Last November, Breitbart reported that a State Department Charge' d' Affaires, David Kostelancik, had awarded $700,000 to Hungarian media hostile to their Conservative Government, in order to promote "democracy and human rights programming," ahead of next spring's Hungarian election. The obvious intent, in the arrogant intrusion, being to punish Hungarians for refusing to allow their country to be invaded by "immigrants" with no ties to traditional Hungarian values. The report detailed the logical anger, of the Hungarian Government, at Kostelancik's flagrant attempt to meddle in their internal affairs. It also described the same rogue diplomat's previously expressed attack on President Trump! (Apparently, the State Department holdover has been confused for some time as to whether he, or the President, is the proper official to define American foreign policy.)
It has been basic to the Law Of Nations, for over a quarter of a millennium, that each nation must be the judge of its own internal affairs (An American Foreign Policy). Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, accepted this doctrine in a Memo to President Washington in 1793: it is true, that nations are to be judges for themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another. But the tribunal of our consciences remains, & that also of the opinion of the world. These will revise the sentence we pass in our own case, & as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial & vigorous judges. He went on (Jefferson Defines American Foreign Policy & Treaty Law) to discuss the circumstances where a nation can legitimately repudiate a treaty obligation, where its survival as a nation is at stake--clearly the situation with respect to Hungary & a suicidal EU refugee policy.
Of course, a serious question, here, is how could a State Department holdover from the Obama nightmare, have been so confused as not to understand that the first duty of any national Government--whether Hungarian, American or whatever--must be to its own people? The continuity of a nation's families, heritage & future prospects--as a unique people--must always over-ride every other consideration in defining public policy! Are Kostelancik's antics merely Internationalist inspired perfidy, coupled with what amounts to an embezzlement of public funds, or evidence of something much deeper? While there is no way the attack on a patriotic Hungarian Government can possibly serve American interests, we will temper outrage against an individual, by addressing that deeper malady, one going directly to the continued existence of the Republic--to the continuity of the Constitutional federation, which the Founding Fathers achieved for themselves & their posterity.
Obama hated American settler values, which morphed into a Capitalist culture, exceptionalism & pride; into our celebration of individual responsibility, as opposed to group dependency on Government, or an involuntary redistribution of the fruits of individual achievement. But Obama's predecessors, George W. Bush & William J. Clinton, were almost as confused with respect to the actual purpose--the intended function--of the American Government. Consider, on this point, the precise statement of purpose, which is the Preamble to the Constitution; the defining principles, which enunciate why we even have a Constitutional federation:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Clearly, the Constitution was not intended to surrender a heritage vindicated in the blood of the Revolution. Clearly, it was directed to the interests of a particular people--particular families--America's founders & their posterity. Fresh in the exuberance of dearly won independence, the last thing the framers had in mind was to compromise that sovereignty with entangling alliances, with a culture based on internationalist theory. (Note George Washington's Answer To George W. Bush; and consider our analysis of the American Leftist attack on American sovereignty over the past century: Surrender By Subterfuge.)
On the eve of leaving office, President Clinton delivered his version of a farewell address, one deliberately mocking Washington's earlier admonitions against entangling foreign involvements, by openly championing a culture of international interdependence. A little earlier, in his final State of the Union address, Clinton had celebrated a demographic projection, predicting a complete ethnic change before the middle of the present century. Kostelancik's gambit, in attacking Hungary's determination to preserve the character of her heritage, while totally inconsistent with the values of Washington & Jefferson, was entirely consistent with those of William J. Clinton.
While George W. Bush was not quite so direct in his embrace of the international, his speeches both on foreign policy (see the above article on Washington's Answer, which juxtaposes comments of the 1st & 43rd Presidents on every point that President Bush made in his Second Inaugural Address), and on immigration (see our Answer To President Bush), reveal a deeply confused perception of the concepts of heritage, culture & nationality. These two articles contain the whole of President Bush's addresses, referred to. They reveal a man almost slavishly committed to an academic fantasy of human interchangeability; a radical repudiation of the evidence of human continuity & the importance of lines of descent. The essence of our rejection of the Bush offering is found in these six paragraphs, taken from our answer to President Bush on immigration:
The first consideration in formulating a National immigration policy must always be the effect on the Nation involved. The very concept of a "Nation" distinguishes its members from the rest of humanity. It is a recognition of all that make a people unique; all that give them a sense of identity and continuity. Generally such involve not only common patterns of thought as to identifying characteristics, but a common history, a common struggle; shared victories, shared disasters, common lines of descent; a recognition of a common purpose, spanning many generations. This does not rule out a Nation's having adopted sons and daughters; but the essence of the Nation is none the less an ongoing ethnic reality, into which those adopted must be accepted.
To discuss the question of immigration without an effort to define the ongoing Nation into which would-be immigrants would seek acceptance, is akin to discussing experiments in nuclear physics without ever defining atomic or sub-atomic particles. Unfortunately, since Mr. Bush's nomination in a Republican Convention which featured more overt outreach to minority cultures than even recognition of the mainstream culture of the Founding Fathers, he has never shown any comprehension of what was actually unique about America. Yet the speech appended below shows more than a lack of comprehension. It reveals the almost pathological embrace of an absurd mystique. Or how else can one interpret the President's penultimate assertion: "We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they are from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans--one nation under God."
Just how is this magic supposed to work? Are we even permitted to ask? And just what does this President mean by "country?" If he means the inhabitants who consider themselves Americans, than it would seem to matter to mere rational beings, whom is admitted to a group that has the "genius for making us all Americans." If he refers simply to geography, perhaps it would not be too much to inquire just how the mechanism, to which this President trusts the future of America, is supposed to operate? And does this God, to whom he refers, bear any relationship to the Biblical God, worshiped by most other Americans, who directed Man to honor his lines of descent?
While the former President may believe that he honors all the heritages of the earth, those heritages are certainly not interchangeable. In the classic Eighteenth Century treatise on the Law Of Nations, considered authoritative by the Founding Fathers, Monsieur de Vattel defines the concept of the Nation:
"Nations or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.
"Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of 'obligations' and 'rights.'"
Academic attitudes, today, have been heavily influenced by Socialist rationalizations, which seek to attribute most observable human variation to the effects of social environment. Thus the educated classes have increasingly been conditioned to accept programs that blame human failure on the fantasy that those who achieve do so at the expense of those who fail; conditioned to see "income inequality," as a societal failure, rather than a reflection of the variations in talent, location, motivation & behavior.
In affirming the unique cultures of America, we certainly do not disparage the culture or continuity of any other people. Indeed, as should be obvious, this article was prompted by a genuine outrage at the attempt by a State Department Internationalist to sabotage the efforts of a patriotic Hungarian Government to control their borders; to protect the continuity of their nation for purposes very similar to those set forth for Americans, in the stated intentions of our Federal Constitution! In rejecting a multi-generational, Internationalist, war on our own heritage--a cult of "diversity," which actually seeks to undermine the true diversity of the world's nations--we do not disparage any nation. Rather we affirm a passionate American desire for all nations to interact on the basis of mutual respect; respect premised on a common interest in allowing each to preserve & build on unique cultural achievements--the nuanced reflections of history, ongoing struggle, variations in personality & group identity, which cumulate in each distinct but enduring heritage.
The Socialist--or in the context of this article, the international Humanist--effort to stigmatize patriotism & national identification (what they hiss as "Nativism") has become a significant factor in what we label as "politically correct." It is a major factor in What Drives The Trump Haters. Thus both the Clinton & Bush factions, in contemporary dialogue, display an almost pathological hatred of Donald Trump. Thus President Trump must deal with outright sabotage from a bureaucracy that often reflects the international Humanist bias of Presidents Clinton, Bush & Obama.
It is ironic, to return to that bureaucracy's deliberate effort to sabotage a patriotic Government in Hungary, that the incident, which introduced this article was indeed an attack on Hungary, by an obvious intellectual poseur, prattling about "human rights." It was Hungary, after all, among all the nations in Eastern Europe, which first overthrew a Communist Government after World War II. While the initially successful Hungarian Revolution of 1956, was later suppressed by invading Mongolian units of the Soviet Army; for a brief inspiring moment, Hungarian patriots successfully rose against a Communist dictatorship--even as their fathers' generation had done under Admiral Horthy in 1919. And in each instance they reaffirmed their ancient traditions & freedom.
Clearly, David Kostelancik could learn a lot about "human rights programming" from the Hungarians, including the right of a free people to define their own heritage, personality & future. But, if understanding the Preamble to our American Constitution is beyond his competence grade, it is probably beyond what is likely or even possible.
William Flax[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
Our Novel: The hero, a young Conservative who thinks like Donald Trump. The principal antagonist, The New York Times!>
Return Of The Gods
Conservative Intelligence Center
Conservative Debate Handbook: Instant Access, All Chapters
Appendix--Compulsion For Uniformity
Appendix--How The Welfare State Works
Appendix--The Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide
Absurdity At Google
Tactics For Victory
What Drives The Trump Haters
Hillary Clinton: Confused As Well As Corrupt
"Who We Are" (Trump Supporters)
Trump: The Issue
Donald Trump: Metaphor For American Conservatism
Conservative Or Egoist? (Trump & Cruz)
Reality Is Not A Grievance
Gift That Keeps On Taking
How You Define A Problem May Define You
Response To Anti-American Lies
Prosperity & Peace Depend On Mutual Respect
Crimea Returns To Russia
Another Variation On Demonic Theme
Variations On Demonic Theme
: Perspective Governs Values
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"
Tribute To The Virginia Byrds>>
Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr.
Compassion Or Compulsion?
Footnote On Egalitarian Compulsion
Jason Richwine & The Assault On America's Future
Agenda Serving Bullies?
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry
Missing Link To Reality
Whither American Conservatism?
Obama Or America--Irreconcilable Differences
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose
Social Reform: Confusion & "Unintended Consequences?"
Cloud Dancing Revisited--A Spreading Contagion
Blame & Envy Cocktail--Demagogues' Path To Power
"Diversity": Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!
Conflicting Views On Core Premises
Return Of The Gods
Conservative Resource Menu--200+ Items