"Palestinians" outraged by Gingrich remarks

This is my prediction...I am usually wrong...Newt and Mitt will destroy Paul, and then newt and Mitt will destroy each other, allowing Bachmann and Santorum to rise to the top...

It's not as bad as you make it out to be, wildjew. Gingrich, like Bush and so many other Republicans (even a few Democrats here and there, though I wish by now the vast majority of American Jews would finally "get it" that the Democratic Party is no longer a political party they should be associated with) endorse a Palestinian state ONLY if such a state is a democracy and will live in true peace alongside Israel. Folks like Gingrich are realists, virtually all of them by now, and understand that these conditions will almost certainly never be met. It's all theory done for diplomatic purposes and if one really believes that most of diplomacy is rooted in honesty, then such a person is naive in the extreme. As Henry II, played by Peter O'Toole magnificently in The Lion In Winter, said when asked by his young mistress why he made a recent offer that he did, he replied, "Good God, you don't think I really meant it?"

I'm getting tired of folks not seeing through all this. Israeli politicians, in large numbers and across the political spectrum, have also played the same game. IF, yes IF, a Palestinian Arab state would agree to be peaceful, democratic and fully recognize Israel, then what would be the problem? We'd be essentially back to 1947 with the UN partition plan (actually better, territorially speaking, for Israel now) which the overwhelming number of Jews then accepted without reservation. But the trouble then was, has always been, and is now that the damn Arab Muslim world wants no Israel at all. Don't you think Gingrich knows this? I'm sure he does and this should never be forgotten when assessing his and others (be they American or Israeli) endorsement of a Palestinian Arab state on conditions that these people know will never be met.

Yeah, it's a phony world much of the time. No doubt about it. But this is how political chess is played. Always has been this way. Always will be.

I don't know of a single nation of people at any time that was not an "invented" people.

There is no nation of “Palestine.” That’s the point. Hence no “Palestinian.” If one day, there were to exist a universally recognized modern nation state called “Palestine,” then its citizens would indeed be Palestinians. But no such place exists today, nor has it ever. See?

You also got tribal issues jumbled up in there as well. Tribes are not nations, and there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” tribe anyway. So all of your examples you listed are irrelevant. The people typically and wrongly referred to as “Palestinians” are nothing more than Muslim Arabs. ‘Arab’ is their ethnicity, and ‘Muslim’ is their religion. And they are no different than any other Muslim Arabs anywhere in the world. To insist otherwise is to insist on a lie.

But what is far more important is the role that this invented identity plays in the global jihad being waged against us. It is a deliberately constructed (by our enemies) weapon in the propaganda component of the war. This is why it is important to reveal this deceptive term for what it is.

Indigo Red,
I suspect you are not noticing the key differences between the way and sense in which the "Palestinians" were invented and other nations are invented. Isn't it the case that the "Palestinians" were invented as part of a tactic to destroy Israel, and to further jihad. The "Palestinians" were created as a tactic to give a kind of international legitimacy to the effort to remove Israel from Palestine. The premise of the "Palestinians" is that they have been disowned of Palestine by the Israelis. But if in fact the "Palestinians" belong more to the immediately surrounding nations (remember how tiny Israel is) than they do to Palestine, then how would the "Palestinians" be able to muster international support for their jihad against Israel's existence? But as "Palestinians," they can camouflage their jihad under nationalist rhetoric that lays claim to Palestine. Pious Muslims must try to remove Israel from the map, because in Islam once a land has ever been ruled by Islam, it must never be ruled by anyone else. Therefore the Muslims have a right to rule Spain, for example, because centuries ago they ruled it, and the non-Muslims have no right to rule there. Actually, according to Islam, non-Muslims have no right to rule anywhere on the earth, but that just goes double for places that have been under Islamic rule at some time in the past.

The difference is that the Palestinians did not come into being as a distinct people through something inherent to them or their path. They were created as a tactic to destroy another nation. That's a key difference you overlook.

