The Real Nat’l Security Threat: Liberals’ Imagined Politics of Exclusion


native-american-homeland-security

A few general thoughts on the serious dangers to national security and American unity posed by the imaginary/imagined politics of hard-liberal hysteria “thinkers”:

  • We must note, with caution and preparation, how the hard-liberal advocates of allegedly non-violent means have become increasingly violent in their movements against classic America conservatism.
  • These, “peaceful protestors” are fueled by a purely imaginary conviction that protecting our Sovereign Nation from potentially threatening outsiders, who do not share our values and whose cultural norms are antithetical to humanitarianism and the American way of life, is either racist and/or xenophobic.
  • Allegations that the conservative National Security measure is either racist and/or xenophobic are patently false. Rather, the conservative approach toward National Security, American cohesion and (ironically (given that it uses a politicized term) toward truly making America a “safe space” for all of its citizens and legal residents is just what it says it is. It is a sincere effort to protect our Sovereign Nation from potentially threatening outsiders who do not share our values and whose cultural norms are antithetical to humanitarianism and the American way of life.
  • Consider the Native Americans, the first persons, as alleged by recorded history, to inhabit this tract of land we now call the United States. They fought to preserve their Sovereign Nation from outsiders who did not share their values and whose cultural norms were antithetical to humanitarianism and the Native American way of life. Today, we laud those Native Americans as “heroes” for their actions and, for many hard-liberal advocates, modern Westerners remain the perpetually evil thieves who stole land from the Native American tribes. We should ask, “Were those Native Americans who fought back against Western colonialists and imperialists behaving in a racist and/or xenophobic manner?” If yes, then they cease to be laudable heroes and they deserve our strongest condemnation. If not, then actions such as this National Security measure, which embody identical principles as the ones acted upon by the Native Americans in defense of their nation, is neither racist nor xenophobic.
  • One hard-liberal answer which I have received to the above [hypothetical/rhetorical/theoretical] question is, “No, the Native Americans were not behaving in a racist and/or xenophobic manner, because they were fighting against the injustice of Western colonialism and imperialism.”
  • Keeping in mind the injustices of colonialism and imperialism, I invite you to critically examine the history of Islam. It is a history thoroughly drenched in the blood of, first, unyielding infighting, and, for the remainder of its tenure to the present day, in the blood of Islamic colonialism and imperialism.
  • Keeping also in mind that the stated goal of the modern jihadists (who intimately tie their ideologies/subsequent actions to the “glory” of Islamic history) encroaching upon the West is to establish a Caliphate, a religiously motivated, violently enforced, colonialistic and imperialistic instrument of oppression which (as Said has taught his readers in “Orientalism) is posed by the now Islamist colonialists/imperialists as an instrument of liberation.
  • Just as the Native Americans fought against the encroaching Western colonialistic/imperialistic endeavor when the foreigner “others” arrived on their shores, there is, today, a worthy and significant segment of the American population who will fight against an encroaching colonialistic/imperialistic Caliphate for the sake of preserving the sovereignty of their nation. This does not mean that all foreigner “others” are subversive agents of the colonial/imperial Caliphate agenda. Nor does it mean that none are. Rather, it means that Americans are still Americans, despite their Native or non-Native ethnic origins, and as has happened since the origination of the American Republic, the Tree of Liberty, if only as a last resort, but certainly when necessary, stands ever ready to be nourished by the blood shed in its defense.
  • American citizens prefer, overwhelmingly, to not engage in/be the recipients of bloodshed, which is precisely why diplomatic and political protection methods such as the present National Security measure have been, and will continue to be, enacted by Executive Order and, hopefully, by eventual legislation.
  • I end with what I have come to believe is the most important piece of George Washington’s literary legacy, excerpted from his Last Will and Testament in which he bequeaths,

“To each of my nephews… I give one of [my] Swords… These swords are accompanied by an injunction not to unsheathe them for the purpose of shedding blood, except it be for self defence, or in defence of their Country and its rights; and in the latter case, to keep them unsheathed, and prefer falling with them in their hands, to the relinquishment thereof.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Analysis, International Relations, Religion & Theology, Terrorism Studies and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Real Nat’l Security Threat: Liberals’ Imagined Politics of Exclusion

  1. Doug Mette says:

    Wow! Great read Sundar! I had no idea that you were also such a talented writer! Excellent observations and points! Very astute! I look forward to your next writing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s