VDARE.COM has a wonderful column by Derek Turner in its archives ( http://www.vdare.com/misc/archive00/turner.htm ), which addressed this issue back in November 2000. In it Turner quotes Tony Blair as saying, “”Britishness to us is about issues as varied as how you manage the economy, the approach you take to issues like unemployment, your vision of society.”

Ever notice that the countries that have most resisted American cultural contamination are the ones that still retain their own national integrity?

A legitimate question to pose to the people who have no objection to what’s going on is this: Is there a point beyond which incompatible immigration would be excessive? If their answer is no, I don’t see how the white race avoids being replaced, in their scheme. Furthermore, because this is obvious, one can only conclude that the replacement of whites is being done on purpose — sort of putting Harvard “Professor” Noël Ignatiev’s ideas into effect right before our eyes.

I believe that’s exactly what’s happening in the eyes of those academics who approve of what’s going on — they feel the white race has caused quite enough trouble in the world these several thousand years, thank you very much, and it’s high time we all saw the last of it.

That’s the academics. What’s going on in the minds of the Wall Streeters who push this stuff is simply huge pictures of brightly-flashing neon-lit dollar signs. These are the people with the mental and moral equipment of a Donald Trump.

What’s going on in the minds of the government bureaucrats who run the actual machinery is anyone’s guess — probably nothing: a big blank. (That’s the rank-and-file middle-level bureaucrats and lower downs. The top levels where the political appointees work are probably managed by ideologues of the same stripe as the Ignatiev-worshipping academics.)

Unadorned, a good comment. Why are people like George W. Bush so eager and willing to replace the population of the United States?

Britain is implementing a token measure requiring would-be citizens to “show basic knowledge of the country’s history and take a short written test.” But proficiency in English won’t be required, so long as they’ve made ‘progress’ in learning it: “a rudimentary understanding will be sufficient to gain naturalization.”

Therefore, we can probably guess at how difficult the written test will be.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030903-115841-9767r.htm

I love to put the shoe on the other foot as a test of hypocrisy.

Picture the reaction to this story: “Whites are moving into [insert name of African country here] and will be a majority by the year [whatever].”

Would the whole world say, “So what?”

Mr. Coleman’s illustration is right on target. What he imagines in his thought experiment (the hypothetical elimination by whites of some non-white race and culture by means of excessive incompatible immigration in reverse) would never be permitted by today’s power-élites, for a number of reasons, among them that such a thing wouldn’t provide weak-minded whites an opportunity to feel morally superior by showing how unracist they were in comparison to all their fellows who were, of course, sooooooooo, sooooooooooo racist!   

There’s a process (actually, a combination of processes, not all related to one another) that, no matter what the initial ethnic percentages in a modern western country, seems to end up inexorably driving the white portion of a country’s make-up down to minority status.  Part of the process involves whites as individuals and as organized groups all vying for the opportunity to PROVE how unracist they are by accepting and even rejoicing in the dwindling of the white percentage all the way to zero. After all, only a white person or a white group that’s really unracist could rejoice in that — so it’s definitive proof that someone who’s white is not racist.

Even if there were no other reason to drive whites down to zero, this — their own need to prove to the world how unracist they are — would be enough, in these weak people’s minds

The engine driving this need to prove how unracist they are has of course to do with their perception of certain races as preferable to others, a perception they don’t have the mental or moral wherewithal to deal with. (The race they secretly find preferable is usually the white one.) So, feeling guilty about it, they seek to deny it by proving the opposite — ie, how unracist they are — to the world.

The holier-than-thou-type psychological rewards to be reaped from “proving one isn’t racist while everyone else is” are so strongly coveted by the weak-minded and weak-spirited that even the disappearance of their own race and culture is not too dear a price to pay to obtain even just a taste of those rewards. 

If there were some way to slow or halt this process, that would be a useful and valuable thing to know, to say the least.

Unadorned has it right. The fundamental motive driving white Western suicide in general, and open immigration in particular, is the desire to show that we are not racist. That is why even the non-racial concerns about immigration, such as its effects on wages or the environment, are ignored by the very liberals who would normally have those concerns. The need to prove that we are not racist trumps everything else.

It follows from the above that arguments, such as those used by the Center for Immigration Studies, that try to avoid the racial issue (e.g., by talking about the effect of immigration on the economy) get nowhere. Our immigration policy is primarily driven by certain beliefs about race. Therefore it can only be stopped by refuting those beliefs. There is no escape from this reality.

There are several aspects pf immigation to the UK that raise interesting questions.

1) A large proportion of the non-whites are from the ‘subcontinent’, i.e. India or Pakistan. While obviously not white, they are caucasian. Anyone who takes race as a serious biological fact will admit that. And these immigrants are far more successful than Afro-Carribean immigrants.

2) Of the subcontinentals, the Muslims (i.e. Pakistanis) are the cause of far more unrest and crime than the Hindus are. I have seen stats that Muslims have a crime rate of about 1.5 times that of whites Britons, and Hindus have a crime rate of about .7 of white Britons. As these groups are racially and subracially identical, the difference must be cultural. So much for extreme racial reductionism.

3) Multiculturalism is eating itself. By this, I mean that the multiculturalism that sought to give more rights and respect to the indigenous ‘minorities’ — the Welsh, Scots, and Scottish Highlanders — is coming into direct conflict with the third world multiculturalism of the Blairist neoliberals. Just the other day, a Welsh politician pointed out that Welsh culture was being eroded by English immigrants fleeing the now foreign city centers. An obvious point, obviously true, yet it brought down the usual opprobrium, voiced by a Welsh Blairista. The same situation repeats throughout Europe. Indigenous cultures are being swamped by immigration, with the first to go being the so-called national minorities. I suspect that some of the central state powers that be like it that way.

This reminds me of an article by Jeffrey Toobin in New Yorker right after the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Toobin wrote something like, “Everybody in that courtroom was terrified of being called a racist. We couldn’t say the truth. Namely, that the evidence for guilt was overwhelming.” Toobin was speaking specifically of the press. However, the prosecutors and judge had the same attitudes. The fear of being “racist” was so persuasive, they blundered their way to an acquittal. The jury wasn’t solely to blame.

You could say this country is being managed like the Simpson murder trial.

This suicidal desire is evidently held by a majority of whites in all of the countries examined. If the disease were present only among the ruling elites, there would still be evidence of healthy population growth among the white middle and lower classes, along with the complimentary desire not to have their country overrun by other races - plus the political will to at least oppose the invasion. This is clearly not the case. How else can one explain the fact that Tranzis like Blair, Chirac and Schoeder remain firmly in power - with elections being a choice between one open-borders, diversity-praising politician or another whose positions are the virtually the same. In every majority white nation, there has been a systematic campaign - starting in elementary school - to denigrate white culture in general and white males in particular. We now see the fruit of this campaign before our eyes. The majority of whites believe the lie and will all too willingly swallow the Kool-Aid offered by the elites, their preferred-minority lackeys and the media propaganda machine. Unless there is a miracle with the scales dropping from a majority of eyes, all we can do is chronicle the demise of our race and culture.

Without contradicting the point made by the thought experiment, and some of the comments thereafter, I believe the following overstates the case: “The fundamental motive driving white Western suicide in general, and open immigration in particular, is the desire to show that we are not racist.”

Perhaps not.

I recently read Jim Rogers’ new book, “Adventure Capitalist”. According to Rogers on political-economy, thriving nations usually (1) are at peace, (2) are not run by thugs, (3) either have small governments or governments that invest in productive capital projects like roads rather than non-productive projects like welfare, and (4) allow or encourage immigration. On the other hand, Rogers writes, declining nations usually (1) are at war, (2) are run by thugs or fat-cats, (3) have large, wasteful governments, and (4) have closed-doors.

