Work From Home

The Boston Bombings; Death by Multiculturalism

Timothy Birdnow

What's in a name? Names are chosen and not a natural characteristic, like hair color. Names bespeak the beliefs and thinking of the parents. Keep that in mind when considering the Bostom murderers.

Dzhokhar is the alternate name for the capital of Chechnya (also known as Grozny) and the Tsaernaev boy is therefore named after the Chechen capital. Tsar is the Russian word for Caesar, so his name, dealt with somewhat creatively, is Joker Caesar. Odd; Caesar Romero played the Joker on the 1960's Batman series. It makes me think of James Holmes and his massacre at the Batman movie in Aurora Colorado.

Tamerlane (Also Timur) was, of course, the great Turkish conqueror (1336-1405) who ruled much of Asia. Tamerlane called himself "The Sword of Allah" and sought to resurrect the Mongol Empire, only on an Islamic basis. Tamerlane is estimated to have caused the deaths of 17 million people worldwide during his reign of terror, approximately 5% of the world's population at that time. He, like Genghis Khan before him, razed cities and decimated the countryside in his quest for power. Nice guy.

That is who Dzhokhar's brother is named after. What does it tell us?

I would suggest it tells us that his mother and father were, perhaps, desirous of a new world, one where Chechnya was not just independent but part of a greater Islamic hole, er, whole. A Caliphate. I suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was raised to be a holy warrior. I don't buy this business of his radicalization here in America. I suspect those two boys were intended for this all along.

Of course, their time spent in liberal Boston did not help.

Last night, upon the capture of Dzhokhar, Fox News blabbing head Geraldo Rivera claimed this is the "new face of terrorism", because Al Qaeda was dead, thanks be to Barack Almighty (I added the last, but it is the Administration - and hence media - narrative.) Rivera was convinced - and tried very hard to convince the viewers - that this was an isolated incident, two kids who got sucked into a "Dungeons and Dragons" Islamic game. He's a fool (but we already knew that!) parroting the official talking points. If Al Qaeda is dead, why were they leading the Benghazi attacks?  And operating in the United States is not difficult; even if they are on a TSA no-fly list, they need but go to Mexico and pay a coyote to drive them across the border. This notion that Al Qaeda somehow cannot operate here is ludicrous. I would not be surprised if these men were Al Qaeda.

Nor would I be surprised to find Bosnian or Albanian immigrants with Al Qaeda.

Islam demands loyalty to itself first and foremost, and there are only two Houses - the house of war and the house of Islam. While there are many Muslims who want peace and hope to advance their beliefs through persuasion, many understand (rightly) that their faith calls for military conquest. Pride demands it, too; they believe in the superiority of Islam, and the failure to conquer is an embarrassment to them. Wherever one finds large numbers of Moslems one finds Jihadists; this is true anywhere in the world one cares to look. Only in places where Islam is very small does it not seek to impose itself by force.

Al Qaeda and other such groups can and do use that. Al Qaeda is not so much an army as an umbrella organization, a sort of mafia for Islamists. Rivera clearly does not understand this.


What can we learn from this incident? Doubtless the wrong lessons will be imparted by our insane friends in the Media and government, but this shows the abject failure of multicultural thinking in post-modern America. Cambridge Rindge and Latin School where our dear darling terrorists learned to hate America (hey - where else did it happen if it wasn't from his parents?) boasted of its multiculturalism and the many nations represented in the student body. So many, in fact, that a new immigrant will not enculturate in the slightest. Multiculturalism is not just a celebration of diverse cultures; it is a social system that says diverse nations can coexist in the same space. It is not about St. Patrick's Day parades or Cinco De Mayo or Columbus Day - celebrating one's former heritage AS AMERICANS. It is about maintaining the old culture in the new land, along with those who maintain their own culture. It is about becoming a land like the Balkans or Caucasus.

Any place that practices multiculturalism in the sense meant by the Left is in constant turmoil.

