The President and several prominent United States Senators have now embraced the fallacy that a Nation is based, not on ethnic roots or lines of descent, but upon ideas. They have then compounded that error by grossly over-simplifying the ideas, they claim to define America. In point of fact, almost anyone on earth would fit the ideological mantle chosen. Based upon such false premise and simplistic definitions, they have urged policies, governing both immigration and international relations, which could completely change the character and threaten the continued independence of America.
Ordinarily, we might shy away from attempting to catalog a specific personality type. The infinite variety of human differences makes such effort too inexact to be of great utility in most situations. However, when a number of politically prominent individuals simultaneously deny the most vital aspect to the very concept of a Nation, in embracing a theory based on the grossest over-simplification of ideology, to justify abandonment of the traditional demands of honor and duty, while adopting policies that threaten our future; we need to make every effort to understand the psychological dynamics involved. Thus, we offer an insight, drawn from a lifetime of studying the thought processes of the sort of men who would promote the notion that America is about ideas, not lines of descent: Those who have grossly over-simplified the ideas, they claim to define us, while seeking, on such bases, to alter our culture and demographics in ways that could also undermine our sovereign independence among the Nations of the earth. We must seek to understand those who would change us, that we may counter them more effectively. But first, some basics:
Nations have always been about race, ethnicity, lines of descent; not abstract ideology or geography. The first Nations grew out of migratory tribes of closely interbred peoples. A Nation may acquire geography, but it is primarily a people who identify together to a common purpose. The common idea: A unique identity with distinct interests, a shared history of struggle, of triumph and defeat, joy and sorrow--a determination to persist, to continue as a distinct people.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States states among the intended purposes of our Federal Union, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The document, that follows, authorizes Congress to adopt uniform laws on naturalization. While it temporarily denied Congress the right to restrict Immigration until 1808, it specifically left the determination of whom could actually vote--even in Federal elections, under Article I, Section 2--to be determined separately, at all times. in each State. Since we are now past 1808, it is clearly the duty of Congress to limit immigration for the purpose of securing Liberty to the specific "posterity," referred to.
My legal dictionary defines "Posterity" quite simply, as "All the descendants of a person in a direct line." That, of course, is based upon usage in legal documents; and the Constitution is, obviously, the primary legal document of the American people. Funk & Wagnalls' massive New Standard Dictionary (New York & London, 1913), defines the term for general usage as, "The race that proceeds from a progenitor; a person's descendants; also, succeeding generations, taken collectively"; similar to that in the even more massive Oxford English Dictionary, as derived from a source going back to 1387:
1. The descendants collectively from a common ancestor.
[From the 1500s] 2. a. A later generation. b. All succeeding generations (collectively).
Webster's Third New International Dictionary put it thus: 1. The offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation. 2. All succeeding generations.
The personal commitment, among unique individuals to one another at the birth of the very concept of an American nationality, could not be clearer than in the language of our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence. The Fathers of America concluded with this pledge:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
No where in the May 15, 2006 address, in which President Bush outlined the immigration policy--later reflected in the shameful Senate bill, cobbled together by the White House, Senator Kennedy, Senator Graham and others--did he even acknowledge the concept of the ongoing posterity, as addressed by the Founding Fathers. Rather, we were offered the following as the closest approximation to any recognition of ethnic continuity in American society:
we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.
The President's has never offered his fellow countrymen a clear picture as to, in what exactly, he believes those "shared ideals" consist. Nor has he developed what he meant by an "appreciation of our history." A bit later, he concluded:
We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they are from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans--one Nation under God. Thank you, and good night.
The whole thrust of the President's comments, strongly suggested that he did not include concern for the posterity of the Founding Fathers, as one of those "shared ideals." Nor did he even hint that his view of "an appreciation of our history," acknowledges that America was the unique creation of unique men. Rather, he relies on a mystical process by which the country makes any one living here an "American." He made it sound almost like some form of voodoo incantation.
In his second Inaugural Address, the President offered his interpretation of America's purpose:
From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights and dignity and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of heaven and Earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers.
