August 21, 2006
While the two major political parties debate socialism vs. capitalism, both set about abolishing America.
“What is a transnational elite to me?”
It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it? Let’s try a different way.
In the song, "The House I Live in," Frank Sinatra opens, “What is America to me?”
That’s better.
What’s in a Word?
Note that Earl Robinson and “Lewis Allan’s” (Abel Meeropol’s) song does not speak of “the United States,” a usage that anti-Americans have been quietly imposing for a few years now in classrooms, news rooms, and publishing houses.
Reporters have been known to misrepresent the words of immigrants, claiming they told them they had dreamed, in the land of their birth, of “coming to the United States.”
No one dreams of going to the “United States;” a billion or more people dream of going to America!
Besides, there is no nation uniquely named “the United States.” Mexico’s full name is “the United States of Mexico.” Likewise, from 1889-1968, Brazil’s name was “the United States of Brazil,” which was the name it had when I did an oral report on it in the third grade.
(I punched in “United States of Mexico” at Wikipedia, and was directed to the article entitled, “Mexico,” which opens thus: “The United Mexican States (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos), generally known as Mexico (Spanish: México) is a country located in North America, bordered at the north by the United States, and at the south by Guatemala and Belize, in Central America.” The parenthetical notes are from the article.
It’s a hell of a thing, to open an article with a lie. Estados Unidos translates into English as “United States.” The anonymous mischiefpedist didn’t want his readers to know that Mexico is also called the “United States,” especially since he used the name “United States” in the same sentence to refer to America.
Meanwhile, if you punch in Estados Unidos at Wikipedia, you will be redirected to “United States,” the article for America, but which the Wikipedia editors refuse to call even the “United States of America,” notwithstanding that the anonymous author opens, “The United States of America, also known as the United States, the U.S., the U.S.A., the U.S. of A., the States, and America is a country in North America.”)
“U.S.” is a noun, not an adjective, and “United States” is not an adjective . . . yet. However, many copy editors have begun improperly using “United States” (“U.S.”) as an adjective, as in “a United States citizen.” You can be a citizen of the United States, but the only proper adjective for modifying the noun “citizen” in reference to this country, is “American.” (An immigrant who gained citizenship is still a naturalized American citizen.)
The point of changing the way our nation is commonly referred to, is that the folks running this country are hostile towards their own country, and/or are pandering to people who aren’t even Americans – Latin immigrants, most of whom are illegal human beings – who are hostile to our nation, and yet who have laid claim to our nation’s name.
Around 1988, I rented a room in my home to Carlos, a Honduran from a wealthy Tegucigalpa family. Carlos, who was the son of an engineer, was picking up a master’s in engineering here on a Fulbright scholarship, courtesy of the American taxpayer. An affable fellow, he politely held me in contempt, as did some of his fellow Fulbright “scholars” (particularly a certain German) who frequently visited my home. (The scare quotes are because the men engaged in very little scholarship, devoting most of their time to partying and chasing skirts. The female Fulbrights tended to be more diligent.)
Some of Carlos’ Latin American Fulbright fellows were very nice to me. And yet, they all held America – the nation whose citizens were paying them to visit – in contempt.
Once, Carlos held a big party for a dozen or so of his fellow Latin American Fulbrights. At one point during the party, they all informed me that I had no special right to call myself an “American;” each of them was also an “American.”
It was only much later that I realized how to deal with such sophistry. It would be to point out that none of those people had introduced himself as an “American.” It was always, say, “Hi, I’m Jose. I’m from Columbia.” Or, “I’m Venezuelan.” Never, “I’m Jose, I come from America,” or “I’m American.” I was the only one in the room with an American passport.
And these folks were all being supported entirely by the tax dollars of a people they denied existed.
There is only one nation called America – if we can keep it.
Citizens of the World?
Last fall, Michael Barone wrote a U.S. News column, entitled “Spurning America,” on “transnational elites.”
Transnational elites are well-to-do, powerful people, who feel no loyalty to America. Instead, they feel loyalty to foreigners, and to some Americans, but only insofar as the latter are also transnationalists.
The foreigners in question differ, from one transnational elite (or one wing of the elite, if you will) to another. George W. Bush, for instance, feels more loyalty to Vicente Fox and Mexican businessmen than he does to the families of the men he has sent to die in Iraq. Conversely, Hillary Clinton and her ilk feel more loyalty to Latin America’s brown wave socialists.
Of course, Bush and Clinton also feel loyalty to some Americans: Bush to the corporate felon/traitors making billions through violating America’s immigration, tax, and labor laws; Clinton to various Hispanic nationalist/communist leader/traitors who happen to have American citizenship. However, both groups consider themselves members of a transnational class.