Excellent recap. I was surprised and pleased that Newt was so passionate about it all. He gained a lot of Jewish votes tonight, I think.

BTW, I'll bet ($10,000?) Pat Robertson makes some notable remarks about the matter on monday's 700 Club.

You are wrong. Sorry. Not all nations are a human construct.

Gingrich -- and Bachmann too -- went into the disgusting "educational" materials "Palestinians" give to their kids.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

traeh, I've been contemplating voting for Bachmann in our primary but she was especially disappointing last night. When given the opportunity to exhibit moral courage and acknowledge Gingrich is right - anyone who has studied this conflict knows he is right - she dodged the question. She was asked, "who is right, Romney or Gingrich?" You accurately portrayed Romney's pusillanimous answer that Gingrich should have gotten "Bibi" Netanyahu's permission to tell the truth. Instead of defending Gingrich, Bachmann dodged the question. Santorum looked especially weak as he joined Romney in piling on Gingrich. All in all, everyone but Gingrich looked to be moral midgets.

I am waiting for just on of these candidates to repudiate G. W. Bush's "road map" for Israel's dismemberment and her ultimate destruction at the hands of the jihadists. It is intolerable that the party of Lincoln embraces the Democratic party's policy aimed at the destruction of Israel.

Who is your candidate?

Geert Wilders.

Who's your candidate?

So, Turkey gets a switch and a lump of coal.

If Wilders were on in the Republican field, little doubt I would vote for Wilders. To answer your question, I'm not sure yet. I can't imagine it will be Romney. Santorum joined Romney last night condemning Gingrich for saying it like it is. Bachmann, who I've been leaning toward, was a huge disappointment. She could have stood with Gingrich. Instead she dodged the question, "Who is right, Romney or Gingrich." So did Rick Perry. Ron Paul is of course on the side of the jihadists in his own way. Who is your candidate in the Republican field. Don't pull a Perry or a Bachmann on me.

Dda -

Great article, thnx!

"Nothing could better underscore just how emaciated Israeli foreign policy has become than the penetrating observation by former Meretz minister of education Prof. Amnon Rubinstein articulated above. [..] Nothing could better underscore just how detached from the reality the discourse on “Palestine” has become [..]"

Now of course the question is: how did this detachment from reality come about?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

You make a valid point about other "peoples" establishing themselves into a separate and distinct nation, state or people. Still, I think Gingrich's point -- about these largely Arab immigrants claiming a separate Palestinian nationhood following the 1967 Six Day war, as a means of destroying another nation -- is worth exploring. Even if it can be applied to other nations. What we do not see by and large, is any kind of historical perspective with respect to this ongoing war against the Jewish state.

Kepha -

The myth you so rightly allude to, partly makes up the foundation of this deranged US mono-cult of 'Diversity', being exported all over the planet.

Just take it one step further, as some would like, and we're back at full-fledged European progressivist colonialism (which later changed into "tropical science" and the "foreign aid" industry).

They also talked a good deal about cultural sensitivity and all, but they actually took responsibility for their conquests.

The habitually anti-colonialist US, however, still acts like an empire-in-denial, hence all the "liberating" people across the globe (Iraq, Libya, Afghanitan, Egypt..) for democracy's sake, immersed in a barrage of that nauseating, quasi-religious diversity babble.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Sag: Your last post is one with which I can pretty much concurr.

However, I think our American problem is greatly complicated by another myth called "race". You see, our country was born as the result of European sea-borne discoveries, which put people who differed greatly in both physical type and culture into close proxinity, especially in America, where we had European settlers (mostly British Isles, but generously leavened with others, and Protestant Christian) into close proximity with both a threatening Indigenous presence and an African-origin slave population.

This is a matter over which our older elites carried a lot of guilt feelings, and which gives our newer elites the satisfaction of a kind of perverse social climbing. By bending over backwards to swear fealty to our "minorities" (defined by skin color, not language) and decry the legacy of "white racism", especially slavery, the offspring of Europeans who arrived in America between 1870-1912 may claim a kinship with the descendants of Tidewater Virginia and 18th century New England slave ship skippers who so utterly despised the "dirty immigrants" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Gude dag en dank U. Kind regards from Deepest Indigo America.

Agreed and duly noted, Kepha -

This "white guilt" thing is part and parcel of the cult of Diversity(TM), no doubt about it.

And with that, we're back to what I like to call the quasi-religious aspect of this elitist cult: the need for "Leitkultur" progressivists to confess one's "sins" before the altar of diversity.

There's so much more to say in keeping with what someone like Eric Voegelin has said about the gnostic cult of progressivism, but I guess Paul Gottfied (2002) was onto something in his discussion of what he called "cultural calvinism" (Voegelin's immanentization; what I'd file under politicization in the context of this discussion), to explain the widespread nature of this phenomenon in US political culture. Of course, I would betray our past ehm.. "spirited" exchanges, were I to forego this professor's lucid insights ;)

Goedendag en de hartelijke groeten uit Amsterdam,
Sag

Goedendag en de hartelijke groeten uit Amerika:

As for Eric Voegelin, there's much I like in his work, and a fair amount that I consider a little silly. His grasp of the Reformed tradition was not exactly accurate,for instance, his insistence on seeing it as a continuation of the ideas of the 13th century mystic Joachim of Fiore. Often, he cannot tell the Reformed from the Anabaptists, or the Parliament men of 17th century ENgland from the Fifth Monarchy, Leveller, Ranter, and other proto-Quakers. I suppose I get my Calvinism, apart from the Bible, more from the Westminster divines, the Three Forms of Unity, and Maitre Jean himself.

"Newt Gingrich is what's left of the America we once knew."

If that were true, why even bother to keep up the appearance of a constitutional republic?
Newt, the internationalist, is Obama-light. You'll only vote for the pace at which your nation will be corrupted and sold out.

I like Giuliani for several reasons, Alyn Starkman, but he is pro-choice (so am I) and a pro-choice Republican has no more chance of capturing the Republican nomination for President than does a Democrat who is pro-life (and there are more of these Democrats than people realize) has of getting the Democratic Presidential nomination. Something else and that is, regardless of what you think of McCain (I think he would have been just OK as President but that would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now), he ran a better campaign by far than Giuliani did.

Segunto,

I do not agree with, nor do I subscribe to and respectfully resent, your implied assertion that America is doomed to vote in, eventual corruption.

What I will say is, "corruption is inherent in all governments". However, it is the degree of and the impact it has on the people it governs. Certainly, Obama and his grab bag socialist conspiritors, are a good example.

Given a choice, I choose Gingrich.

Hi Domenick -

It's Sagunto, and with all respect that is due, you've not exactly got my message.

I did not imply, as you say, that America is doomed to vote in corruption. I took notice of your statement that Newt is "what's left of America," to which I responded:

"If that were true.."

Obviously, I don't subscribe to the veracity of your original statement ;)

Cheers,
Sag

Segunto,

Thankyou, I stand corrected. Consider my post a general comment then and not a response to yours.

"Segunto, thankyou, I stand corrected"

Not quite, I'm sad to inform you ;)

Take care,
Sagunto

Kindly regarded Sagunto from Amsterdam,

Ok, so Gingrich would not be your choice. Do you support any of the other candidates actually on offer? Geert is not running here, unfortunately. I ask you because by rejecting Gingrich, one renders aid to specific others in the race. By tearing down Gingrich, you probably help Romney, and you certainly help one of the candidates besides Gingrich. Is it your view that all the other candidates actually running would be better than Gingrich?

Would you support Romney? Paul? Perry? Bachmann? Huntsman? Do you know much about those candidates, or was your rejection of Gingrich made in a void? Would you support none of the candidates actually on offer?

