Share This Page

Future 'diversity' in doubt

| Friday, Dec. 27, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

In his eulogy, President Obama put Nelson Mandela in the company of three other heroes: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln.

What did these men have in common? Three were assassinated, and all four are icons of resistance to white rule over people of color.

Obama's heroes testify to his belief that the great moral struggle of the age is the struggle for racial equality.

For the neocons, the greatest man was Winston Churchill because he stood up, almost alone, to the great evil of the age — Nazism. But what did Churchill think of Obama's hero Gandhi?

“It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace ... to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.”

What did Churchill think of ending Western white rule of people of color? Here he is in 1937: “I do not admit ... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia ... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race ... has come in and taken its place.”

In short, Churchill's convictions about the superiority of some races and civilizations, and their inherent right to rule what Rudyard Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law,” was and is the antithesis of what Obama believes.

Any wonder Obama shipped that bust of Churchill that “W” kept in the Oval Office back to the British embassy? Any surprise Obama failed to show up at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, who sent the fleet to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina?

The point: Obama's vision of an ideal world and Churchill's are irreconcilable.

We are in Obama's world now. It is a world where not only are all races, religions and civilizations equal but within nations, the greater the diversity of races, religions, cultures and ethnic groups, the better.

But though Obama's world is today, it is looking less like tomorrow.

Across the Middle East and Africa, Islamists are murdering and persecuting Christians, as they do not regard Christianity as equal.

Vladimir Putin is in the cross hairs of Western secularists for seeking to revive and restore Orthodox Christianity and its moral precepts to primacy in Russian law, which likely means no Gay Pride parades in Red Square anytime soon.

Across Europe, globalism and transnationalism, as represented by the eurozone and EU, seem in retreat, as nationalism is resurgent. Now it is the UKIP, a new British independence party, that seeks to secede from the EU that is surging — at the expense of the Tories.

Let France be France! Let Britain be Britain! Let Scotland be Scotland! These are the cries coming from the hearts of Europeans rejecting mass immigration and the madness of multiculturalism.

All men may be equal in rights. But most prefer their own faith, country, culture, civilization and kind. They cherish and wish to maintain their own unique and separate identities. They do not want to disappear into some great amalgam of the New World Order.

Whether globalism or nationalism prevails, the big battle is coming.

Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.