An irony to the above-sketched scenario is that both wings of the American transnational elite, while seeking to abolish America in favor of transnationalism, are aiding and abetting masses of foreigners who are intensely nationalistic. The collision of transnationalist and nationalist loyalties (say, of Mexicans) will be a bloody one. The transnationalists will either yield, be destroyed, or more likely, seek to manipulate nationalist sentiment to serve their own ends.
Barone gently chided the transnational elites, whom he claimed vote overwhelmingly Democrat, as being out of step with the American people.
. . . not all of us cherish ties to past traditions. “America's business, professional, intellectual, and academic elites,” writes Samuel Huntington in his 2004 book Who are We?, have “attitudes and behavior [that] contrast with the overwhelming patriotism and nationalistic identification with their country of the American public . . . They abandon commitment to their nation and their fellow citizens and argue the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large.” He believes that this gap between transnational elites and the patriotic public is growing . . .
New elites. This gap is something new in our history. Franklin Roosevelt spoke fluent French and German and worked to create the United Nations, but no one doubted that his allegiance was to America above all. Most Harvard professors in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s felt a responsibility to help the United States prevail against its totalitarian enemies. But in the later stages of the Vietnam War — a war begun by elite liberals — elites on campuses began taking an adversary posture toward their own country. Later, with globalization, a transnational mind-set grew among corporate and professional elites. Legal elites, too: Some Supreme Court justices have taken to citing foreign law as one basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
This gap between transnational elites and the patriotic public has reverberations in partisan politics. Americans in military service and those with strong religious beliefs now vote heavily Republican. Americans with strong patriotic feelings are more closely split between the parties, but the growing minority with transnational attitudes vote heavily Democratic. Which doesn't necessarily help the Democratic Party . . .
“A nation's morale and strength derive from a sense of the past,” argues historian Wilfred McClay. Ties to those who came before — whether in the military, in religion, in general patriotism — provide a sense of purpose rooted in history and tested over time. Secular transnational elites are on their own, without a useful tradition, in constructing a morality to help them perform their duties. Most Americans sense they need such ties to the past, to judge from the millions buying books about Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers. We Americans are lucky to live in a country with a history full of noble ideas, great leaders, and awe-inspiring accomplishments. Sadly, many of our elites want no part of it.
The odd thing about Barone’s essay, is that he is himself a member of the transnational elite. He tries to make the issue of the new elite a partisan Republican/Democrat issue, but it isn’t, and that, not to mention the obfuscation of so many transnationalists, is what makes fighting the movement so maddeningly difficult.
After America?
Transnationalism of one brand or another controls both parties: The GOP is controlled by the neoconservative/libertarian supporters of open borders, cheap labor, and the absolute advantage of global labor arbitrage, who, led by George W. Bush, seek to abolish America’s historic laws, culture, borders and people. The Bush Wing would replace the American people with hundreds of millions of Latin immigrants, most of them illegal, and submerge The Nation Formerly Known as America into a “North American Union” with Mexico and Canada. (Why would one bankrupt a nation fighting foreign wars purportedly in defense of her borders, even as one is secretly seeking to abolish those borders? Bush reminds me of some bosses I’ve had who would confuse and exhaust me and my colleagues with endless make-work projects, on top of our normal duties.)
Michael Barone is a member in good standing of the GOP transnational elite led by George W. Bush. So much for being “lucky to live in a country with a history full of noble ideas, great leaders, and awe-inspiring accomplishments.”
Through writers like Michael Barone, George W. Bush seeks to exploit the GOP’s conservative, nationalistic, Christian base. And so, one must ask whether Barone seeks to fool his readers . . . or himself.
Conversely, the Democrat Party is controlled by the transnationalism of racist Third Worldism and world government supported by Hillary Clinton, et al. This transnational elite would . . . abolish America’s historic laws, culture, borders and people. The Clinton Wing would replace the American people with hundreds of millions of Latin immigrants, most of them illegal, and submerge The Nation Formerly Known as America into a World Government.
The Bush Transnationals foresee a future in which the vast majority of people are destitute, but Hispanics and blacks are a little less destitute, ruled by a small class of indescribably wealthy plutocrats from America and Mexico, and North American Union functionaries.
The Clinton Transnationals foresee a future in which the vast majority of people are destitute, but Hispanics and blacks are a little less destitute, ruled by a small class of indescribably powerful World Governors.
If both transnational elites are not stopped, I foresee a future that looks like a cross between Zimbabwe and Mexico, but with a Hispanic majority, almost all of whom came here illegally, holding the whip hand.
In one of those normal oddities of politics, the song The House I Live in, a paean to “America,” not the United States, was written by a couple of communists, who sought her abolition. Today, likewise many prominent Americans, such as Michael Barone and George W. Bush, write or read aloud paeans to America, while planning her demise.
But we don’t need new paeans; we need Americans to respect the old ones.
I pledge allegiance, to the flag,
Of the United States of America.
And to the Republic, for which it stands,
One nation, under God,
Indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment