Matthew J. Stinson takes note the monsters in the Republican closet:

Tacitus does battle with Steve Sailer and the right-wing essentialists of VDare.com, and my initial reaction is the same as it always is when paleocons engage mainstream conservatives in debate: can’t they just quit already?

Mind you, I’m not asking that they quit debating the issues, just that quit claiming that theyre conservatives. Self-styled “conservatives” of Sailer’s sort have been labeled “Evilcons” (by Ben Domenech and Tacitus) and “Decepti-Cons” (by me, after Domenech) before, and I contend that these are fitting labels insomuch as these particular paleoconservatives advocate an immoral ideology that says, essentially, you are your biology, you are your culture, that these things can never be changed, and further, that they determine your value as a human being, your value to America.

[...] To conclude while wielding a broad – but not too broad – brush, the right-wing essentialist crowd looks at brown people and says, “Get out of the ghetto and go back to your home country,” while American dream conservatives look at the same people and say, “Get out of the ghetto and live a good life.” But that good life requires, at a bare minimum, some degree of English proficiency, and conservatives must find a way to fight for English without making it seem like we’re fighting against immigrants. We can start – and we all should start – by expelling the essentialists from our midsts. They can claim to be anything they want to be except conservative. That label belongs to us.

— Matthew J. Stinson Against Conservative Essentialism

It is a pittance of a comfort to know that the same vile fountain from which multiculturalism sprung forth nourishes some of those on the right. Whereas multiculturalists insist on non-intergration on account that the “culture” native to oneself is too valuable to be lost through Americanization — assimilation — paleoconservatives think that people who are neither black or white — whether they were born and raised here or not — simply have no ability whatsoever to become American.

While this bigotry is evident to those willing to see it, I fault multiculturally-oriented capitalism to some extent with regards to the growing language schism in our country. Simply put: companies may save some money by printing manuals only in English. However, a broader consumer base offsets this excess expense. It makes more sense — and money — for companies to provide bilingual instructions and promotional materials. IKEA perhaps saves the most money when it comes to material: they use racially and sexually neutral, non-lingual, barely anthropic caricatures in their non-lingual assembly instructions.

I agree with Matt that some degree of English proficiency is necessary to succeed in this country, although I do place a higher importance than what he may indicate: command of the language grants command of communication, and communication is key in just everything we do. It is the same multicultural mentality that plays games of equivalence between languages. When one of the bedrocks of the culture of American assimilation — the promotion of the adoption of English as the primary tongue — is attacked as an anti-immigration stance, the only result is a tower of Babel in our own land. We would have the multiculturalists and the paleocons — negative images of each other and yet identical in their bigotry — to fault for that.