paperwork, and paid the application fees, and whose redefinition into something entirely different has been accepted as a fait accompli.”

* * * *

The nation is unraveling and increasingly becoming a contentious babel.

(Coming up: The death of free speech.)

* * * *

* For the sake of the argument, I am not including Latin America in the Western World, which I define here as Western Europe, the United States and Canada, the lands ruled by clueless Caucasians and similar folks.

(More on Mark Steyn, if it interests you.)

7 thoughts on “The unraveling of America”

  1. A number of nations have more than one language, including Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, India and the Philippines. The Cambridge definition of a nation is flawed. An attitude of multiculturalism is not evil by itself, and it helps to win elections.

    Political correctness, however, is the greater threat to our way of life and to our liberties and free speech. We are in need, in my opinion, of greater tolerance in accepting the changing demographics of our nation and the acceptance of both English and Spanish as our two principal languages.


    1. Andres: Quite right that a number of nations have more than one language. There is normally a primary one though, and there is often quite a bit of grief, sometimes violence, within those nations due to that and other differences.

      And you are right in that an attitude of multiculturalism is not evil by itself. However, as it is being played out today in certain nations — put on a pedestal and worshiped, encouraging an increase in the differences of language, culture, religion, etc. — is a very negative thing.

      It’s interesting how you separate political correctness and multiculturalism. They walk hand in hand. The PC people are the enforcers of multiculturalism.

      Two principal languages is contradictory to the notion of nationhood.


    2. Let’s look at just one of your examples, the nation closest to us. Canada.

      The Québécois are so vehemently opposed to incursions of English into their province that calls for secession from the rest of Canada are common. Québec has ham-fisted language laws to minimize English, a language that really pisses them off.

      The relationship between the French province and the rest of Canada has long been one filled with considerable tension. Fact is that Québec is a nation within a nation, and was a major mistake from the get-go.

      It illustrates my point very nicely. Thanks for mentioning it.


  2. You need to take a course on human geography. It covers the concepts of nation and state well. The U.S. is a state for sure and a nation as well, but we in political science/geography would call the Navajo a nation but not a state. Dig deep, my friend, you are being mislead about what is taught in our nation’s college classrooms today. There are lots of classes online today that are free. Sit down and take one. You’re a smart guy — look for yourself before you tear something down.


  3. Your definition of nation looked off. It was. Cambridge dictionary gives two definitions of nation. The first defines a geographical/political entity and doesn’t not mention race. The second definition ~ the one you use ~ refers, as the guy above mentions to a people. Not to a nation state. You even missed off the last few words of the second definition that makes that point. Buddy, that ain’t smart. It leaves your argument hanging out of context. No relevance to any of the points you go on to.

    What are the demographics of Latin America anyways?


    1. Anon: First off, no anons here, please. If you want to comment, and that’s fine, pick a name and stick to it. Be brave and use your own name. Thanks.

      My definition of nation is not off. If you look at various dictionaries, you will find various definitions, of course. Probably quite a few. I chose one. And I did use the second one in the Cambridge Online because it suited my point best and, yes, there were a few more words.

      To wit: …but who might not all live in one area. And then it mentions the Navajo nation. I cannot see how those words alter anything important. And I imagine the Navajos will strenuously insist that being a Navajo means people of the Navajo race (if there is one), language, culture, traditions, etc. In that, they would be quite correct. In short, they would not think of you as part of their “nation” no matter how many years you lived in the neighboring teepee.

      The first definition in the same dictionary is:

      A country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.

      Take note: With their own government, language and traditions, etc.

      A nation which, in my opinion, is like a huge family with many commonalities, would not only include one language, culture, traditions, etc., it would mean the same race. That was even truer in the past, way before you multiculturalists arrived on the scene. The very notion of multiracial nations would have been incomprehensible to one and all.

      But my focus is not specifically on race. A nation that stands a chance of surviving cannot be a full-blown polyglot. And no matter how much the multiculturalists insist on the beauty, fairness, desirability and sweetness of such a thing, most people balk at it on a gut level. Always have. Always will. Take it to the bank.

      The demographics of Latin America? Catholic, Spanish-speaking, of course. For more details, Google awaits you.


Comments are closed.