'Tis the Season for Some Folly

George Rebane

[This is the addended transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 2 December 2015.]

Jo Ann and I hope that everyone had a meaningful and enjoyable Thanksgiving, and have properly girded themselves for the busiest, most stressful month of the year.  Rather than delve into another globe shaking issue or national catastrophe in the making, I’ll instead try to rattle some cages on a more general collection of our new shibboleths and ingrained verities.   Many of you know that I host a controversial blog that is inevitably on the wrong side of every politically correct thought held dear by 21st century progressives.  This evening I want to cover some details of these thoughts.  And in line with today’s progressive protocols, perhaps this is the place to issue a trigger warning to some of our more sensitive listeners.

The other day on my blog it was noted that five illegal aliens are suing Oregon for not granting them driver’s licenses.  I then had the temerity to post the following, somewhat edited, question – “Does anyone know where these illegal aliens and their coddling collectivists get the harebrained idea that they are owed anything in this country save a free trip back to the border?  How did all this get started?”

The point of the question was summarily ignored, and I was taken to task by two prominent liberals of our community about my presumably callous attitude toward these people, seeing as how I too was born in a foreign land and, at the invitation of the US Congress, immigrated here after WW2.  The left-leaning debaters made no difference between legal immigration and a felonious entry into our land.  The implicit conclusion was that as long as you’re both here, you both should have equal rights.  However, the last time I looked, immigration to America was still subject to a two-party agreement between our government and the applicant for immigration.

I will not bore you with the heated discussion which followed, with many readers weighing in on the issue.  One of the threads that developed, at least in my mind, was the matter of culture.  What may be called America’s mainstream culture has always been in flux since Europeans first set foot on these shores.  But the progress of cultural change was very measured, and in the public square centered on an amalgam of European Christian values and traditions.  This accepted cultural target for assimilation started to unravel in the 1950s, slowly at first as we became Judeo-Christian, but then picking up steam as the Great Society programs kicked into gear, after which an uncounted number of new and old cultures and their traditions were elevated and celebrated, while symbols and observances of the old were diminished or completely removed.

Today we are in a cultural turmoil where the once dominant American culture is now daily maligned along with those who dare recall it in discussions of who then are we and where are we going.  Have we abandoned the adoption of a new American culture which can again be accepted by all as our common ground?  Don’t get me wrong, we cannot go back, nor am I promoting a return to yesteryear.  But will our future hold a culture that again can be called American, and about whose traditions and tenets our young will be educated?  Or will we continue as a multi-cultural polyglot with no shared center?

Over the life of our Republic immigrants have come to enjoy our liberties and opportunities for a better life, and in the process they have contributed lavishly to what made America the envy of the world.  These immigrants came and stashed their native cultures behind their private lives as they visibly celebrated American culture and assimilated with astonishing speed.  But today there is little reason to abandon exhibiting the culture into which you were born.  Why?  Because there is nothing of apparent value, form, and function which you can adopt in its stead.  So all over the world immigrants and migrants are facing the same cultural challenge, and given a choice, they would overwhelmingly opt to return to or retain their native culture.  This is especially true in the Mideast where, instead of emigrating, almost all refugees in the camps simply want to return to the life and culture they had.  The important question then becomes, what culture will they cling to as they arrive in a strange country that neither claims nor offers a dominant culture of its own?

And from our own perch here in the western hemisphere, what kind of country are we evolving toward as we indiscriminately pile every new culture upon our already large stack of recently arrived and recognized cultures?  It’s worth a thought when we consider the function that culture serves in organizing a cohesive and stable society.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on Rebane’s Ruminations where the addended transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  Coincidentally the 2dec15 WSJ contained a piece by News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch from a recent speech he gave at the Hudson Institute.  The essay ‘America the Indispensible’ summarizes much of my conservetarian sentiment that is recorded in these pages, and it is germane to my radio commentary since Murdoch is also an immigrant and naturalized American citizen.  The essay is about world order and America’s role in maintaining it since WW2.  In it the author expresses a sentiment I experienced as a sixteen-year-old ‘Indiana teenager’ when I finally received my citizenship papers after being country for seven years – “Like so many naturalized citizens, I felt that I was an American before I formally became one.”

 

 

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

Ponder this. When I hear all the politicians and leftwingers say American values require us to allow immigration, I get a bit confused. Where is it written we have to allow anyone in? Is it just guilt? Or since our ancestors came from elsewhere? What is the defining reason we have to allow immigration?

I say enough is enough. Hell this is the only thing I agree with a liberal about. We do not want anymore "carbon footprints" for a while.

