|Extracted from an interview entitled:"With Bhutto Gone. . .|
Quoting Steve Schippert:"It should be noted that instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency campaign,..." Taking the above as a premiss, what does this suggest of the motives of those who ask us to value openness to diversity, which includes that of Islamic refugees, and that of the current Islamic terror offensives? Next some reports on Islamic refugee resettlement copied from Refugee Resettlement Watch postings on Shelbyville, TN of Dec. '07 :"The Center’s first encounters with the newcomers did not go so well, with the Somalis being described as “demanding, aggressive and argumentative” and very different than anyone they had ever dealt with._______
“They are very demanding and I don’t know if that is because their culture in general,” Weaver explained, but she has also been told that Somalis are being taken to Minneapolis after they arrive in America and given classes on “what they should demand, and what are their rights.” [from:here, here, and here. ]
JB comments:There's a reason why refugees just in from Africa are said to have rights here, but citizens apparently are to be told that they only have duties to pay for this.
This is how the power-greedy operate now: they find a way to bring in ill-behaved, highly objectionable people, enemies even, then try to worsen the misbehavior, and when they succeed in provoking a response, they smear the opposition as racism, fascism, xenophobia, discrimination, etc.
With opponents on the defensive, no one remembers to say that the use of smearing and other fallacies indicates that there is no rational argument for giving more power to the power-greedy.
This way the power-greedy control the issues; they bring in the people who cause public outrage, and the issues are already set up for officials and others to respond with their accustomed replies (which are mainly smears). They are prepared, but those who value freedom-from-aggression appear to be always caught off balance.
Set all this in the historical context of the long, left-dominated struggle for greater power at the expense of liberty; for 100 years shrill government scholars cried for the class war, then it was the race war for forty or more years, which would be the 'liberation'. Now the War of Religion, that of Islam itself, appears to have become the hope of the leftist professoriate and power-greedy officialdom, as an addition to the preceding.
In this context, an official valorization of enhancing diversity, of disunity and instability, and of the potential for insurgency, all fit together, when otherwise they wouldn't. In the first quotation, it is stated that:"instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency".
Now we have two closely inter-related motives. The power-greedy can win if they provoke smearable opposition to the aggrandizement of their power, and they can win the dictatorship itself, if they can get full-scale insurgency going.
The same methods can be used in complementary manner for both objectives. These two methods have the valuing of objectionable diversity in common; they fit together rhetorically as well as pragmatically.
Now does it make sense why, the worse trouble we can expect from a foreigner, the more those who wish for more power, would prefer for that foreigner to be brought here, and close to your relatives?