U.S. Pres. Barack Obama criticized Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin last week, saying, “Nations do not simply redraw borders or make decisions at the expense of their neighbors simply because they are larger or more powerful. Russia must know that.”
For once, it looks like Obama has figured out the one thing that Putin doesn’t know. I don’t know where Obama learned this universal truth that “Russia must know”, but so far it looks like Obama is the only one who knows that stronger countries shouldn’t be re-drawing borders. Obama, the champion of worldwide democracy, is suddenly the biggest critic of democracy. This must be the same kind of new learning that brought us Common Core mathematics.
Even if the rest of the world recognizes Obama’s “Common Core Diplomacy”, we’re still going to recognize the right of more powerful State to re-draw borders. Borders on a map do not make nations, but it’s a good start. I covered this topic before during my research in G.K. Chesterton‘s Orthodoxy, and it came up again in my reading of Francis Parker Yockey‘s Imperium. The nation whose state has the stronger political power has the right to draw new borders, but it doesn’t always reflect the identity of a people.
American philosopher Francis Parker Yockey covers the question of sovereignty in much clearer detail,
“The Law of Sovereignty is the inner necessity of organic existence which places the decision in every important juncture with the organism, as opposed to allowing any group within to make the decision. An important juncture is any one which affects the organism as a whole, its steering in the world, its choice of allies and enemies, the decision of war and peace, its inner peace, its unchallenged inner right to decide controversies. If any of these can be called into question, it is a sign that the organism is sick. In the healthy organism, this sovereignty is absolutely undisputed, and may continue so for centuries. … If the organism survives the crisis, the new rulers of the same organism will be the focus of the same sovereignty.”
In a word, Russia, as a living organism, is healthy and full of living vitality. The geopolitical interests at play are immense, and in spite of the extra-national influences which have tried to thwart the will of the Crimean people and the Russian State– the Russian organism is thriving. This transitory moment will be a pivotal one for Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia. So that I’m not being short-sighted, this will prove to be an important moment for the rest of the world as well.
As Yockey explains, whichever country has the greater will to power, and whichever cultural organism proves to be stronger will not only survive the crisis, but will also have a multi-generational political and cultural influence in the disputed matter.
Russia is re-drawing borders, and re-defining national and civic identities of the people in Crimea. The Russian build up of forces has worried the international community, but what they’re worried about has nothing to do with a potential military conflict. Rather, the international community (read: Western and Zionist influences…) is concerned about a cultural and spiritual shift away from Modernity. Russia’s military power and political influence played no small part in this change.
However, a State does not need over-whelming military force to re-draw borders and re-define national and civic identities.
The people of Venice voted last week to secede from Italy and form an independent state. I don’t know if it is still correct to refer to it as “Venice, Italy”, so until the Venetians decide what they want to call their new state, I’m sticking with what I know. It seems improbable, unlikely, and quite nearly impossible that the Italian government would allow such a small territory as Venice to single-handedly re-draw the Italian map (which has been in its current form since 1870), but that’s exactly what happened.
Writing for The Daily Caller, Eric Owens satirized Mexican-American relations by comparing the Crimean/Ukrainian/Russian conflict to the Mexican government annexing the American southwest. Yes, his article is satire, and unfortunately a number of people missed that part of the headline (actually, it’s just above the headline in bold red text…).
Owens’s article didn’t seem so funny to most of the American conservative community, and even less so for those who get to deal with Mexican Reconquista imperialists on a daily basis. It seems improbable, unlikely, and quite nearly impossible that American students would be barred from wearing patriotic clothing, but that’s exactly what happened (does anyone else hear an echo?).
For anyone not familiar with this incident, the administration at a southern California school ordered at least one student to remove a piece of American patriotic clothing during the school’s observance of Cinco de Mayo celebrations. William Sullivan’s commentary at American Thinker really helps to put this event into perspective.
“These patriotic hooligans at Live Oak were clearly in violation of an unwritten sensitivity standard, or something like that, and when they refused the administrators’ demands, they left the school to avoid suspension. In a piece I authored for American Thinker at that time, I lamented that our poor American flag no longer has a home in our schools and workplaces. I argued that it is a travesty that Hispanic transplants from Mexico might see the American flag as offensive. Just some apple pie patriotism to remind everyone just what that flag stands for, and how many have sacrificed and died for the values it represents (cue Merle Haggard’s ‘Fightin’ Side of Me‘).”
The Liberal ideal of “tolerance” continues to be a one-way street, and Americans can never travel it in the right direction. Liberalism, with its cries for ‘tolerance” and the inherent good of “diversity”, demands that we repudiate any affirmative ethnic and cultural Western identity.
Yockey reminds us that tolerance does not invite civility, and diversity does not breed goodwill.
“So far from these excesses being the result of malice or hatred, the contrary is true — demonstrations of good-will and ‘tolerance’ actually increase the tension between totally alien groups, and render it more deadly. Focusing attention onto the differences between utterly alien groups works these differences up into contrasts, and hastens outbreaks. The closer the two groups are brought into contact, the more insidious and dangerous grows the mutual hatred.”
Common Core Diplomacy is flooding America with unassimilable outsiders, and the lines which define America on a map are becoming less and less accurate as a consequence. Should we now re-draw our borders so as to protect our definition as a unique people, or should we leave the borders where they are and just re-define ourselves as a people? Good fences make good neighbors, but borders and walls do not inherently define a people.
While Obama is busy leading the charge on Common Core Diplomacy abroad, America’s public school administrators and public servants are trying to do the same. Nobody understands Common Core Diplomacy or Common Core math, and as a result Americans will continue to miss the mark on how to learn and grow as a nation, a state, and as a people– America must know that.
Common Core Diplomacy: Bad for America by Thomas Buhls is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.