Most of those you used for your analogy come (came) from Judeo-Christian backgrounds. If Buchanan is emphasizing the inherent differences which exist between Islam and Western beliefs then I think he is correct. Therefore, included in the groups you noted above would be all those who have experienced the oppression of Islam, ex. Hindus, Buddhists, Lebanese Christians, Copts, etc. In other words, his observations are correct as related to Islamicism.
Get real. Pat is not talking about people who came here legally, went through immigration, populated an empty country, learned the language, joined our armies, became citizens and brought their children up to be good Americans first.
Go ask Sharon what he thinks of open borders and unrestricted immigration. Is he prejudiced?
I guess his comments last week about the Jews on Wall Street should be interpreted that "some people assimilate too well" into American society.
You can't have it both ways, Pat.
I would like to add that multiculturalism is almost a religion now. The U.S. govt. promotes pluralism as almost a god, and all religions, all truth claims, and all cultural practices are deemed equally valid and true. Did you hear Bush recently - "God bless America" - which god would that be? God is Islam, Jesus Christ and all other gods are deemed equally valid. This can't be - the various conceptions of God contradict each other. Of course, this is relativism and is hogwash. Nevertheless, I wanted to vomit at that service at the National Cathedral when an imam got up to speak.
Of course, any sane thinking person knows that not all ideas and truth claims are equally valid as logic and the law of non-contradiction do not allow it.
Pat didn't say anything about "intrinsic inability".
He did talk about "radically different countries and cultures" that make immigrant adjustment and assimilation into our culture more difficult.
That is NOT "intrinsic inability".
Go take your false accusations of racism and bigotry elsewhere.
If you insist on attacking Buchanan, at least attack what he said, not what you thought he said. If you read the quote from Buchanan in the thread, to which your statement refers, he did not suggest an intrinsic inability in some peoples, but an inability in our Society to as easily assimilate them. That idea has not been disproven, "time after time." Indeed the evidence of its validity is all around you. Open your eyes.
There are, of course, Irish, Italians and Jews, who fit in very well with the American mainstream, with which they are fully immersed. There are also Irish, Italian and Jewish neighborhoods in larger cities, where those who do not fit in so easily remain. If you wanted to establish an index, you would find that all groups do not assimilate with the same ease, as evidenced by the greater percentage of some groups that do not really assimilate at all.
And in the above, we are talking about Caucasian immigrants from a European background. The further you get from the basic backgrounds that helped define America, the greater the problem will be.
And you do not refute these problems by pointing to people at the top of the intelligence scale, who do very well indeed, and are able to use material success to protect themselves from some of the problems in adjustment that others have. (Private schools can adjust to the cultural idiosyncrasies, whether rooted in innate traits or social environment, a lot easier than can the public.) And to return to the point that Pat actually made, our ability to assimilate them; we don't have to worry if they live on large lots, and privately educate their children. But it is not the same with the larger groups now pouring in from the Third World.
It has become something of a fashion, lately, to bash Pat. And while, I have to distance myself from his views on World Trade, and from his opposition to the War to liberate Kuwait, I find this very unfortunate. Pat still has a lot to add on our side of the general ideological debate, even if he occasionally strays.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (I&NS) reports 389,427 illegal aliens were caught crossing the border from Mexico into southern CA in fiscal year 1999.
These are apprehensions, NOT total entries. Therefore, the total entries into California each year may be 500% higher (2,373,975) using fiscal year 1998's 474,795 apprehensions as a 20% rate of apprehension, or the total entries into California each year may be 1000% higher (4,747,950) using the same 474,795 figure as a 10% rate of apprehension. These California total entry estimates are based on the I&NS's own official numbers. The true numbers may be even higher. The apprehension figures declined from 1998 to 1999 because of an accounting change, not because of a real decrease in illegal immigration. After 1998, if the same illegal alien is caught crossing the border 25 times in a fiscal year, this fact is now recorded as only one crossing attempt apprehension. Illegal immigration is actually increasing not declining, and in 2000 and 2001 is occurring in even higher numbers in Arizona.
Typical romanticized b.s. view of immigrants held by the immigration enthusiasts. Note the also typical put-down of native born Americans these jerks always feel compelled to offer in contrast.
So the author blames the ascendancy of multiculturalism for the fact that many immigrants have no loyalty toward this country---indeed, actually despise it. Well, its going to be a long, slow process to turn back the multiculturalism tide; it may not even be possible at this point. So now we're in a real jam. It will be poetic justice if a lot of immigration enthusiasts get blown up by a terrorist suitcase nuke.
The stupid, weak, misled Americans argument doesn't support the proposition you want to advance. I would say, fine, close down the borders and let's educate these Americans and make something of them. In other words, that argument loses you more support than it could possibly win you. If we aren't as smart or as educated or as strong willed as we ought to be, the answer is not and should not be to simply replace us all with some new stock, but to remedy our deficiencies.
It is not racist to recognize this. It is plain, mere reality. To deny it is pathological, not the reverse. No less an authority than Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this. (If you don't know Thomas Sowell you need to go home, now, and educate yourself.)
This is not inconsistent with the spread of multi-culti-BS in the American elite. They go hand-in-hand. Both sides of the problem combine to make it a truly critical issue.
Hey Newbie...where the heck has Pat Buchanan "advocated prejudice"?! There may be a lot of things Pat and I don't see eye-to-eye on, but his desire to see immigrants properly-assimilated into the American Way of Life is certainly not one of our differences. You spew yer incendiary rhetoric fer what purpose anyway?! Lady Thatcher's right in saying that Buchanan's no longer a factor in any politcally-significant way...so why do you go trying to start up the GoPatGo Wars?!
Pat did what he did and it cost him dearly, in both philosophical pertinance and career-wise...I say let him live his life without knuckleheads trying--again--to make him out to be the Hitler-lovin' Racist he never ever was!!
SHEEEESH...MUD
Had you ever read Pat before you would understand that hes already said that all before. Your failure to understand and interpret is not his failure.
Heres a towel, dry those ears off and listen 'stead of flapping the gums...
Does this make a bit of sense to anyone else??