America Has Lost Her Will to Live

By Selwyn Duke

Perhaps we should have chosen the turkey as our national bird, as Benjamin Franklin suggested. It would certainly be more appropriate for our times. But if any flying creature would do, a moth might be more fitting still — with political correctness playing the role of that devilishly irresistible flame.  

America long ago lost her will to live. Historically, trespassing into another people’s territory could bring violence. And nations the world over secure their borders, sometimes at the end of a gun fondled by an itchy finger. But not the US. We place water stations in the Arizona desert for thirsty trespassers, offer driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for them, and now a Supreme Court justice has opined that calling illegal migrants “criminals” is insulting. I don’t know, what do you call someone who broke the law? Legally challenged?

But it’s even worse than that. About 20 years ago Japan expelled illegal migrants and made the statement (I’m paraphrasing), “Japan is for Japanese. Others are welcome to come and visit, but they’re expected to go home.” Under the Mexican constitution, a foreign-born individual perhaps can be naturalized — but he can never enjoy full citizenship rights. And as would be the case if some tribe of “noble savages” were being overwhelmed by a colonizing people, when millions of Chinese flood Tibet and seek to supplant its ancient Buddhism-saturated culture, liberals are the first ones to scream “cultural genocide!” Heck, they don’t even like the gentrification of minority neighborhoods or when an adopted black child is raised by white parents and denied bona fide “black” enculturation. Yet millions of unassimilable foreigners violate the US’ borders and sovereignty, sometimes commit further crimes and stress our social services, and we’re only supposed to discuss secondary issues. Are the illegals a benefit or a liability economically? Do they contribute more in taxes than they take in handouts? Who’ll pick the grapes? But with our bones poised to be picked, can we ask about culture? After all, people make the nation, not the other way around. Import enough Mexicans or Muslims into your country, and you no longer have Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.

Yet the very same people who claimed they could orchestrate the health care of 317 million people will insist that “we can’t deport” 20 million people. In fact, even though deportation should be reflexive, it isn’t even on the radar screen. To suggest it brands you bigot or xenophobe, and the only thing really at issue is the rate of surrender: will it be sudden with full-on amnesty or the slower “path to legal status,” the coup de grace or the death by a thousand cuts?

So all we hear instead are ridiculous arguments justifying the illegals’ presence, as if they have no country to which to return. We’ll hear that they’re hard-working people who love their families, which is about as meaningful as saying they’re bipeds who breathe air. I’m sure that German soldiers during WWII were generally hard-working people who loved their families, too, but as long as they posed a threat to the US, they had to be dealt with as such.

Particular indignation is exhibited when defending children of illegals, who, we’re told, “are here through no fault of their own.” This also is meaningless. Countless millions of children throughout the world are poor through no fault of their own, yet we don’t propose they all be allowed green cards. And how many children have ended up in foster care through no fault of their own after their parents were imprisoned for committing crimes? Perhaps we should stop enforcing laws, period — “for the children.”

Then there’s language. Every liberal psychologist will talk about the importance of communication in a family. But what about a national family? India recognized a common language to be such a necessary cultural glue that it actually adopted the tongue of its former colonizer, England, as its co-national language. Meanwhile, Americans stand by while their government prints official documents in foreign tongues and transforms us into a Tower of Babel.

And the surrender and silly arguments never end. I heard a caller on Michael Savage’s Tuesday radio show say that he agreed with NYC mayor Bolshevik Bill’s plan to make two Muslim religious days and the Lunar New Year official school holidays; his reasoning was that since American culture is made up of so many different things, how can we exclude anything? Interestingly, though, he did agree with Savage that English should be our common language.

But why? English is also made up of so many different things, with Greek and Latin as well as Angle, Saxon, Frisii, Jute and Frankish influences. Hey, press two for Latin, folks.

Of course, American culture is the product of many influences. And the Greeks and Etruscans influenced each other, Rome was influenced by Greece and the Etruscans, Western Europe by Rome and by extension the Greeks and Etruscans, and then the rest of the world by…well, you get it. Everyone was influenced by someone except for Adam and Eve, and even they — as we have our liberals — had their serpent. And since our whispering voices tell us that we shouldn’t trouble over cultural genocide because culture is a relative thing, let’s examine the matter further.

Having been influenced not just by the aforementioned groups but also the Germanic Franks, French culture is an amalgamation of many different elements. But it is also now a specific thing. It’s much as how cubed beef, vegetable oil, tomatoes, peppers, paprika and salt, cooked a certain way, become something specific: Beef Goulash. And so it is with many things. Combine iron and carbon and the result is the unique thing called steel; two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule yield water. (And for you warmists, note that CO₂ isn’t carbon any more than it’s oxygen.) Now, would goulash be better if we added other “influences” (ingredients)? That depends — but it might no longer be goulash.

Of course, you may not like Beef Goulash; you may prefer Vegetable Curry, Chicken Cacciatore, Roast Pork Lo Mein or Steak and Ale Pie. Then make your case; explain your vision of a deific diet, a meritorious menu. That’s not what we’re doing, however. Under the illusion that all ingredients are equal — and equally compatible — we haphazardly throw anything and everything into the mix. Some vanilla syrup in that goulash? Sure, why not? You’re not a syrupist, are you? Some cinnamon sticks, limburger cheese, hay from the field, eye of newt, toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog? Now that’s diversity! And throw in some foxglove while you’re at it — no worries about indigestion afterwards then.

