From Liberty Defense League:
The Clash of Fundamentals
Thu, Feb 17, 2011
Political Philosophy, State Sovereignty
by Attorney Timothy Baldwin
(approx. 730 words)
Recently, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated a political maxim he feels is worthy of admitting. Cameron acknowledged that multiculturalism doesn’t work. The catalyst, as it is admitted, to his acknowledgment is the cultural and political problems caused by fundamentally-opposed persons and activists infiltrating Britain and changing European philosophy into Islamic philosophy.
As the Prime Minister admits, a clash of fundamentals cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same environment. One or the other will naturally prevail; but before the victor wins, there will be a serious contest and fight between the fundamentals. This fight almost always comes in the form of laws, policies and constitutions—in other words, the way people are governed. So, as Britain and many of the European states are finding out, for a State to maintain its identity and freedom, it must maintain its sovereignty and independence against those who fundamentally challenge its cultural and societal unity of jurisprudence, interest and purpose.
For decades, the fundamentals in the States of America have similarly clashed and have resulted in a union held together by little more than fear: fear of federal government retribution, fear of economic suffering, fear of political instability and the like. Yet, regardless of the political tie, the societal and cultural ties erode ever more as the natural progression of societies reveals a clash of fundamentals. As a symptom of this phenomenon, the States seemingly have no control over the federal government supposedly designed for limited purposes for the benefit of all of the States because their concepts regarding self-government and the role of the federal government are fundamentally opposed to each other. Unfortunately, the larger societies get the more out of control the federal government becomes because of the increasing clash of the fundamentals.
This clash does not represent an intentional animosity one towards another, nor does it necessarily reveal a conspiracy on the part of any to subdue the other. More accurately put, it reflects the evolutionary shifts societies make to better protect, provide and secure their own borders and citizens as they deem best. States which ignore this duty to protect, provide and secure have already been defeated and have little to no chance of defeating a clash from within. This process is not only natural but also necessary. Of course, as societies change over the decades and centuries, there is simultaneously a competition within the State against those who would subject the State to “foreign” interests and others who would prefer the survival and defense of the interests beneficial for the people of that State. Thus, as is the case for Britain, the very survival and existence of the State rests with the ability of the citizens and government to successfully suppress movements that would strip it of its natural and traditional jurisprudence and culture.
A State protects itself from such attacks—whether it be from a foreign country, neighboring States or the federal government—by maintaining and executing its sovereignty against any external or internal force that would usurp the fundamental notions which make the State what it is naturally and independently of all other societies. Without this ability to protect itself internally and externally, the State is destined for destruction in one form or another and will inevitably give way to the clash of the opposing fundamental.
The lessons of history could be revealed in volumes proving this very fact and have been. Yet, it seems very few, even in the States of America, seem to grasp the reality that even one’s neighbors, allies or agents can be harmful to the State. Many seem to think that the “one American people” idea is superior to the idea that the different societies of the different States must have the independence and freedom to self-govern, self-defend and self-determine. In reality, such a notion only breeds the multiculturalism dilemma being experienced by Britain today and results in the destruction of the State’s traditions, culture and way of living, thereby allowing only those powerful enough to subdue society to become the rule of law.
Therefore, those who desire to preserve the legacy and heritage of freedom must understand, accept and implement the methods through which that freedom can be preserved; that is, through sovereignty, independence and self-government, along with the power to defend those attributes. Without these tools, multiculturalism will destroy the States in America as well as it is destroying Britain today.
Sphere: Related Content
The Clash of Fundamentals
Thu, Feb 17, 2011
Political Philosophy, State Sovereignty
by Attorney Timothy Baldwin
(approx. 730 words)
Recently, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated a political maxim he feels is worthy of admitting. Cameron acknowledged that multiculturalism doesn’t work. The catalyst, as it is admitted, to his acknowledgment is the cultural and political problems caused by fundamentally-opposed persons and activists infiltrating Britain and changing European philosophy into Islamic philosophy.
As the Prime Minister admits, a clash of fundamentals cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same environment. One or the other will naturally prevail; but before the victor wins, there will be a serious contest and fight between the fundamentals. This fight almost always comes in the form of laws, policies and constitutions—in other words, the way people are governed. So, as Britain and many of the European states are finding out, for a State to maintain its identity and freedom, it must maintain its sovereignty and independence against those who fundamentally challenge its cultural and societal unity of jurisprudence, interest and purpose.
For decades, the fundamentals in the States of America have similarly clashed and have resulted in a union held together by little more than fear: fear of federal government retribution, fear of economic suffering, fear of political instability and the like. Yet, regardless of the political tie, the societal and cultural ties erode ever more as the natural progression of societies reveals a clash of fundamentals. As a symptom of this phenomenon, the States seemingly have no control over the federal government supposedly designed for limited purposes for the benefit of all of the States because their concepts regarding self-government and the role of the federal government are fundamentally opposed to each other. Unfortunately, the larger societies get the more out of control the federal government becomes because of the increasing clash of the fundamentals.
This clash does not represent an intentional animosity one towards another, nor does it necessarily reveal a conspiracy on the part of any to subdue the other. More accurately put, it reflects the evolutionary shifts societies make to better protect, provide and secure their own borders and citizens as they deem best. States which ignore this duty to protect, provide and secure have already been defeated and have little to no chance of defeating a clash from within. This process is not only natural but also necessary. Of course, as societies change over the decades and centuries, there is simultaneously a competition within the State against those who would subject the State to “foreign” interests and others who would prefer the survival and defense of the interests beneficial for the people of that State. Thus, as is the case for Britain, the very survival and existence of the State rests with the ability of the citizens and government to successfully suppress movements that would strip it of its natural and traditional jurisprudence and culture.
A State protects itself from such attacks—whether it be from a foreign country, neighboring States or the federal government—by maintaining and executing its sovereignty against any external or internal force that would usurp the fundamental notions which make the State what it is naturally and independently of all other societies. Without this ability to protect itself internally and externally, the State is destined for destruction in one form or another and will inevitably give way to the clash of the opposing fundamental.
The lessons of history could be revealed in volumes proving this very fact and have been. Yet, it seems very few, even in the States of America, seem to grasp the reality that even one’s neighbors, allies or agents can be harmful to the State. Many seem to think that the “one American people” idea is superior to the idea that the different societies of the different States must have the independence and freedom to self-govern, self-defend and self-determine. In reality, such a notion only breeds the multiculturalism dilemma being experienced by Britain today and results in the destruction of the State’s traditions, culture and way of living, thereby allowing only those powerful enough to subdue society to become the rule of law.
Therefore, those who desire to preserve the legacy and heritage of freedom must understand, accept and implement the methods through which that freedom can be preserved; that is, through sovereignty, independence and self-government, along with the power to defend those attributes. Without these tools, multiculturalism will destroy the States in America as well as it is destroying Britain today.
Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment