Skip to comments.'Transnationalists' Don't Take Immigration Reform Seriously
Posted on 04/02/2006 6:47:06 AM PDT by kellynla
In his 1995 book "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," the late Christopher Lasch argued that America's political and cultural elites had opened up a gap between themselves and ordinary Americans. "Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse," he wrote. They are increasingly detached from their fellow citizens and drawn to an international culture, Lasch said, or what we would today call a transnational culture.
Consider the current immigration debate in this light. In the transnational view, patriotism, assimilation and cultural cohesion are obsolete concerns. Borders and the nation-state are on the way out. Transnational flows of populations are inevitable. Workers will move in response to markets, not old-fashioned national policies on immigration. Norms set by internationalists will gradually replace national laws and standards. The world is becoming a single place. Trying to impede this unifying process is folly.
The term "transnationals" specifically refers to those working in and around international organizations and multinational corporations. More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past.
To some extent, their worldview cuts across Democratic-Republican and liberal-conservative lines, and reinforces the other concerns that prevent immigration control: the desire for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Old-line one-worlders and enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations hear the siren call. So do many academics, judges and journalists who attend international conferences and tend to adopt a common consciousness and world outlook.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
It's the stuff revolutions are made of.
The two wings of the Perpetual Incumbency Party now believe that the system has been sufficiently rigged for their career security that they may so legislate without fear.
They are "ideological tools, championed by activist elites."
The large-scale movement of populations is often seen as an indicator of the coming world society. To transnationalists, it is a positive development that reveals the weakness of the nation-state and adds to that weakness. Loyalties and commitments are diffused. One transnational scholar writes, "Traditional notions like citizenship, political activity, entrepreneurship and culture are de-linked from specific places and spaces."
How does it work? They promise pork -- and deliver. Americans sell their votes for federal handouts, and Congress sells their votes to transnational interests. America is for sale. It can be taken back, though. It was a small minority who believed in taking it back in 1775.
"Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans..."
Yeah, I don't think of them as Americans either. Easier to fight an enemy when he/she is not part of your country.
Jorge is not listening!
Traditional patriotic Americans ARE under attack. Rest assured. And now might be the critical time. We need to keep our heads on straight and not falter.
The sad part is, if the economy tanks like it did in the '30's, people will hand over even more control to the progressive establishment and their brain trust. Many people think the government can create jobs and commerce.
And if the economy keeps on keeping on, then what incentive is there to change this system?
Its policies can certainly harm them, though. This isn't all about economics, though. It's about America choosing to remain an English-speaking culture of liberty-loving, law-abiding citizens -- or not.
I think there is a strong, nationalist backbone of English-speaking Americans who are enraged by the current influx of Latinos and Muslims, and others who refuse to assimilate. Just because they aren't out of work, don't burn flags, or march in protest does not mean that they aren't considering the true implications of of the transnational elitims in our government today.
The economy need not fail for the country's nationalist backbone to lose its patience.
At the very least, it paves the way for a legitimate third party canditate. If both parties are against reform which has broad national support (75%+), and which can attract voters from both traditional parties, the backlash opens up the door.
If by some mistake McPain gets the GOP nom for '08, I think it's reasonable that a conservative Republican renegade candidate can win the election.
A renegade, or someone who looks like one.
It is happenning in Europe as Right-Populist parties challenge the multiculturalist elite consensus.
There is already a model for transnationalist elites. The old hereditary aristocracy of Europe. Nobles from one end of Europe to the other had their own culture distinct from the peoples they ruled. They had a common outlook and a shared class interest.
This is not the 1930's when the urban elites held all the power.
Also if the economy collapse, the welfare system would collapse and the groups (include a large percentage of illegal immigrants) that would get welfare would riot and loot in the large urban cities that they are the majority population in.
While the major urban cities burned, the smaller towns and cities would be fine because the armed citizens would shoot any people who try to riot and loot their property.
If you want to know why many of our most powerful politicos and media moguls are dead set against building a fence, check the CFR membership roster. A fence is like Holy Water to the devil, to CFR members. A border fence is 180* counter to their goal of melting the USA into the NAC, with one common outer border around the USA, Canada and Mexico, with no "interior" controls at all on people or goods.
This is damned serious stuff folks. If you don't know who is in the CFR (both 'rats and "Davos Republicans) then you don't even know how the power game is really played.
I keep thinking of this phrase in the Declaration of Independence --
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such for, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The government exists to guarantee our rights. It is therefore our servant.
The whole snotty-nosed bunch in the Senate need to go, if they do not work for us.
"At the very least, it paves the way for a legitimate third party canditate."
Actually, there is a historical parallel here for this issue. The Whig Party started to slowly disintegrate in the 1850's because of its internal divisions on slavery. By 1856 enough morally motivated Americans were so disgusted that a new party was formed, the Republicans. Although doomed to failure as a third party in that election (remember President Fremont?) by 1860 people had enough and elected Abraham Lincoln.
Like the Whigs, the Republicans are abandoning the common sense wishes of the vast majority to please their special interests, the ones who write the big checks and invite them to the toney cocktail receptions. If they continue on their current vector (and the immigration debate focusing on granting amnesty and open borders) people will desert them and look for alternatives.
It may take several election cycles (and disgust with the ruling Democrats during that period) but eventually the majority which includes core Republicans and a lot of conservative Democrats who could never ever pull a Republican lever, would find a voice in this new entity.
Let's hope it happens before the other new party, the renamed Democrats in the Partido de Reconquista, take over and rewrite the laws for guaranteeing permanent power like they did in Mexico.
The last twenty years our elites were trying to disassemble nationalism. Look at our colleges, left or right politically all discourage nationalism, patriotism and grooming future leaders/CEO's and society for globalism. A funny thing happen along the road, 9/11. That is why within one week videos of the planes crashing into the towers were pulled from our TV sets. The corporate controlled MSM claim it was done to stop traumatizing the US public, but it was pulled because the images were generating American nationalism, something our elites could not afford.