I thought the "natives" emigrated from the other continent over the land bridge anyway.

Just rambling. Sad about the head choppers murdering my people.

[Jon]

I'm sad about the head choppers murdering anyone- be they American, Russian, Japanese, Swede, Brit, French. Also very sad about what they have done to the vast majority of their victims- those thousands of innocent MUSLIM men, women and children who have been decimated and raped, and are fleeing this terror every day. We as Americans, who have meddled in the Middle East while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and creating the conditions for ISIS, need to help the victims any way we can.

[Todd Juvinall]

Yeah "jon" it is all our fault. What a disgusting person you and your ilk are.

[Jon]

Well, golly gee Todd, I think you're disgusting as well! So there!

Everything I stated is factual and my sentiments are in line with Christian doctrine.

[John]

Jon, Americans have not terrorized anyone in the Middle East, and certainly not chopped any heads off. You can probably help the innocent victims of the terrorists by donating to the American Red Cross or other similar organization. Do you find it odd that apparently the wealthy MUSLIM countries in the region have not offered any aid, shelter or resources to help their fellow MUSLIMS?

[Jon]

Thanks for the encouragement John. Yes, I will certainly donate this year to likely 2-3 international children's charities, as I do every year.
Can't speak for the dictators and despots of the other Arab nations and their motivations for not doing more to help. We shouldn't be their friends in this day and age.

[Bill Tozer]

Donate to keep them out of here. Incoming.

[Todd Juvinall]

Donate to your own people "jon". Oops, that is right, you are a Muslim. Sorry I forgot.

[Jon]

Todd, not being a xenophobe, I prefer to donate to the children around the world most in need.

[Bill Tozer]

Muslims needs money too! So do all illegals and let's not forget paying taxes is a patriotic act per Shotgun Joe. We all have to sacrifice and gobberment knows best what to do with money. So, before you open your wallet and kiss those greenbacks goodbye, reflect on all the good vibes donating to the US Tresury will give you and how those dollars may be spent on helping getting Syrian refugees here at 63k a pop.

[Todd Juvinall]

We sent trillion to the countries around the world and "jons " people swipe it for themselves. I rather donate to a child here where I know the they will get it. "jon" tell us why you are a Muslim. Are you a jihadi?

[George Rebane]

Gentlemen, pay attention to the subject of this post and focus on the evolution of America's culture. I will post on the San Berdoo happenings in a bit, and then you can have at it.

[fish]

Nope.....simple workplace violence.......nothing to see here........move along!

"First, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were either married or may as well have been. It has been reported that Syed had become "more religious" (Muslim) in recent years, and went to Saudi Arabia to marry Tashfeen.

There are those in the media who are trying to spin this as something that "set Syed off" at the holiday party, implying that there was some sort of quick-action rage motive. This is utterly necessary for the "gun control" narrative that immediately came spewing out of the rectally-inverted President's mouth within minutes of the massacre occurring, but it is also demonstrably and knowingly false.

Why? Because these two left behind 14 pipe bombs, which you can't manufacture in an instant. It takes time, effort and planning to make improvised explosives, never mind plenty of care (or you blow yourself up.) Second, what the hell was his wife doing involved in this and third, they dropped off their young child with a relative before starting. These cannot be reconciled with a "rage monster" sort of event and instead point to clearly-premeditated and planned action.

It is quite obvious that the intent here was jihad and that it was carefully premeditated and planned.

Further evidencing the planning of this act they clearly intended to document their jihad as well as both had GoPro cameras strapped to their vests.

In addition they had explosives strapped to remote-control cars at their home and three IEDs were found and detonated at the site of the assault, apparently rigged to a toy car remote. Fortunately they were either not commanded to detonate or malfunctioned.

So here's the problem with the narrative that our jackass President and a number of others wish to run this morning: Two or more people intent on jihad don't give a crap about gun laws and there is no lawful way to manufacture IEDs detonated with toy car remote controls.

In other words this has exactly zero to do with guns except in one way: When these two sheetheads decided to commit their horrific act there was exactly one opportunity to stop them and that was if a decent number of the people at that party had been carrying guns.

Why?

Because having failed to detect this event before it occurred and interdict it, which I remind you is an impossible task with 100% accuracy even in the surveillance-laden state of the world we live in the cops were still the second responders.

All of the potential first responders were unarmed and thus targets and ultimately victims."

Spin jon.......spiiiiin to the heavens......you ol Dervish you!

http://market-ticker.org//akcs-www?post=230943

[George Rebane]

fish 812am - Mr fish, you may want to repost your comment under 'Taqiya on Steroids?'