The suppression of cultural minorities by the cultural majority, along lines desired by the cultural elites, made the American leviathan state of the 20th and 21st century possible. --- hogwash.
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:08:21 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > *Pat Buchanan on National Unity > *by Ryan McMaken > > Pat Buchanan is again sounding the alarm about how immigration to the > United States is leading to “balkanization” and will result in the United > States being split into “two countries.” > > In an > interview<http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/23/buchanan-hispanic-influx-from-immigration-bill-could-break-us-into-two-countries/>with > talk radio host Andrea Tantaros, Buchanan complained that new > immigrants are not being sufficiently assimilated, and Buchanan and > Tantaros agreed that people aren’t being taught the *right kind* of > American history: > > “If you indoctrinate or teach kids different views about their country and > how it began,” Buchanan said, “what you get is a growing disintegration of > the country, a fragmentation into different parts.” > > Apparently, Buchanan’s position is that we need to “indoctrinate or teach” > kids all the same views about the country and how it began. This should be > done in the name of unity. > > Buchanan received some support in this thesis of his from Barack Obama > last week when Obama > complained<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/20/obama-remarks-about-catholic-schools-spark-new-fig/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS>that > different groups in Irish society send their children to different > schools: “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and > buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one > another, if fear and resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages > division.” > > In other words, if we’re not all culturally united and believing the same > thing. That’s a bad thing. > > It’s hard to see a significant difference between Buchanan’s lament about > too much variety in instruction producing disunity, and Obama’s > condemnation of diverse schooling for encouraging “division.” > > This should not surprise us. Pat Buchanan, while he often has many > insightful observations about the state of political affairs in the > country, is nonetheless a lifelong beltway political operative, politician, > and a Nixon acolyte. > > This is a man who believes that the modern nation-state should micromanage > demographics and cultural affairs, invade foreign > countries<http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken120.html>that don’t do > what The U.S. government says, and that the nation-state > itself serves a hugely beneficial role in human society. In his 2001 book The > Death of the > West<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312302592?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0312302592&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>(which > I reviewed > here <http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken54.html>), Buchanan > approvingly quotes Jacque Barzun’s claim that the nation-state is “the > greatest political creation of the west,” and that most of cultural crises > in the Western world today stem from insufficient loyalty to states. > Buchanan then goes on to criticize secession and various kinds of political > decentralization. > > Buchanan points to the 1960s as his benchmark for the high point of > American “unity.” Buchanan notes that the 1960s came as a high point for > the legitimacy of the American state. Following the New Deal, years of WWII > propaganda, and the Cold War, Americans were primed by 1960 to provide the > American state with virtually unquestioning allegiance and loyalty. The > White Anglo-Saxon Protestant version of history was the only version of > history being taught in public schools, and even in most private schools. > For middle-class white people, like Pat Buchanan growing up in northern > Virginia in the 1950s, it probably did seem like the United States was > culturally united. > > But even in the 1960s, Americans were not quite as unified as Buchanan > imagines. It was during 1960 after all, that Americans were openly debating > if a Catholic should be elected president, lest he enthrone the Pope on > Capitol Hill. Where was that “one religion in common” Buchanan likes to > refer to? > > This cultural unity, to the extent that that it did exist in the 1960s, > and which Buchanan so fondly remembers, was an aberration in America > history, and depended on relentless pro-government propaganda through > media, schools, and even religious institutions during the mid-twentieth > century. The central government, through the FCC, essentially controlled > broadcasting, and through its funding and regulation of educational > institutions, created a uniform political ideology among formally-educated > people which outlined the acceptable parameters of political debate and > ideology. > > In the 19th century, before mass media and widespread public schooling and > public universities, one’s ideology was shaped by one’s wealth, race, > ethnicity, religion and private formal instruction. Regional experiences > and local institutions could produce wide variations in what ideologies > dominated locally from place to place. > > Political institutions by necessity were varied and local in the face of > deep ethnic, economic and ideological divisions. > > The Golden Age came at last (for people like Buchanan and Obama), when the > federal government became skilled at using nation-wide media and public > schooling as a means to “teach” the citizenry to be loyal to the local > nation-state and to accept its laws, edicts, abuses, and lies. What the > people learned in school was then reinforced in the evening news. > > Thus Americans began to think that loyalty to the American state was > better than loyalty to one’s local government, or community, or family, or > religious group. The old divisions were downplayed, eliminated, and > ridiculed. > > There was no way to fight it, as there was no other easy means of > obtaining information outside of the approved channels. Knowledge was > controlled by the regulated media and by the approved educational > institutions. Everything else was firmly within crackpot territory, > according to those with respectable opinions. > > Today, however, with the proliferation of homeschooling in all its forms, > the web, and the rise of alternative media, the days of “unity” are > thankfully coming to an end. > > While I’m not one who believes that the internet will by itself cause > libertarianism to sweep the globe, it does appear that the variety of > information offered by the web and by the home education movement will lead > to division and dissent and variety where it has not existed in decades. > > Buchanan looks upon this with horror. For the nationalists, widespread > unity, uniformity and obedience are to be desired for that is what allows a > vast nation-state like the United States to function. The suppression of > cultural minorities by the cultural majority, along lines desired by the > cultural elites, made the American leviathan state of the 20th and 21st > century possible. > > The conservative culture warriors who now complain about secularist > left-wing control of schools and other cultural institutions are only > suffering at the hands of a beast they created. The forces of conservatism > created the public schools to teach watered-down American Protestantism, to > beat the foreign languages out of students, and to above all, “assimilate.” > They got their assimilation machine, but now the shoe is on the other foot, > and when we look at the speech codes, and the P.C. wars and propaganda > coming out of the public schools, we should all thank the right-wing > guardians of American culture who made it all possible. > > That age of assimilation, however, whether to right-wing or left wing > ideals, is coming to an end. The future is likely to look much different. > The future will bring cultural division, and with it, political division, > just as Buchanan predicts. > > It had always been unnatural for the American central government to hammer > into one polity the people of New Mexico and the people of Massachusetts, > for example. To tell 300 million people of such diverse origin that they’re > all part of one giant nation-state, was always nonsensical except in only > the loosest confederation. Centralization made assimilation to a > centrally-determined ideal necessary, and by 1960, we got it. And it made > Pat Buchanan happy. > > The future divisions that come, on the other hand, will simply be a matter > of recognizing the cultural, economic, and ideological divisions which had > always been there, but had been covered over by state “education.” > Immigration will contribute to this, but that factor is by no means the > only one. > > Unfortunately, there is a great downside to this as well. In the wake of > political disintegration, the American nation-state will leave behind a > huge government apparatus: the remnants of a federally-funded and > militarized police forces, its subsidized agricultural systems, its > military bases, and a political culture devoted to seizing power and > control whenever possible. The destruction of the family as a central > economic institution, and the hobbling of the market itself will all lead > to impoverishment and a desire by different and disgruntled groups to > control the machinery of power that the centralized nation-state will leave > as it recedes. > > With this will come conflict, unrest, and violence along economic, ethnic > and racial lines. It will just be part of the legacy of the American > nation-state which the nationalists still trumpet as our savior. > > Buchanan thinks the best thing to do is to keep up the façade; to paper > over the deep divisions with flag-waving American history classes for the > indoctrination of the young into embracing “unity.” > > That’s an idea for an age long past, and the time has come to abandon that > failed experiment that is the centralized American state. But, as usual, > we’ll be left with cleaning up the messes the state will leave behind. > > http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken157.html > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