While the Founding Fathers were happy to set an example for others, the President's proclamation of a "mission that created our nation," is utter nonsense. The honorable achievement of the Fathers was the creation of a unique Nation that reflected the unique peoples who created it. They respected the right of self-government in others, but their defined "mission" was the independence of themselves and their posterity; "honor" was pledged to one another, not to any world-wide notion; certainly no internationalist pursuit! In his confusion--we would be generous--President Bush went on to use the term "Freedom" in at least six different, contradictory, senses. Yet he declared dogmatically, "Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul." Yet, if "freedom"--even to this man simplistically proclaiming its universal appeal--is so poorly understood, that he employs it in six conflicting senses in a short speech (demonstrated in the staged debate between George Washington and George W. Bush, below), it is hardly the defining "ideal" that he has claimed. It hardly justifies either an internationalist policy of meddling in other peoples' cultures, nor an immigration policy that is indifferent to national origin or ethnic variation.
A closer look at the rationalizations of those supporting the President and Senators Kennedy, Graham, etc., on immigration, will reveal the same rejection of traditional concepts of nationality, combined with the same gross over-simplification of American ideals. If all mankind could be magically turned into Americans; if America were not about the lines of descent of her founders and those of us, who were permitted to join their established societies by embracing their ongoing cultures as they actually were, without the ridiculously simplified gloss-over that the internationalists offer; then reasons for loyalty--the duty to preserve--are far more easily disparaged. It is in this tendency to trivialize the continuity of existing political societies; to ignore the very claims of posterity, the duty of a family to its own progeny; of honoring one's lineage--of recognizing what was always included in the Fifth Commandment;--it is in all of these, that we find both the definition & danger posed by the A & Q personality. To continue:
The common attributes manifested by the ideological personality type--illustrated by supporters of the lax, Kennedy/Bush/Graham, immigration policy--are these: First, they embrace the notion that America is based upon ideas, rather than lines of descent. They then seek to define those "ideas" in the most simplistic terms possible--indicating either a lack of critical perception, or some ulterior motive--by employing a definition that could easily be interpreted to include most of the people on the earth. If they are not, in fact, dull fellows, it is pretty obvious that they seek--at least at their own favored, simplistic level--to blur all distinctions between Nations; to cloud the understanding of what makes individual peoples (tribes or Nations) unique.
To appreciate the absurdity of this approach, consider the frequent references to such qualities as "freedom" and "opportunity" as being the common ideals of Americans and those seeking to come to America. Since almost everyone on the planet would like both "freedom" and "opportunity," these are not defining traits. Yet both "freedom" and "opportunity" mean different things to different folk. This was never illustrated more clearly than in the President's own Second Inaugural Address in which he used the term "freedom" in at least six different and contradictory senses. What we have, then, is a form of word game; a verbal deception achieved by glossing over the vast differences in the way different people define values and objectives. It is not a path towards understanding truth; but a prescription, which the late Norman Cousins offered, for the surrender of American sovereignty by subterfuge.
For those too young to remember Cousins, he is one of the "Myth Makers" covered in Chapter 16 of the Conservative Debate Handbook. As Editor of the Saturday Review and leader of the United World Federalists, Cousins spoke regularly at College Assemblies and to regional meetings of public school teachers affiliated with the NEA, during the 1950s and 1960s, on the potential horror of nuclear war. An effective speaker, when he had an audience sufficiently frightened, he would propose his remedy: A change in the educational approach to relevant disciplines, away from trying to understand differences between peoples, to a new emphasis on qualities they had in common. It was a prescription for steering Americans away from thinking in terms of those traits that made America unique--those things for which better men had willingly laid down their lives--to an indifference, based upon ignorance, to the very continuity of America as a sovereign Nation. What Cousins advocated--although never in such words--was indeed, what we have termed "Surrender By Subterfuge."
While Cousins was an avowed advocate of World Government, there were two other factions in an Academic denial of the importance of actual human diversity, equally active in the same era, whose efforts have almost certainly contributed to the simplistic mind-set of the President and others, who would reduce the concept of the "Nation" to a mere matter of geography, while prattling about "ideals" associated with that geography--thus embracing what might be characterized as a "musical chairs" theory of ethnicity. One faction grew out of the Franz Boas (Socialist) school of Anthropology, often represented by Ashley Montagu. The other were reflected in the Psychological theories of Harvard's Gordon Allport. Both factions were already influential in Congress at the time of the radical shift in immigration policy in 1965, and are dealt with in separate sections of Chapter 16 of the Debate Handbook, below. We offer only a summary, here.
