A Cultural Fence

| | Comments (35) | TrackBacks (0)

Before I get started, I would like to thank Joe Budzinski for giving me space on NOVA Townhall to write (and vent) about issues that interest me and hopefully the denizens of this blog. My expressed opinions and views here are nothing more than a lightning rod for further discussion. I welcome all views, but I will not consider all views to be of equal merit. With that in mind please do engage.

A secure border has always has been of importance to any country throughout all of history. The Chinese and Romans have built walls on their borders to maintain security. Other societies have also built less known walls for the same purpose. These structures were as much symbols of resolve as they were practical force multipliers which enabled the fewer troops to more effectively maintain the border against invasion.

Today two primary factors drive our need to secure our borders; these are nuclear-terrorism and the cultural sovereignty. A nuke in a suitcase making its way to NYC, LA, or DC would do a real job on this country's psyche and economy.

The unwashed illegal millions crossing the border will do the same thing, just differently, and in a manner that is actually more insidious. We won’t notice it. The reason why America works so well is because we really are just one possible manifestation of ENGLAND.

The Magna Carta could not have occurred anywhere else. There is an “exceptionalism” to us which is the result of the precious gift of English common law coupled to the Protestant work ethic, and Puritan ethos. This does set us apart.

Until very recently, all other revolutions have had periods of bloody reprisal against those who opposed said revolution. We have escaped this. Most revolutionary leaders became dictators once they came to power. France had Napoleon, and Cuba still has Castro. On the other hand we had Washington. The difference in outcome was a product of the cultural background which the three leaders came from.

If you look at the former English colonies such as India, Australia, and America you see by and large a respect for law and personal property. (Yes, we are eroding it here, but I pray we as a Nation will step back from that abyss.) If you gaze upon the former French or Spanish Colonies what you see is a real mess. Look at Jamaica and Haiti; both have problems. Haiti's problems are far worse. Both countries are islands both have similar ethnic backgrounds; the result however is two different outcomes. The Jamaican GDP/capita is triple that of Haiti, and the political climate is far more stable.

The United States has ingested large waves of immigrants in the past. However, the official cultural policy was to encourage these migrants to “Americanize”. There was no official celebration of the other culture until those migrants groups were inculcated with local “English” culture.

While the US has certainly been changed by its immigrants, the immigrants themselves have been far more radically altered. As a poignant example, most of those 40 million claiming Irish descent are no longer Catholic but Protestant. The same holds true for other migrant groups in this regard. Considering the shared history between Protestant and Catholic back in Europe such religious migration is startling. Other similar examples of such crossovers can be sighted.

Today however our official policies actively discourage such cultural immersion. As an example, Spanish language curricula being offered to (foisted upon) Latino students not only retard their integration but also much that is taught actively alienates them from the English culture. Another example of Balkanization is the printing of election ballots in other languages.

Our current political environment impedes our ability to convert the immigrant community into citizens. Citizenship is not only a legal journey but a cultural transformation. It must be so for a political entity such as the United States to survive.

If we lose our basic 'Englishness' we will lose it for ever. A culture once lost is not easily retrieved. We could lose the country here and the War on Terror (WWIII) all because we will not do something as simple as build a fence.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Cultural Fence.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/505


Maureen Wood said:

The only way to affect change here is to call, e mail or write our
politicians. We as Americans, taxpayers and voter's need to vote anyone that is for amnesty out of office. John Warner, if he runs again, will have a hard time getting elected. I have been researching the illegal alien situation and there are many disturbing issues accociated with it. 58 men were arrested at Fort Bragg. All of them were illegal and doing constuction on an American military base. To me that is a scary thing. Some were child molesters, some were gang members and other's had been arrested before for DUI. Of course none of the contractors were named, just like the contractor's were never named in the illegals being caught at Dulles airport. Why not? We need to demand our politicians start enforcing our CURRENT immigration laws NOW.

Great job, Jacob. "Citizenship is not only a legal journey but a cultural transformation" - very well put. That belongs on a bumper sticker.

charles said:

I'll address only the "suitcase Nuke" part of the argument.

No wall will stop it. We have maximum security prisons, with multiple walls, guards, constant monitoring -- and yet contraband gets into and out of the prisons.

People got out of East Berlin with the wall as well.

There is no way that we can put a wall around the country that will stop the one terrorist group which has the suitcase nuke from getting it into the country. If they've spent millions to obtain the weapon, they will spend what they need to ensure it gets smuggled into our country without detection.

