Immigration is splitting the United States into warring tribes, says an unusual article in the strongly pro-migration Atlantic magazine.
The future of the West is touted as transnational progressivism (per John Fonte): a borderless, nation-less land-mass, across whose surface all humanity will be free to roam and free to consume wealth, stability and peace. The vanguard of this dystopia is multiculturalism. Few notice the monster hiding inside this political face of plurality — namely, the failed state.
The failure begins with hyper-ethnicity, or romanticized tribalism, whereby people cling harder to identity politics by becoming “billboards” of “their culture.” Such displays are not in the manner of dress or exoticism of food but in the habit of mind.
To be fair, this loyalism is required of minorities who are rewarded with power and position, if they live up to expectations by being hyper-ethnic. Again, as with all Leftist ideologies, a utopia is pursued while reality is ignored.
The Constitution once united a diverse county under a banner of ideas. But partisanship has turned Americans against one another—and against the principles enshrined in our founding document.
…Americans on both the left and the right now view their political opponents not as fellow Americans with differing views, but as enemies to be vanquished. And they have come to view the Constitution not as an aspirational statement of shared principles and a bulwark against tribalism, but as a cudgel with which to attack those enemies.
Of course, Americans throughout history have criticized the Constitution. Progressives have tarred it as plutocratic and antidemocratic for more than a century. In 1913, in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Charles A. Beard argued that the “direct, impelling motive” behind the Constitution was not “some abstraction known as ‘justice,’ ” but the “economic advantages” of the propertied elite.
In recent years, however, the American left has become more and more influenced by identity politics, a force that has changed the way many progressives view the Constitution. For some on the left, the document is irredeemably stained by the sins of the Founding Fathers, who preached liberty while holding people in chains. Days after the 2016 election, the president of the University of Virginia quoted Thomas Jefferson, the school’s founder, in an email to students. In response, 469 students and faculty signed an open letter declaring that they were “deeply offended” at the use of Jefferson as a “moral compass.” Speaking to students at the University of Missouri in 2016, a Black Lives Matter co-founder went further: “The people vowing to protect the Constitution are vowing to protect white supremacy and genocide.”
A nine-year-old schoolgirl sparked intense debate in Australia on Wednesday after refusing to stand for the national anthem to protest alleged institutional racism.
Student Harper Nielsen was given detention last week for not joining classmates in a rendition of Advance Australia Fair, a song she says ignores the nation’s indigenous people.
An Australian newspaper responded to allegations of racism on Wednesday by reprinting on its front page a controversial cartoon depicting Serena Williams having a temper tantrum at the US Open.
Reverend accused of bigotry, misogyny after fiery eulogy for Aretha Franklin
A fiery, old-school eulogist at the funeral of Aretha Franklin fell flat for many in the crowd and prompted a social media uproar when he declared “black America has lost its soul,” black women are incapable of raising sons alone and the Black Lives Matter movement is unfounded in the face of black-on-black crime.
Truth hurts, and it especially hurts the Liberal-left when one of their slaves escapes the plantation mentality.
Race-based dorms emerging across the country keep people in their cultural comfort zones. The result is higher education that’s never been more diverse, yet still deeply divided.
Do you remember Harambe? He was the gorilla that got killed at the Cincinnati Zoo in 2016, and quickly became an Internet meme. He also almost got a student at my college arrested.
Maxime Bernier ignited his latest political firestorm when he used his Twitter account to criticize the “cult of diversity” perpetually promoted by the federal Liberals. If he had a valid point in there somewhere it was not helped by his unfair comments about “people who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto” that “don’t make our society strong.”
Most immigrants coming to Canada want to build a new life in a free and democratic society, escaping tyranny, prejudice or poor economic circumstances. Their local ethnic communities help them get adjusted to their new home. But it is nonetheless true that Canada faces a real test in maintaining national identity when so many people come from disparate backgrounds, and in avoiding problems that occur with ethnic conflict.
Many well-intentioned Western politicians, human rights advocates, church leaders and journalists have turned Islam into the one and only ideology that must never be criticized, and have called anyone who so much as comments on some of the precepts of Islam as “racist.”
Julia Salazar is not Jewish. Nor is she a working-class immigrant. Her mother is an Italian Catholic from New Jersey and her father, a native of Colombia, is a commercial pilot who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1982. Julia grew up in a middle-class home in Florida and graduated from Columbia University, an elite Ivy League school where the annual cost of attendance is $80,826 including room and board.
All of this information, available from public records, was discovered by Tablet magazine for a fascinating story about how Julia Salazar invented a fictional identity as a working-class Jewish immigrant in order to run for a state senate seat in New York, as a progressive Democrat.
It seems that public conversations about immigration, diversity and especially multiculturalism are verboten in Canada. To mention the advantages of integration, on any tone, in any manner, smacks of colonialism, it seems.
When have we become fearful of confronting in the public square issues that are openly discussed in people’s homes and places of work? Why are a German chancellor and a British prime minister able to question the benefits of multiculturalism without being called racists while we go crazy when an elected Member of Parliament does the same thing in a series of tweets?
To state the obvious, Conservative MP Maxime Bernier’s attempts to irrupt into the liberal orthodoxy of identity politics is a bit rich.
Bernier is, after all, an MP from Quebec, where most people regard their language and culture as something ennobling and worthy of special status and protection, which is the original and biggest identity politics issue Canada has faced. It in fact nearly broke up the country.
That said, Bernier’s contention – that identity politics promotes an endless splintering of the polity into ever-narrower shards of cohorts, all of whom believe their ethnicity or religious beliefs or sexuality merit special consideration – is worth discussing. Dismissing Bernier as a nativist, or white nationalist, or simply racist is just more of the reflexive, ad hominem groupthink that’s currently so fashionable.
On Sunday evening, Quebec MP Maxime Bernier posted a six-tweet thread on ‘extreme multiculturalism’ that has set off a political maelstrom in Canada, a country that seems no longer accustomed to hearing the truth from its political leaders.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have a bad case of revisionist-history/apology fatigue. I am pretty much done.
Just like that, with the snap of a finger, a moral panic washed over the chattering classes. Someone said something about diversity and multiculturalism. And it was something that didn’t entirely fall within the officially sanctioned boundaries of how we’re supposed to talk about those issues.
Sound the alarm! Man the ramparts! Wrongthink brigade, attack!