I ask these questions because your answer would put your rejection of Gingrich in a more meaningful light. It's easy to reject something, but the question is, who's better? Or are you being "neutral"? Neutrality may allow one to congratulate oneself on one's purity, but in practice it aids one of the people about whom one is allegedly neutral.

Hi traeh -

"Neutrality may allow one to congratulate oneself on one's purity, but in practice it aids one of the people about whom one is allegedly neutral.", you wrote.

Glad you cared to bring this up.

This site is called Jihad Watch. My primal interest and concern is - since I live in a small country, where Muslims abound at every street corner nowadays - in "nullifying", so to speak, the disastrous immigration policies, perpetrated upon us by the progressivist elites.
We have been flooded by Muslims over here, so can imagine why a Dutchie like myself would be more concerned with immigration than with foreign policy. Besides that and moreover, I see some fair degree of difference between the establishment-sponsored WoT, and the people's daily struggle against Islamization.

So with that in mind, I'm not especially moved by US politicians who sometimes give off the impression that the national borders of America run across some foreign deserts. And I don't assume automatically that, from an anti-immigration, anti-Islam point of view, a candidate who comments on an issue in the Middle East is necessarily "getting it". More often than not, as you undoubtedly know, these progressivist WoT-endorsers struggle to be first at the mic to solemnly declare that, here we go again: "Islam is a religion of Peace". We all know the drill: Clinton/Bush/Blair/O-bomber/Romney/../../..... (ad infinitum).

Look, I love this site, and still do, for the hard and courageous effort put in, and the highly informative work put out by Robert to educate the public about the true nature of Islam.
However, when I see this forum change somewhat, and only from time to time, into a platform for the sortakinda endorsement of certain candidates, simply because they seem to talk the CJ talk, then I cannot help but to feel inclined to wage in, and counter some of the stuff, under the fairly safe assumption that (apart from Lt Col Allen West) no candidate today is sufficiently versed (pun intended) in Islamic doctrine, to really be of help in our struggle against Islamization.

This "scepticism", if you like, is exacerbated by my conviction that in the end, the actual fight for freedom is up to each and every one of "us, the people," and that we shouldn't wait for some politician to come and save us. Over here in Holland we're some twenty years ahead in the "political process" concerning Islam and immigration. We've had plenty of time to get accustomed to political promises in that area, and the rare actual promise being assassinated.

I understand that politics can lead to fervent debate based on passionately held beliefs, and that's all good and well, but I think it best for JW itself to keep focussing on providing the info to school all of the candidates, and to remain extremely cautious, even or especially, with candidates who i.m.o. provide the red meat sound-bites for the gullible.

So in sum, traeh, I sure hope to have somewhat convinced you, that I feel no special urge to seek after self-congratulation or some "holier than thou" political purity.

I have not been commenting for several years now on this wonderful site, to indulge in such superficial gratification, as I'm sure you didn't mean to imply ;)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Hi traeh -

I'll try to be brief. My point was to caution people not to take any of these candidates by their campaigning word alone, even if they seem to adopt CJ-like positions.

"Unless we in fact know they are all equally bad. And we don't."

Concerning an acceptable level of knowledge of Islamic doctrine, I say that we do. All about equally uninformed, and, when push comes to shove, all will say that "Islam is a religion of peace". It's just that "tiny minority," you know?

Now this of course doesn't in any way mean that one should stop evaluating candidates on this issue, but the logical conclusion from my posts would be that sure, there's plenty of choice, if you're able not to let yourself get too excited about some promising CJ-speak, with - I maintain - no direct implications for countering the ongoing Islamization of our lands.
A politician can talk a good deal, about Palestinians and all, and still utterly neglect, or in fact undermine, national borders at home.

I can imagine people looking at other issues that might be of some importance, compared to what a notoriously unreliable RINO says about this or that foreign policy situation with Muslims involved, say, perhaps the US economy and the ongoing global financial crisis? For yesterday's, today's and probably tomorrow's news is: we're broke, you're broke.

Take care,
Sag

It got onto the news in Australia, too.