Thank you for you comment. I respectfully disagree for the following reasons. The impact of any wall is one of deterrence. If we are only able to catch 90% of those who try to cross the border it will still be a tremendous deterrent. Also as the impact of the wall/fence takes effect the numbers who attempt to cross the border will decrease. This in turn will make it easier to stop the remainder. A nuke in a suitcase is a 'high value' item. The risk its capture could prevent the use of it in an american city.

Jack said:


You cannot stop a determined man from breaking into your house, either, but I'll bet you lock your doors anyway. It may not stop the hard-core criminal, but it will deter the petty thieves and punks.

Charles, I agree re: the suitcase nuke - that's where the wiretapping and such comes in. But surely you agree a wall on our southern border would be a good thing?

Kevin said:

Something smells like Joe wrote this under pseudonym, one of your fantastic "experiments" you've been itching to conduct, Joe? Smells like you Joe.

Jacob Ash said:

I have read a few Joe's posts and they are pretty good so thanks Kevin, but I am not Joe.


kevin said:

No way, dude, that's you JOE! Remember all those posts/comments about wanting to post under pseudonym? This is so totally you. budZINSKI! You son of a gun!

charles said:

Yes, my argument was NOT against building a wall, I was just saying that the wall will not protect us from the suitcase nuclear weapon.

It will stop millions of people from crossing our border.

Kevin, heh, good guess but no, Jacob is indeed a separate, real live individual. Our MT license barely allows the number of bloggers we have, so I could not use a seat for a sock puppet.

I was thinking more along the line of inventing a whole community of commenters - a kaleidescope of personalities - who would hash out the great questions from divergent viewpoints representing the span of human intellectual history and the pitch and yaw of the collective unconscious; freaks and fellow travelers who would throw down on one another in pitched battles that would leave visitors emotionally drained and government officials scratching their heads in disbelief. The end result of all the debates, however, would be the same: "That Joe Budzinski, he is one bad mo-fo."

That's how I'd implement sock puppets, if I had the time. Or I'd start a separate blog like yours which is very interesting but so friggin' artistic my redneck gene prevents me from understanding it.

Thanks for visiting and I am honored to be mistaken for the wonderful Jacob Ash.

I will try and figure out your blog.

Jacob Ash said:

What is the URL to your web page? I really don't care if you think I am Joe. If anything go ahead, this way if I flame you, Joe will get the blame.


Jacob, you can just click on his name under his comment, but here is the link:


Maureen, I am in full agreement, as are many others in NOVA. Senator Warner is very unlikely to run again - you're right, he would have a firestorm of opposition if he did. It would make the Ollie North and Mike Farris battles seem like cakewalks. In any case, Virginians should be thinking very seriously about who is going to run for that Senate seat.

kevin said:

Oh, Joe, unfortunately there is little to figure out about my blog. It's nearly worthless to anyone other than myself, a disorganized mash-up and a way to keep in touch with a group of old NOVA friends scattered throughout the country with some light discourse analysis flavor, interest in Gestalt, representation, and confabulation, and language. Hopefully no overt sense to make of it.

kevin said:

Furthermore, Joe, out of principle, I must continue to insist that you and Jacob are the same writer.

Jack said:


I don't know Joe at all, but I do know Jacob. He is my sons' godfather, as I am godfather to his eldest daughter. (Jacob introduced me to this blog just so I could see his name in "print.")

Unless he has hidden this "Joe Buttinski" identity from me, he's not Joe.

jacob said:

Your comments are both off topic, and worse they are beginning to bore me. Your comment 'Furthermore out of principle I must insist you and jacob are the same writer' amounts to argument by supposition. This is at best the weakest form of argument and at worst ... well, lets leave it right there.

You have NO evidence to the contrary and in essence have impuned the integrity of two individuals. Yes, both Joe and I use American English to convey our thoughts on this blog, if that makes us the same guy, then by the same logic you are Elvis.

Thanks Pal.

Hector said:

You're all crazy except for Kevin. Nobody has a grain of sense on this silly blog and I wonder why I come back day after day. Of course this Ash person is a figment of Joe's sick imagination, which I think we've all seen far too much of.

Anyone who contends Jacob Ash and Joe Budzinski are not the same person should be ostracized and shunned, because it's lunacy, just plain lunacy. When oh when will we all wake up.