Long ago we had the empire. Empires were founded by cities or peoples by conquest, and held together by force. Empires often moved people about, settling one group on top of another in the hopes of diluting any revolutionary fervor in the aboriginal peoples. Empires were inherently unstable because they always relied on force, and on the "purity" of the governing class; once there were not enough strong men from Rome itself the empire could not stand. Immigrants to Rome and the empire in general weakened the cultural heritage which generated the warriors who held the empire. At a certain point the glue was gone and the empire naturally fell apart into its component parts.

But then came the nation-state. Spain is credited as the first actual nation-state, although it was clearly an older concept. A people held together by a common heritage, common religion, common culture, common ethnicity or whatnot. Nation states proved to be very resilient and stable. The nation state did not necessarily mean all aspects of culture had to be homogenized, but certain elements had to be held in common. The era of the nation state ended (more or less) with the rise of colonialism; the western European powers established themselves all over the world and created empires, empires with the same problems that any empire had - multiculturalism. The colonial peoples would not join in, because they were being forced to rather than invited and accepting the culture willingly.

And then there is the United States.

The U.S. was not an empire nor a true nation state, but an idea. The binding glue was a belief in what we were doing here. Yes, it was very much a nation state insofar as there was an is a common culture, although the ethnic heritage is unimportant. America is an idea, the concept of freedom and individuality. The force for order never lay with government so much as with the individual and his or her willingness to promote and defend that freedom. A New York City Hasidic Jew may seem to have little in common with a Texas rancher or a farmer in Nebraska, but they were all brothers in the idea of America, and even though there may have been squabbling as in every family in the end the Hasidic Jew would die defending the rights of the Texan and vice versa. We had a society with cultural variations but enduring bonds.

Not so with this idea of multiculturalism; we are attempting to create separate nations inside of the United States and hoping that peoples with no binding ties will coexist in the same space. We no longer teach American Exceptionalism. We no longer teach American history, except to say how bad America is. We no longer promote civic groups (like the Optimists or Lions Club or Elk Lodge). We no longer promote a Judeo-Christian philosophy ( religion can be divisive, but the common thread of American Judeo-Christian principles has always acted as  a binding force, even for Muslims and Buddhists and other non-Jews and Christians.) We no longer ask immigrants to accept our language, our practices, our celebrations. America is becoming simply a place, a land. One culture has as much right to reign here as any other, in the modern thinking. America as an idea is being forgotten.

So an immigrant from a war-torn foreign land now comes here and assumes things will remain as they were in the old country. This often happened to immigrants in the past; the mafia flourished in the first few generations of Italian immigrants, for instance, because the Italians had not understood that this was truly a new place, a fresh start. Also, Italy encouraged immigration to the U.S. solely for the purposes of off-loading her poor and unemployed - much like Mexico does today - and these immigrants had no desire to become American, believing they would make their fortune and return home. So America was slow in penetrating their hearts, and the old ways continued to flourish until the younger generation realized they didn't need a bunch of mustache Petes practicing their old world nonsense. But the Italians immigrated when America was still strong as an idea and an aspiration. Now we have more immigrants - both legal and illegal - than at any time in our history and we no longer believe in America. Floods of people are coming, and they are not being assimilated. Nations are being born inside of our own. We are becoming an empire.

Empires must be held together by force.

So it should come as no surprise that immigrants from Chechnya would turn Jihadist and attack the nation that kindly took them in and gave them citizenship.

This betrayal is bad, too; the mother is a thief who was charged with stealing thousands of dollars. The family collected welfare as refugees for years, and the younger son received a scholarship to attend college (and I strongly suspect it was because of his foreign birth and not his scholastic record.) Dzhokar was made a citizen on September 11 of 2012, a singular honor he happily besmirched. He had all of the "white privilege" we are told about, yet like a dog returning to eat his own vomit, he returned to his Islamic roots and attacked innocent people, his adoptive countrymen.

The Balkans and the Caucasus are regions that have been thoroughly multicultural for centuries, and there has been constant warfare in both. THAT is where the fashionable multiculturalism doctrine of the Left will take us.