Two items in the ABC (our national news broadcaster);

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-11/gingrich-under-fire-for-palestinian-comments/3724468

Gingrich calls Palestinians an 'invented' people

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-11/gingrich-defends-lead-at-republican-debate/3724874

"Gingrich stands by attack on Palestinians" {that is, his critique of some Levantine Arab Muslims...- dda}.

not sure how it ran on Tabloid TV.

The general tenor of the reporting is 'How SHOCKING! How Dreadful! How mean and nasty he is to say such things about the Pooor Palestinians! [TM]'.

But now the proposition - that 'the Palestinian people' is a very recent invention, and that the 'Palestinians' are essentially just Arabs (mostly Muslim), indistinguishable in all essentials from the Arabs and Muslims living round about and among whom they live- is out there.

And I think that *who* said it, and in what setting, may rapidly become almost irrelevant.

What matters is that the proposition - so immediately, starkly shocking to everyone who's been unthinkingly sucking down Arab/ Muslim oil-funded propaganda for the past fifty years or so - is out there, on the loose...and right now, while it's 'water cooler' talk, then all of us well-informed folks have to be ready to strike.

Ready to explain that Mr Gingrich was, on this one thing, bang on the nail, dead to rights, CORRECT.

And then hit people with interesting little nuggets of history that might stick like burrs in their minds.

Two more things to have up one's sleeve.

Martha Gellhorn's classic 1961 article - "The Arabs of Palestine" - which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-arabs-of-palestine/4203/

of which the most eerily telling portion is right toward the end (though it's also worth noting, as you read through the article, how many times she caught out those 'palestinian' Arab 'refugees' in the act of telling enormous, fact-checkable LIES, which lies she dubbed 'mad-hattery': she had a much better BS-detector than most western journalists who have subsequently gone interviewing Arab Muslims in and around Israel.)

Martha has visited an Arab Muslim village within Israel, a prosperous little village, in the company of an earnestly do-gooding Israeli Jew.

'When we left, the pretty, healthy children ran beside the car, shouting. I waved. Nissim looked queer, something was wrong; that chronic optimist seemed sad.
"What's the matter, Nissim?"
"Nothing. What the children say."
"You mean just now, shouting?"
"Yes. They say: 'Where you going, bastard? I spit on you.'"
What for, I thought, what for, and will it never stop?
"Do you hate the Arabs, Nissim?"
"No. Of course no."
"Why not?"
"What is the good of hate?"

'What indeed? Arabs (and this, judging by the evidence accumulating from five years of news reports and other things here on jihadwatch, should really be 'Arab Muslims and Muslims in general' - dda) gorge on hate, they roll in it, they breathe it.

' Jews top the hate list, but any foreigners are hateful enough. Arabs also hate each other, separately and en masse. Their politicians change the direction of their hate as they would change their shirts. Their press is vulgarly base with hate-filled cartoons; their reporting describes whatever hate is now uppermost and convenient. Their radio is a long scream of hate, a call to hate. They teach their children hate in school. They must love the taste of hate; it is their daily bread. And what good has it done them?

'THERE is no future in spending UN money to breed hate (though of course, under UNRWA and other agencies, that is exactly what has been done in the past fifty years - dda}.

'There is no future in nagging or bullying Israel to commit suicide by the admission of a fatal locust swarm of enemies.

'There is no future in Nasser's solution, the Holy War {i.e. the Jihad - dda} against Israel; and we had better make this very clear, very quickly.

{Now for the kicker, the brilliant and apposite analogy. Memorise this one. - dda}

'Long bleak memories will recall the Sudetendeutsch and Czechoslovakia. In a new setting, Palestinian refugees {I think Gellhorn is using 'Palestinian' as a purely toponymic adjectival qualifier - dda} assume the role of the Sudetendeutsch. Israel becomes Czechoslovakia.

'Propaganda prepares the war for liberation of "our brothers."

'Victory over a minor near enemy is planned as the essential first step on a long triumphant road of conquest.