Kevin, don't listen to them. You are the conscience of NOVA TownHall. Your blog is fantastic, if only because I know eventually you will have a photo of someone close to me - I just know it. I wait eagerly for that happenstance. And I love your poetry.

jacob said:

I hereby leave the field to Kevin-The-Poet and Hector-The-Psyhologist. Yes, I am crazy Hector. You pegged it. C'ya at my next posting.

jacob said:

Kevin will now get to watch you argue with yourself. First of all I do not see ANY reason why Warner will not run again. Maureen is right we need to try to punish all politicians who abuse our sovereignty. The questiuon is however who do we get to challenge Warner in the primary? Also, if we do beat him in the primary will that person win in the general election. I know some folks are still sore at Warner for what he did to North in his senatorial bid. OK. So what? cutting our noses to spite our face is Democratic behavior.



You make a good point, and normally when November rolls around I am on board with your point of view. But the level of anger over the immigration issue is pretty serious. We were discussing it just last night and some of the locals are LIVID.

That Senate bill was a sin - and I mean that in the Levitical sense. I think the only reason Warner voted for it is he knew he'd never have to face the voters again.

I'm going to echo Hector's sentiment that there are entirely too many identity-games being played on the Internet. But I'll take it one step further and suggest no one should be able to hit the "Post" button without first providing a fresh, unique retinal scan.

That way, if someone wanted to create a bunch of sock puppets, they'd also have to have a bunch of captive people or at least the heads thereof - neither of which, I can tell you, are easy to come by in America.

By the way, it is so gratifying to find a blog that will print my comments. For some reason all the others say my stuff goes straight to their Junk Comments folder.

Jack said:

"Eyes. I only do eyes."
-James Hong

Back to Warner (John). He has been on the left side of things several times in the past. I see no reason that this should be any different. In order to be ousted, he must either lose a primary or general election. He can avoid a primary by pulling enough strings to have a party caucus instead, which he will win easily. Too many people in the GOP owe him too many favors. Whatever Democrat opposes him will probably be worse on immigration (and everything else), so we will vote for Warner again.

The Democrats did not even put up a challenger in 2002. If Warner runs again, the Dems may not challenge him. If so, there will be no Democratic primary, so the libs will go to the Republican primary (if there is one) and vote for the more liberal candidate (Warner).

Warner may retire, but I do not think any fear of the voters will drive him to retire, nor do I think his pending retirement affects his votes.

Good points, Jack. Guess we'll have a better idea about a year from now.

kevin said:

Jacob (or should I say Joe?),

I didn't mean to stray off topic, or bore you for that matter. In fact, I'm not really all that concerned with you at all. It's Joe (Jacob) I'm worried about.

And Hector? Who's da man? You are.

And you're all welcome to come over and leave whatever kind of comments on the blog you want, any time you want. It could be like Jacob's (Joe's) "kaleidoscope of personalities" that he's working on creating as we speak.


We appreciate the offer.


kevin said:


I appreciate you.


P.S. Thanks J. Phentermine Ambien, for making the point overt.

Jacob Ash said:

No we don't. (Joe's evil twin brother)

zimzo said:

Psst, Kevin, don't force Joe to confront his "alternative personalities" in public or the cognitive dissonance will be too much for his brain to bear. We don't want another incident like the Winter of '92. I have to say, though, I liked him better the year he thought he was Atticus Finch.

OUCH! TOUCHE! I don't even want to REMEMBER what might have happened in 1992.

Point of fact: When I was young and foolish, I was REALLY young and foolish. I mean, more than most. Another reason I will never run for public office.

Point of fact 2: I was Atticus Finch in the fall of 1978 (Edison High School), and I was a major league idiot. Zimzo's a nice guy to give me any credit whatsoever for that time period.

Zimzo, I hope to god we get to meet before too long. The mystery is driving me nuts.

kevin said:

Not sure if you're still censoring me or not. Whatever, it's cool.

jacob said:

Nope you are not being censored. IF you want to discuss the issue at hand here I am game. IF you wish to engage in a discussion of whether I am joe's literary doppleganger I got more important things to do.


Kevin, we're definitely not censoring you!! Did one of your comments not get posted? If so it is being held for moderation by our spam filter - I'll go check.

If you read all the stuff that goes on here you should know we'd never censor someone like you. Poor, mixed up pup that you are.

Also, don't mind Jacob, he's the analytical, testy one but he has a good heart.

Yup that was it. That "phentermine" word is what did it.

Bear in mind that a great deal of what happens here is tongue in cheek. A GREAT deal.

kevin said:

Joe (and really, you too Jacob), it seemed surprising you would hold it for moderation considering all I'd said was that I appreciated you. And that J. PHen**** Am*** had really just made my point overt, whomever J.p.a. is. (Hector too!)

"a great deal of what happens here is tongue in cheek" here too. . .

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here