Hopefully we will learn from these things, but I doubt it. Progressivism has so wrapped itself in madness and is so obsessed with the destruction of the idea of America that this will be turned to promote some new anti-American stupidity. Liberals always double down when their policies fail.

The Tsarnaev brothers should be the poster boys of the failure of liberalism.


Read more from Tim and Friends at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu

Views: 1265

Tags: American, Boston, Exceptionalism, Immigration, Islamic, Jihad, Progressivism, massacre, multiculturalism

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Timothy Birdnow on April 22, 2013 at 4:56pm

Thanks, Roc29; I could not agree more. 

Comment by Roc29 on April 22, 2013 at 8:17am

Timothy:

Apology accepted. Maybe I overreacted. But my comment reflects my experience. I think that this points out one of the problems with limited space discourse. It all depends on which part of the bell curve you are looking at.

I think that the most important thing about that period was that there were standards that had to be met by those wanting to immigrate and there was an effort to enforce those standards.

As Teddy Roosevelt said:

"In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

                                              in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919.

Comment by Timothy Birdnow on April 22, 2013 at 6:54am

Roc29, I am sorry if I offended you; I did not mean to paint with so broad a brush. Clearly there were Italians who immigrated to America because they wanted to, but a good many did come to earn their fortunes then return home. It was actually government policy in early Italy to encourage this (as it is policy in Mexico and Central American countries now).  It took longer to Americanize Italians as a result.

My father's best friend growing up had a mother who spoke very broken English - in spite of having been born and raised here in the U.S. Her parents did not think it necessary to see that she learn the American way. Her children forced the mother to speak English; they wouldn't answer her if she spoke to them in Italian. She was not alone in this. 

This isn't a criticism or a slam - just an obvservation of certain realities.

Comment by kate bows on April 20, 2013 at 6:25pm

Excellent article Timothy. I really am concerned about Glenn Beck. If it is true that top government officials contacted him, then they are reaching out for help and must fear reporting truth in their positions. We really need to pray for Beck if this is correct. They have put him in a dangerous position.

Comment by Cynthia Catsman on April 20, 2013 at 3:54pm

One last thought:  Just what outcome is realistically expected when ancient animosities are imported to another culture? Who came up with the concept that diversity is universally good?

Comment by Cynthia Catsman on April 20, 2013 at 3:42pm

The younger brother was made a citizen on 9-11?? Benghazi and a terrorist-in-waiting on the same significant date.

Would add that Americans are myopic regarding other cultures. Because one is raised in the US, and undoubtedly develops a worldview within that context, does not confer automatic understanding of other countries. Have been told that the diehards will never comprehend brutality unless they experience it. If nothing else, would have thought that Nick Berg would have permanently changed the national consciousness.

Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on April 20, 2013 at 2:21pm

Americans need an American government not the fraud in Chief.

Comment by Cynthia Catsman on April 20, 2013 at 2:06pm

My husband's grandparents immigrated to America in the early 1900s - probably many of us had relatives who came here within the past 100 years. The difference is they overcame culture shock, learned the language, and as mentioned, assimilated because they wanted to be Americans. That simply is not true today for all groups who come here. For some, retaining their own culture is paramount. Go to Dearborn, Michigan for example. It simply is not the same attitude or experience for some groups, not all, from a century ago.

Comment by Roc29 on April 20, 2013 at 1:50pm

"and these immigrants had no desire to become American"

As someone born in America of parents born in Italy  before the start of the 20th century, I take exception to the above comment.

While it is hard to give up roots and family to adopt a new country and its culture, my parents, aunts, uncles and friends in immigrant Italian neighborhoods struggled to learn English, overcome cultural shock, learn American history and the Constitution so as to pass the tests that allowed them to become naturalized American citizens: I might add proud American citizens. Unfortunately those who come here illegally don’t have to meet those requirements.

I could go on but it would only raise my blood pressure.

Comment by JMC on April 20, 2013 at 1:14pm

Tim, good article and Ken, interesting interview.  Thanks.

Tea Party Nation is a social network



The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service