'A thousand-year Muslim Reich, the African continent ruled by Egypt {though these days Turkey and Persia are both angling for the caliphate as well - dda} may be a mad dream, but we have experience of mad dreams and mad dreamers. We cannot be too careful.

"The echo of Hitler's voice is heard again in the land, now speaking Arabic {as well as, today, Farsi - dda}.'

And then there is, of course, this very useful little article, from the American Thinker:

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html

Print it out, keep it, learn the points it makes by heart - it sums up, in little, many things that others - such as Bostom, in 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism' - have said at length and in dense, scholarly tomes - and then be prepared to just keep at friends, religious leaders (rabbis, priests, pastors), journalists, politicians both serving and aspiring, and keep at them, with those main points until something, by dint of repetition, sinks in.

Sagunto;
Great Utube link, thanks for sharing with the faithful here.

I read through your posts, and it shows clearly you understand what is going on worldwide, with the "Globalist" agenda, a agenda that is a direct cause of much of the trouble with, and from, islam.

It can be blogged, I would hope others would take the time to study these N.W.O., Global goals, they are making the fight and resistance to islam much harder, perhaps as they are designed to do.

I can enjoy just reading your posts, you say what I can only try to type with ease. Thanks again for the great posts.

Hi Islofob -

Thought I'd revisit this thread once more, what a pleasant surprise! And you're welcome. Glad you enjoy reading my sometimes long-winded attempts at reasonable commenting ;)

In my exchange with @Kepha, I referred to prof Paul Gottfried, who in his book "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy", has said a little something about the modus operandi of this quasi-religious cult of Diversity.

Your reply reminded me of how this cult, that often seems so thoroughly detached from reality (certainly in the O-bomber version), works alongside a more "realistic" geopolitical approach to US progressivist interests (say, Kissinger-style).
Sometimes, and over time, these different approaches to the same underlying ideology work in tandem, and here's a perfect example, discussed by Necla Kelek, first published on October 29 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Let's call it:
// How the US political establishment forced the Turks upon Germany. //

Some excerpts from the translated article on GoV. Notice how the first paragraph covers this PC/MC "Politics of Guilt", and how the second is about cold war geopolitics:

"German politicians [..] are inclined to define the history of worker immigration as one of Turkish victims and German guilt because of exploitation. But this version of history is a fairy tale.

In 1961 [..] the recruitment agreement was established between the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey — as had already been done in 1955 with Italy and other countries. Actually, Turkish workers — both male and female — were not needed so urgently in Germany. But there were geopolitical reasons. The United States was pressing the Germans to support Turkey economically.[..]
NATO needed allies on the “southeast flank” of the socialist block, and militarily powerful Turkey was the historic partner. This was shown not long afterwards during the Cuban Crisis, in which Turkey played a significant role. The price exacted by the Turkish generals who supported NATO: a share in the economic rise of Europe."

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Hi Sagunto,
You said,

Concerning an acceptable level of knowledge of Islamic doctrine, I say that we do. All about equally uninformed, and, when push comes to shove, all will say that "Islam is a religion of peace". It's just that "tiny minority," you know?

Maybe. My sense is that Gingrich now knows what's going on. I think this remark about the Palestinians, among other things, is a dead give away that he does. But I could be wrong.

Take care.

Hi Bingo,
I agree with you.

wildjew,
I read Bachmann's response differently. I didn't think she was whimping out on Gingrich. I thought she was simply refusing to use her precious debate time merely to say which of two other candidates' views were correct. Naturally she wanted to talk about her own views, not decide between Romney and Gingrich as to which of their views was right. Before answering the question, she hesitated, and I thought the audience laughed a bit, precisely because the question was sort of ridiculous in that it asked her to say whether Romney or Gingrich was right, rather than ask her for her own views.

But if you look at the substance of her response, it seemed much more supportive of Gingrich's position than of Romney's.

But I've never looked to Bachmann as my candidate, though she's impressive in a number of ways.

dumbledoresarmy, thank you for that link to the American Thinker article, and your other contributions.

