Recently, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated a political maxim he feels is worthy of admitting. Cameron publically acknowledged that multiculturalism doesn’t work. The catalyst, as it is admitted, to his acknowledgment is the cultural and political problems caused by fundamentally-opposed persons and activists infiltrating Britain and changing European philosophy into Islamic philosophy. As the Prime Minister admits, a clash of fundamentals cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same environment. One or the other will naturally prevail; but before the victor wins, there will be a serious contest and fight between the fundamentals. This fight almost always comes in the form of laws, policies and constitutions—in other words, the way people are governed. So, as Britain and many of the European states are finding out, for a State to maintain its identity and freedom, it must maintain its sovereignty and independence against those who fundamentally challenge its cultural and societal unity of jurisprudence, interest and purpose.
For decades, the fundamentals in the States of America have similarly clashed and have resulted in a union held together by little more than fear: fear of federal government retribution, fear of economic suffering, fear of political instability and the like. Yet, regardless of the political tie, the societal and cultural ties erode ever more as the natural progression of societies reveals a clash of fundamentals. As a symptom of this phenomenon, the States seemingly have no control over the federal government supposedly designed for limited purposes for the benefit of all of the States because their concepts regarding self-government and the role of the federal government are fundamentally opposed to each other. Unfortunately, the larger societies get the more out of control the federal government becomes because of the increasing clash of the fundamentals.
This clash does not represent an intentional animosity one towards another, nor does it necessarily reveal a conspiracy on the part of any to subdue the other. More accurately put, it reflects the evolutionary shifts societies make to better protect, provide and secure their own borders and citizens as they deem best. States which ignore this duty to protect, provide and secure have already been defeated and have little to no chance of defeating a clash from within. This process is not only natural but also necessary. Of course, as societies change over the decades and centuries, there is simultaneously a competition within the State against those who would subject the State to “foreign” interests and others who would prefer the survival and defense of the interests beneficial for the people of that State. Thus, as is the case for Britain, the very survival and existence of the State rests with the ability of the citizens and government to successfully suppress movements that would strip it of its natural and traditional jurisprudence and culture.
