My last post, I described our issue with illegal immigration in comparison with the refugee issue in France. In that there are similarities, I stand by that post. And, I was not addressing the particulars of the refugee crisis in Europe, more the situation associated with our similar crisis.
Why sound like a politician? Well...as much as I like to think I don't misstate things, it is possible that what I wrote could be considered contradictory to what I am about to write. I don't want to give people the impression that I don't remember what I have written, or contradict it willy nilly.
However, there is a difference in how we should treat and respond to the Hispanic population in our shadows, and the methods we should take with potential Middle Eastern refugees. The difference is quite simple to explain, and while it may not end up with a lot of people agreeing with me, it is from years of study and observation that I make these statements.
We are a nation made of immigrants. More specifically, we are generally a nation made up of urban immigrants from similarly developed and culturally related countries. Our major tie comes from Europe and then from Africa. That is simply based on numbers, not in some imagined primacy of race. When one considers why Russian, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Armenian, Serbian, Persian/Iranian, French and Portugese immigrant groups have been so readily assimilated and successful here, the commonality is background of culture and origin.
While less successful, mostly for enforced reasons, the African influence comes to be entrenched, as it adapted to the European influence it observed. I do not suggest that there should be no pride or observance of African culture, but as the African population, mostly brought here wholly involuntarily, accepted and adapted to the European culture, it has become more successful.
We are a nation of Christian morals and values. You can try to argue with me all that you want, how those white powder wig wearing dudes, descending directly from the highest society in England, were not influenced, informed and educated through the prism of JudeoChristian ethic, and I will simply shake my head at your obstinance. Jefferson was not an atheist, he was just a flake. Franklin was a philanderer, a nudist, a reprobate, and quoted Scripture often. In many ways, he was the epitome of the modern American. There is a struggle with humanity, but a bedrock of Christianity within Franklin that beckons us, which is why he is so popular, but almost no one today can explain what his role or position in the government was. Most think he was a President. Whether they achieved the moral standards they set for themselves, all our Founding Fathers gathered them from the King James Bible, or the Torah also contained therein.
In that sense, the poor Jews and Christians that arrived here, they had an advantage. They understood the simple underpinnings and bedrock morals of the society. They did not need education in what "we" believed, they had the 10 Commandments down. Even when they were being successful at breaking the 10 Commandments (the mob) they did not need anyone to explain to them why it was or was not considered legal. Those that suffered most were the aboriginal people, the natives. Their stubborn clinging to their ways and beliefs sealed their fate much more prominently than their lack of written language and cultural understanding. Had they been more maleable to the JudeoChristian ethos, there is little doubt that they would have fared much more successfully.
How do I make this assumption? I look to the south, and while there was little choice to avoid conversion, and many, many people died to be converted, (a performance that rivals the activities of the current Islamic States, which is in itself a product of cultural influence, we will get to), there was much more volume in the numbers that took up the cross. And, while they quietly and stubbornly held to their own cultural history, they did learn to operate within and understand the JudeoChristian ethos around them.
I am not blaming the native populations for not being forcefully converted, nor am I justifying the atrocities that were committed. On the contrary, it is the example that I hold up as my reasoning as to why we must be very mindful of what we are doing when we admit the waves of Muslim refugees we are looking at. This is a different cultural subset.
I don't want to have a discussion about which one is right, even. Again, the reality informs us, without need for valuation judgements. Being right or wrong, immaterial for this conversation. Being different and incompatible, very much the topic of this conversation. Neither side of the discussion will find any margin to budge to move to compatibility.
While informed and influenced by the Muslim culture, particularly in Spain, Portugal and the Caucuses, European culture clung to a Roman core of culture. There was a powerful societal construct that drove the development of the Western World, in the manner in which it developed. This occurred due to environmental factors, societal changes, and shared cultural communion that built Europe. Russia is the oddest of the old powers, because it was most influenced and shaped by the Muslim influence, but it is still a European power and a Western culture, it chose to be, and has fought the Muslim culture for centuries and centuries.