Hi traeh -

I'd like to revisit a previous comment of yours, because there might be some kind of misunderstanding here, perhaps due to my less than perfect command of the English language.

I make a clear distinction between JW the site, and the comments section. Where I made a plea for a kind of scholarly independence and a focus on schooling all of the GoP candidates, with no tacit (un)endorsement of any of them, the addressed party was the administrator of this site, I guess.
OTOH, political debate in the comments section is of course a free for all, to which I happily donated my two (euro)cents, for what it's worth these days ;)

What I find important is that people in the CJ community understand the perverse and oftentimes inverse relation that exists between the people's national struggle against the Islamization of their lands, and the international progressivist "War on Terror", that happens to coincide with quasi open borders.
Newt, like most other candidates, I'm sorry to say, belongs squarely in the "War on Terror/Islam is Peace" camp.

Now, in my reply to Islofob, I presented an example of how progressivist US foreign policy has been a hindrance for "us, the people," in fighting off the flood, no, the veritable tsunami of Muslim immigrants. This is not felt in the US of course where the percentage of Muslims to the national population is much lower, so naturally, when I present the consequences, it involves my distinctly Dutch perspective, I'm aware of that.
But I also want patriotic Americans to become aware of what their bi-partisan established politicians have effected in the way of this deranged cult of Diversity, combined with the ideology of unchecked mass immigration.

How does this relate to my comments about Newt? Well that, in a sense, my comments are not about Gingrich at all. Here's the ultra-short version of my main point, starting with a quote from the article // I linked to // in my reply @Islofob:

"Actually, Turkish workers — both male and female — were not needed so urgently in Germany. But there were geopolitical reasons. The United States was pressing the Germans to support Turkey economically."

Now think of it. US progressivist foreign policy, leading to the forced immigration of Muslim foreigners into Germany. Take a moment and give it time to really sink in.

Now, along comes a US GoP candidate who throws the MSM some red meat soundbites about fake-Palestinians, and many CJ commentators immediately flock to this "War on Terror", NAFTA/NAU/GATT con-artist, who in unison with his EUssr epigons, would continue to take the West down the road of these kind of policies, which in effect have brought about the Islamization of our lands and the de facto dissolution of national borders.

Think of it.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Kepha wrote:

Maybe we in the USA are caught up in the myth that we alone are a nation composed out of immigrants of other nations, as if the "aboriginal" British aren't a stew of Picts, Kelts, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, Normans, and whatever; or the Chinese aren't a stew of...
.............................

With all respect, Kepha, I believe you are somewhat missing the point.

America has *never* claimed to be the only nation made of up diverse peoples.

The claim to American uniqueness is that people from all over the world came here specifically to *become Americans*.

Through the ideal of the "melting pot", America has striven to receive people entirely on the basis of their characters, not on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, or creed.

Now, America has never completely lived up to this ideal—but it has done so enough that people kept coming here for a fresh start.

Several issues have muddied the waters vis-a-vis this concept in the past several decades—firstly, America is not as alone in this role as she used to be. Immigrants are now flocking to parts of the West that until recently had very small immigrant populations such as Britain and Germany.

And then, the "melting-pot" ideal has been dropped by many multi-culturalists, who believe that "diversity" *in and of itself* is a virtue, regardless of the nature of what form that "diversity" takes.

Hand-in-hand with this is the grim fact that an increasing number of immigrants are *not* embracing American—or British or German or French—traditions at all, but instead desire to impose their own creed on their host nations.

Islam and Muslims are the most obvious and most disturbing example of this.

I believe the "melting-pot" idea is still an important one, and that it *has* led to much of America's greatness. Certainly, people who languished in poverty and oppression in their home countries often achieve and contribute immensely here. The same is true of other immigrants of good will in the rest of the west.

But this ideal can also be used and subverted. And by Muslims and Islam most of all.

For "traditions", I should have said "values".