The following is a response to a International Herald Tribune article titled: ‘Spain’s Muslims face dearth of mosques’ and I’ve provided a link to the article below.
This is a well-traversed modern argument: what to do about competing strains of ideology and culture within the construct of a host society trying to adapt to its immigrants? Before America’s ‘Great Society’ project beginning with JFK and following through with his successor, Johnson’s social engineering wherein special liberties were granted to nonwhites and women, where welfare rolls were greatly expanded and foreign immigration exploded, the question was, not whether the host society should adapt but to what extent pressure would be put on immigrants in order to conform them to the host society. Within this construct, the host society determined what it would accept and what it would not accept; the First Amendment grants freedom of association and therefore the American host society rejected culture (e.g., black*, homosexual, atheist) which it deemed incongruous with its own objectives, thereby relegating said culture to the fringes [of society].
JFK and the feminist/militant black nationalist movement’s treacly sincere efforts to desegregate U of Alabama, among other institutions, has provided inroads into Christian society for nonwhite and foreign ideological terrorism. The negroes, Moslems, illegal hispanic immigrants et cetera ride on the back of emotive appeals inherent in the then-incipient feminine-ist movement in order to ‘break-in’ white Christian society, as it were.
Since gaining traction within the broader social re-engineering movement of Communism overlaid by conventions of ‘tolerance’ wrapped in a shawl of a distorted Christianity which renders Christ an effeminate, the nonwhite terrorist, anti-rule-of-law, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual sex, pro-heterosexual sex, pro-pornography, pro-abortion yet anti-death penalty, anti-segregation and pro-socio-economic-particularist special privileges movement has ridden a wave of presumptive authority.
Make no mistake, the nonwhite particularists in all their shades, the Communists, the Scientologists (whom were jailed for treasonous spying and domestic terrorism in the first quarter of the 20th Century in America and whom are in the process of being banned as a dangerous cult from Germany), the Trinitarians, the Buddhists, the secularist atheists, the Islamists, the neo-Nazis, and the feminazis all want their own realm and they all seek domination. It has just been a fact of the matter at hand that Puritan white heterosexual Christian men have, for the most part, dominated their respective societies and by extension, the globe since the Christian era (the one we’re two thousand and eight years into).
In this context, we should not question the morality of segregation (e.g. JFK and the U of A), rather consider the power of societies to segregate [themselves] (e.g., self-segregating ethno-religious divisions). It is a matter of the power of individual groups within societies and societies as a whole to make their own rules. There will always be norms such that certain behaviors are considered right and others wrong. Norms, then, can be considered to be mutually exclusive from one another – i.e., what is ‘normative’ cannot be ‘abnormal or aberrant’. Therefore, when we consider things we ourselves accept, we are acting within a construct of dichotomies. What the inflammatory ‘civil rights movement’ noted above did was to break apart old dichotomies (such as good and evil) and supplant those with new dichotomies (e.g., tolerant and intolerant).
Jonah G. touches on this subject in his book, “Liberal Fascism” such that the term ‘Nazi’ has come to be synonymous with ‘heretic’. It is used [with broad strokes I might add] to blacken the character of those with whom one disagrees. The same can be said for the words ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’; they are ad hominem attacks with a dual feature built in such that these terms are couched in emotive-laden contexts and therefore are fallacious appeals [to pathos].
The hypocrisy of such dichotomies as have been formed and tolerated (pardon the pun) heretofore since the inflammatory civil rights era is underscored by recent debates within the Democrat party. Namely, ‘racist’ claims by the Obama camp for Hillary’s interpretation of Presidential power over the course of Human Events (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964) as being a product of Johnson’s decisions rather than MLK, Jr.’s [transcendentalist] speeches are juxtaposed by pernicious insinuations by the Clintonistas that Obama is a Muslim and has designs on Western Civ.
What we see with the Dems here is rather a futile mix of atavistic elements competing for hegemony such that complaints masked by the so-called morality of tolerance are found to be red in tooth and claw by claims inimical to aforesaid reservations in that each camp refuses to be tolerant of the intolerance of the other. This whining is an exercise in futility and goes to show where the complainer baby boom era movements lead – to a pit of death and destruction. Are we to complain when our enemies attack us? Where will that lead??
Moreover, the rebarbatively complex value system of the Euro-American left and subsequent hypocrisy of the same is underscored by the siren song of ‘diversity’ in that ‘tolerance’ is a bedrock of virtue coupled with the worldwide desegregation movement. If ‘diversity’ is the golden rule serving as a metric to judge civilization, then segregation must be the ideal. However, if cultural amalgamation were the ideal, obviously, one culture, one ethnicity, one language et cetera would follow. There are many people who prefer their own heritage to others (regardless of race/language/etc) and whom wish not to simply join a confluence of hippiedom, as it were. To suggest this inclination be evil (i.e., mutually exclusive norms and ideals within a common superstructure, as it were) is intolerant of diversity and therefore fascistic.
The following article and others show that the Moslems are a self-segregating bloc (e.g., separate workout times for women Muslims at Harvard, the precursor of which can be attributed to Holland, Switzerland, the UK, and other parts of Europe where separate swimming hours are designated for Muslims); and the same can be said regarding blacks (e.g., United Negro College Fund, National Association for Advancement of Colored People, Congressional Black Caucus), hispanics (e.g., La Raza Unida — translated as ‘The Race United’), and Asians (Asian Student Associations, etc.).
The major question, therefore, facing America, the UK, and Spain, among other Christian nations, is the following: Who is going to make the rules regarding what will be acceptable and what is not acceptable? Will we force-feed ourselves pornography and live under sharia law, will we forcibly integrate populations with radically different norms, thereby ensuring unending strife and mutual villification between both sides?
*black [culture]. In contradistinction to white culture of the host society in America. This discludes, by most if not all accounts, such individuals as Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell et al, who are not politically radical, intellectually conservative black nationalists but rather conformists in the politially conservative, intellectually radical Christian tradition.