Spain, Portugal and most of the Caucuses were Muslim regimes for centuries longer than other powers in the Western part of Europe. And while wrapped up in the Roman construct, and a member of the Western culture, they most effectively integrated pieces of the Muslim culture. That is why, when it came to armed conquest, forced conversion, rigid dogmatic purity, violence coated in religion and inability to recognize a secular view of any topic, they were the most capable and feared, and this is just the Inquisition I am talking about. We have not even gotten to colonization of the Americas.
There is plenty of dirt to go around in history. Nobody's hands are clean when it comes to conquest, war and agrandizement. I don't claim superiority to one side or the other. I think that logic and plain recognition of fact does that all on its own. However, the evolution of both sides of this cultural divide, occurred apace and apart. Western culture has become so entrenched in our radical ideas of individual worth, tolerance, and acceptance (however imperfectly we practice them) that we are an enigma to Islam. Islamic purity, isolation and dogma are so centralized that they pass beyond our understanding.
It is truly like attempting to teach rattlesnakes and eagles to live together. Eagles prey upon rattlesnakes, if they survive killing them. Rattlesnakes only require one strike to protect themselves from the eagle, if they do it early enough to survive the fall. There is nothing that we can do that takes that out of the eagle, or out of the rattlesnake. It does not even matter which side you assign to which animal.
You can not vet which rattlesnakes will strike early enough to survive, nor can you vet which eagles are limber enough to avoid the strike. You can't tell the contents of a person's heart. However, when persons from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, come into our country, they bring a shared cultural attainment. They get what it is that we do, they know what it is that we are. They understand the substruct, instinctively, as it is the basis of the common cultural landscape. We can argue all day about the legality of it, and all of that. But, we do not have to worry about whether they are here to convert us on the point of a sword or dirty bomb, or just want to earn enough to support their kids. They are here to earn enough to support their kids.
When we bring in "refugees" from the Middle East, there is not vetting possible that protects the nation. That is just plain fact. The good Christian in me says to love them, they are my neighbor. But they can be my neighbor in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq. They don't need to be my neighbor in Clayton.
I have been to the Middle East. It is not like our world here in the West. I don't know how to say it more plainly than that. In our core we are, both sides, people, but we don't believe the same things are universally true in our core. I do with the French, with the British, with the Brazilians. They do with me.
I do not with the Kuwaitis, Yemeni, Iranians. They don't, and they don't have to. Whatever and whyever it is what it is, it doesn't need to be here. It is unsafe for it to be here. We cannot get rid of all of it, nor should we live in isolation. But we do not have to take hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised, impoverished, bitter people that do not and have not ever considered our social construct to be okay. And, I am sorry, but if you are coming here, you have to buy into the social construct of America. We do not have to change it to fit you.
That is not elitism, or bigotry, or disrespectful. That is just what it is. And the sooner we all get to understand that, we will realize that there are significant risks associated with being inundated with Muslims that do not exist with the wave we are having wash over us from the south. It is apples to hand grenades, and it is just too risky. There are socialization issues that must be addressed in that insular, isolated culture, before it can exist in the world without what is happening. It is warring on all its borders, on each other and with any and all. Why? That is what it has taught from birth for so many generations that there is no other option available to them. There are not a lot of American suicide bombers, because we have not spent centuries developing martyrs because we cannot imagine a world without ultimate war. We have lived generations trying to build the world without war. It is fundamentally and absolutely different.
It is that simple. The eagle and the rattlesnake. They can't live together. Ask Belgium, ask France, ask Spain, ask Turkey, ask the US. It will not change, not in our lifetime, perhaps not before God ends it Himself. Whenever that cold day in hell occurs, then will the eagle and rattlesnake live together. Until then, best to keep them far apart. Fights to the death are brutal, ugly and end badly.
Look at the world, can you not see what I am saying?
GLYASDI
No comments:
Post a Comment