We’re no longer a melting pot, but a dish gone to pot. We’ve forgotten that robust, healthy America was a result of a specific recipe, and we cannot perpetuate that republic unless we remember the recipe. Of course, some say that limiting a land to one recipe is narrow and exclusionary. I say that the road to Heaven is narrow. And all recipes necessarily include only some ingredients and exclude most others, just as definitions limit by defining. If America can mean anything, she means nothing; but if she is something, then she can be defined. And then, by definition, she would have to be exclusionary — like any nation.

Why are many Americans indifferent about their cultural destruction? For one thing, they’ve been conditioned to feel that Western culture is either nothing special or especially bad. At the same time, however, they’ve been imbued with moral relativism, which blinds one to danger. After all, different cultures espouse different values, but this won’t matter to a person who considers all values equal. And, yes, it is possible to hate the West at one moment while claiming all cultures are equal the next. For a person disconnected from Truth will tend to operate based on emotion, which changes with the wind. Besides, consistency is no better than inconsistency in a relativistic universe.   

But reality is an absolutist. And having been fed lies for decades, Americans will soon find out that their tomorrows will only be as great as their appreciation of their yesterdays.      

                Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

                                          © 2014 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Dmitry Chernikov]

"And nations the world over secure their borders, sometimes at the end of a gun fondled by an itchy finger."

The nation-state, unlike families, firms, gated communities, towns, ___, the world, is an illegitimate institution and must be destroyed.

But as long as it exists, what exactly is the recipe for "robust, healthy America"? People of European descent? People who agree with you on culture? You ask others to "explain their vision of a deific diet, a meritorious menu" but fail to do so yourself. Are you afraid of being called a "racist" or something?

[Dmitry Chernikov]

Do you really believe that it is the job of the federal government to protect culture? Are you in favor of some Ministry of Culture? Sounds un-American to me.

[Anti-White Crime]

Mr. Chernikov,

Thank you for participating. An article is just that — an article, not a book. It isn't exhaustive. In addition, the scope is sometimes purposely limited because going beyond it would be counterproductive. As I always say, if you want to get a person to the next rung on a ladder, you point him to it; you don't focus his gaze on a rung 15 feet up because he'll never reach it from where he is. And if he tries, he may even slip and fall.

As for the articles you're commenting on, my goal is to illuminate a simple fact: not all cultures are morally equal, and not all cultural elements are compatible. And if you can prevail upon people on this simple point in this age of cultural relativism — which is a corollary of moral relativism — it is an accomplishment.

As for the feds, it isn't their constitutional job to protect culture, but it is their job to protect the borders, which is a prerequisite for protecting culture.

Lastly, if you want more insight into my governing philosophy, it is easily inferred by a discerning person who has read the majority of my work. Suffice it to say, however, that my vision is quite precise and quite comprehensive. Mind you, this doesn't mean comprehensive as in all-controlling, but in that all bases are covered.

God bless,

Selwyn Duke

[Dmitry Chernikov]

"Lastly, if you want more insight into my governing philosophy, it is easily inferred by a discerning person who has read the majority of my work."

Oh, I have no intention of becoming a "Selwyn Duke scholar"; you just intrigued me by seeming to be the almost extinct breed of a non-evil conservative.

[Philip France]

"Oh, I have no intention of becoming a "Selwyn Duke scholar"; you just intrigued me by seeming to be the almost extinct breed of a non-evil conservative."

I have previously challenged you cite one instance of a conservative or Republican person or policy that is evil. My challenge went unanswered because none exists.

[Philip France]

Two important elements that the criminal aliens from south of our border have brought to our shores are misogyny and drunkenness. My first cousin, Catherine Rose Busse, was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver while bicycling with her autistic son.

I highly recommend to Selwyn's intellectually honest readers a two-part DVD documentary entitled "They Come to America" by Dennis Michael Lynch.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

Philip, don't be an idiot.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

Philip, don't be an idiot.

[Philip France]

That's a weak reply. I am only asking for you to name one; just one, conservative or Republican person or policy that is evil. That fact of the matter is that you will not because you can not.

Irresponsible comments taint the otherwise erudite and august content of this site.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

By the way, I seem to be pretty much the only one "participating"; I think at this point you should treasure anybody who expresses an interest, even and especially if critical, in your work.

But let me know if you'd rather I shut up and forget about this blog.

[Philip France]

You are still dodging my challenge. An intellectually honest person would simply say, "OK, you got me. I was wrong."

[Anti-White Crime]

Dear Mr. Chernikov,

You seem very sensitive. When did I ever imply that you should shut-up or stop commenting? I thanked you for participating because that is what I always do when answering posts or emails; it's an imperative of professionalism.

As for the participation rate, I'm generally read elsewhere. I would like to build this site's traffic, but I simply don't have the ability to devote what's necessary to do so at this point. If you find the participation level unsatisfactory, however, you can check out my articles published at American Thinker. You'll find a robust debate there with scores — and sometimes hundreds — of participants.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

I see; found you on American Thinker. Thanks, Selwyn.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

I see; found you on American Thinker. Thanks, Selwyn.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

I see; found you on American Thinker. Thanks, Selwyn.