When Cultures Collide: The Degradation of America


Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington authored a comprehensive evaluation of immigration and cultural trends in the United States, “One Nation Out of Many: Why ‘Americanization’ of Newcomers Is Still Important” (Magazine article from The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, No. 6). The article dealt with immigration assimilation trends in the United States, and pointed out some rather alarming Huntington 1facts. One of the foremost trends was, as  Huntington’s undeniable statistical evidence provides, a clear disconnect with the general populace by political elites. Political elites or establishment institutions composed of local newspapers and TV stations, local politicians, universities, labor unions, business federations, and minority pressure groups. Almost as if to reinforce Huntington’s point regarding this disconnect, Louis Menand published an article in the New Yorker, entitled “Patriot Games: The New Nativism of Samuel P. Huntington”. Louis Menand is a professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. He has also taught at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Princeton, Columbia, and the University Of Virginia School Of Law. It seems evident from Professor Menand’s credentials, he is amply qualified to represent “establishment institutions” Huntington referred to, and dutifully proceeds to express his opposition to most, if not all, the principles Huntington establishes.

Louis Menand

Louis Menand

Huntington carefully analyzes and reveals the results of his research, substantiating his claims and conclusions. He describes a “core culture” in the United States, described as being composed of the Christian religion; Protestant values; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy. Out of these traditional values, derived from fundamental principles established by the Protestant roots of our nation, he describes how the American Creed is formulated with its principles of liberty, equality, human rights, representative government, and private property. Huntington expresses his concern that the assimilation of immigrants, established by Constitutional architects as a means of assuring loyalty and national homogeneity, is no longer possible when “establishment institutions” are creating an environment which precludes assimilation under the pretext of ‘cultural diversity’ or “multiculturalism”. This, he claims and provides evidence to support, is because the “establishment institutions” have adopted policies of “deconstruction” which are harmful to the best interests and solidarity of our nation and contrary to the will of the constituency.


An Agenda of Restoring the Hispanic Empire?

Menand submitted his article as little more than an unsubstantiated denial of all the concerns and evidence Huntington had so eloquently expressed. Without ever really making any counterpoints or rebuttals, Menand proceeds to regurgitate his mocking degradation of the fundamental concerns Huntington expressed. He alleges that culture, “ultimately, is everything that is not nature. American culture includes American appetites and American dress, American work etiquette and American entertainment, American piety and American promiscuity all the things that Americans recognize, by their absence, as American when they visit other countries”, as if to say that all that is necessary to adopt the American “creed” is to look like an American. It is difficult therefore, to say the least, to discern whether Menand is making a statement or simply repeating something Huntington has stated, in a derogatory and demeaning fashion. Due to this fundamental vagueness, it is a major challenge to extract any message from Menand’s article other than his objection to Huntington’s article and his profound contempt for anything contrary to the “establishment institutions”; “Huntington is a domestic monoculturalist and a global multiculturalist (and an enemy of domestic multiculturalism and global monoculturalism).” Other than being a profound derogatory statement of the obvious, so what?

In summary, Huntington made his case with sufficient evidence to demonstrate the danger which is inherent in unassimilated Flag Disrespectmulticulturalism and the divisions it produces in the body politic. Immigrants have traditionally been assimilated into the American culture as the American culture adopted elements of the values and culture of its immigrants, producing the unique ‘hybrid’ culture of the United States. Past generations of Americans have been proud of the unique qualities of our ‘hybrid’ culture. Now we have people who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Americans and encourage immigrants like Hispanics and Muslims to refuse assimilation. The outcome cannot be anything but grave, for the cognitive dissonance produced by competing cultures can never produce anything but prejudice and an ‘us against them’ predisposition. The contemporary irrational violence and terrorism which prevails in the USA is a manifestation of mental illness and aversive behavior produced by a dysfunctional society – the consequences are not unintended, but a component of a destructive agenda which will get worse before it gets better, if left to continue as it has been!

There are still a majority of Americans who take pride in being American, while there are a minority of subversives advocating “cultural diversity” which is code for creating separate Muslim, Hispanic and American cultures when we were formerly all PROUD to be AMERICANS!


Simple Solution for an Over-Complicated Nation

The problem:
As our private and government institutions continue to grow and centralize, despite those who claim to oppose such growth and centralization, professionals claim it is necessary to continue development of ever more complex and technical methods of Imagemanagement. The prevailing approach to managing megalithic private and government institutions has been through exponential growth in regulation. This growth in regulation is untenable because it fosters more growth to monitor and enforce the regulations it is supposed to be rectifying, and it continues to drive up government costs which are a major drain on desperately needed funds which fuel the nation’s economic engines.

The solution.
KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid. When this nation was founded, the architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution developed an eloquent and fundamental approach to government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” meant that anyone with any degree of intelligence or education would comprehend their meaning.

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ImageLiberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although there were some, at the time, who considered some people to be fractionally “men”, the fundamental truth was indisputable; God Himself, the ultimate moral authority, had created human beings with fundamental rights.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. The self-evident purpose of government was simply to make those God-given rights SECURE, and those who participated in that government would have no powers or privileges which were not derived from consent of the governed!

ImageFor good measure, the founding fathers threw in a remedy for government which ceased to secure the blessings of liberty and began to engage in activities and policies which exceeded the mandate previously expressed. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

To demonstrate how the rights of states were intended to function in a national union which derived it’s just powers from consent of the people it governed, they also added the ninth and tenth amendments. The ninth amendment guaranteed that some tyrant, in the future would not try to LIMIT our God-given rights to those specified previously. On the other hand, the tenth amendment limited the power of the federal government to those specified in the Constitution.

It was a simple form of government for complicated people who love to fabricate complex problems. As long as there is recognition and Imagevalidation of the diversity of God’s creation, within a framework where NOBODY is superior or inferior, always seeking some common denominator which would integrate some (if not all) of everyone’s needs, government would move ever closer to perfection. Can we just get back to basics and keep it SIMPLE?

There should be nothing complicated or confusing about the VALUES we embrace and support. I am sick to death with those charlatans who divert and divide us by proposing issues of personal morality. I personally embrace the SIMPLE values which are the cornerstone of this nation. The moral issues which continually bewilder and befuddle us are issues which should be dictated by faith and conscience – NOT government. Nor should government be involved in providing fiscal incentives to immoral activities. Partisan activities which advocate VALUES which transcend or supercede CORE VALUES are a detriment to the function of government. If one should feel compelled to engage in partisan participation, the party should be the party of CORE VALUES – LIMITED government securing (as in making more SECURE – fixed or fastened so as not to give way, become loose, or be lost) our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whether it is local or national, we cannot allow our VALUES to be compromised!