Montagu denied the significance of racial heredity as it pertained to human intelligence; not by citing any evidence to support his surmise, but by attacking the motives and scholarship of those who had documented the observed, complex and significant, mental differences among recognized human stocks over the generations. Montagu's argument was always by exception or in mitigation of the actual evidence; never by any empirical demonstration of his theories. Yet his pseudo-science was promoted as a new orthodoxy by academic supporters, utilizing tactics not appreciably different than those which had worked for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, in suppressing dissent in Russian and German educational establishments.
For his part, Allport argued that most normal human preferences, whether for one's race, tribe, nation, community, faith--or even family--should be avoided as "prejudice." He showed some hypocrisy in the matter, however, offering a supposed "idealistic" rationalization for those who had identified with Communist causes, while not mentioning his own involvement. Incredibly, Allport--and his ludicrous theory, obviously intended to promote an apologetic attitude and an undeserved guilt complex among American youth--continued to be assigned reading on College campuses for decades after his death.
While it would never have been seen as a negative factor to other Leftwing Academics, who embraced these men--or to those who still honor their "work"--both men freely acknowledged their advocacy of World Government.
Such are the intellectually absurd theorists and premises which "support" the notion that a nation is about "ideas," not about specific people; about values and geography, not lines of descent. But the very existence of Americans, as a people who obtained their independence as sovereign States in a Revolutionary War from which they also obtained identity and continuity, gives the lie to that notion. The common "idea" among the participants was a desire--no, a solemn commitment--for themselves and their heirs--their posterity--their lines of descent down through the generations--to be free of other Nations. As Thomas Jefferson, writing for the Representatives of the "good People," involved, stated in the Declaration of Independence:
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things, which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Again note, that Jefferson justified purchase of the vast Louisiana Territory, in order to create an ethnic buffer for the original Americans against the Hispanic cultures of those now on our Southern border. Would any man or woman, born of woman, suggest that the likes of Norman Cousins, Ashley Montagu, Gordon Allport, George W. Bush, Teddy Kennedy, or Lindsey Graham, had a deeper or truer understanding of the nature of America or American purpose, than Thomas Jefferson? Or than James Madison and his associates, who gave us our written Constitution, "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?"
Yet, however fatuous, it should be abundantly clear why those who would destroy American sovereignty embrace a denial that America--as every traditional Nation--involves lines of descent; a continuity, not of ideas, but of a people. If America were only about abstractions concerning "freedom" or "opportunity," Benedict Arnold's switch would become easily justified. Arnold need only have decided that the "ideas" behind the British Nation were not really that different than those behind our own;--not difficult at all, as both sets of "ideas" would be understood, today, by the likes of Teddy Kennedy, George W. Bush or Lindsey Graham. Such a rationalization would be only natural to men now desperate to integrate our commerce, culture and labor, with that of Mexico. "Sacred honor" was no more a part of Arnold's ethos, than it appears today among those who will not protect our borders.
By the same logic, the Norwegian Socialist Vidkun Quisling could well have concluded that the ideals of the German Socialist, Herr Hitler, were basically the same as those of the Quisling faction in Norway; that inviting Nazis into Norway was "right" for Norway, just as President Bush and Senator Graham were able to conclude that accommodating 12,000,000 Mexican peasants was "right" for America. Quisling's effective incorporation of Norway into the German Reich involved a temporary triumph of the concept that a Nation is about "ideas," rather than a unique people; that an honorable commitment by its sons and daughters to one another, and to their posterity, was only "bigotry." Quisling's embrace of Hitler would also be consistent with the contemporary acceptance of the oxymoron of "Dual-Citizenship" in America, among politicians of the Kennedy, Bush and Graham ilk.
By trivializing the ethnic roots of a people; by treating a Nation as only a game of musical chairs--or musical geography--rather than lines of descent among those committed to one another--you destroy the continuity of a people, their ability to preserve what they have achieved, their independence of action and of will. Whether the final dissolution can be characterized as "surrender by subterfuge" or "expiration by osmosis," it is very clear where we are headed; what an increase in the A & Q personality type portends for us. That is, unless--
[N. B. The above does not actually define a separate personality type. Rather, it offers a discussion of symptoms of a particular personality type, as observed among those promoting new ideological norms with respect to ethnicity and social identification. A closer look might suggest that the actual personality type, identified, is not limited to those rationalizing a betrayal of duty to the continuity of a social order into which they were born--and in which they have unfortunately been placed in a position of trust. These are but a subset to a larger group in the general population, able to rationalize away any respect for the basic rights of others in their own persons and property. This broader type is very common in the jail & prison populations of the world.]