Also, see Sean Corrigan’s recent piece in LewRockwell.com.

Perhaps the fundamental motive driving open immigration or preventing its reform is not, in all cases, the desire to show that we are not racist, but, perhaps in some cases at least, the knowledge —innate, intuitive, instinctual, that success in a competitive world (the only world there is?) requires a certain degree of openness, flexibility, and adaptability, both on an individual level, and on an institutional or societal level. Thus we can grant proponents of continued open immigration a more charitable, and honorable, interpretation.

Further then, perhaps the fundamental motive driving what we have described as, I believe accurately, “suicide”, is not the single phenomena of anti-racism, but a combination of several phenomena, trends, movements, and what have you, which have been identified and discussed previously on this site.

If you take a more charitable viewpoint, it is then easier to be flexible and tailor arguments to the particular audiences involved. For example, talk of race in the immigration context will get one absolutely nowhere with listeners of a certain generation (born b/w ’30-40, e.g. George Bush senior). That particular audience will, simply and refreshingly, laugh off any accusation of personal or collective racism. They are completely self-assured that they are not racists, completely free of a sense of personal guilt for any collective societal failings on the issue. Compare this to the generation of baby-boomers to follow (e.g. Bill Clinton).

Thus I also take a contradictory position on tactics and suggest that for the sake of argument, as well as discussion, comity, respect, honor, and just plain politeness, certain assumptions about race might not need to be addressed with certain particular audiences.

Chris Collins

Chris Collins, you’ve a contradiction right there, at first glance (and there are others in your comment, though I haven’t seen the book):

“(3) either have small governments or governments that invest in productive capital projects like roads rather than non-productive projects like welfare, and (4) allow or encourage immigration.”

It’s been shown that “open borders without regard to national origins” increases non-productive government projects like 1) welfare and — though this wasn’t listed — 2) race-based affirmative action and quotas in place of merit-and-aptness-based hiring and promotion (which certainly is a non-productive government project, one also imposed by government on the rest of society). In fact, it’s been widely discussed that one essential difference between now and the previous immigration crisis at the start of the century is that now there is not only welfare to coddle the newcomers and encourage those to stay who might’ve left after a sober assessment of their quality of life and prospects here compared to back home, but all sorts of AA-type programs meant for native American members of the Negro Community that immigrants of color now outrageously qualify for, putting them above native whites in job advancement and in other ways.

As Mr. Young would have it, since the South-Asian immigrants in Britain are “Caucasian,” therefore race itself is not the problem. Further, since the South Asian Hindus and Muslims are racially the same, but the Muslims create far more problems, this also shows that race itself is not the problem.

There are several wrong premises here. One is that Mr. Young is using race only in the sense of the three or four major races; from which it follows that different peoples (e.g. English and Pakistanis) belonging to the same major racial grouping (Caucasoids) are the same race; from which the implication follows that any differences between English and Pakistanis can only be due to culture, not to race, and are therefore, perhaps, not to be worried about. Both assumptions are obviously false. Further, the fact that Muslims are less assimilable and create more problems than Hindus does not mean that turning England into a Hindu country would not also damage and destroy England’s historic identity, though it would admittedly do so in a less violent and dramatic fashion.

Mr. Young’s arguments proceed from a very common type of mechanical thinking, which mistakes the conventional form of words for their substantive meaning. Race properly means physically distinct population groups. In the 19th century the word was used to speak of, say, English and Irish as different races. Now we use the word only in terms of the three major groupings of Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. But that doesn’t mean the older meaning has ceased to exist. Obviously Northern Europeans are racially different from South Asians. Also, while race matters more than culture, culture also matters. The basic point is that racial, ethnic, and cultural differences MATTER. The greater the racial, ethnic, and cultural differences carried by an immigrant group, and the larger their numbers, the MORE those differences will matter in weakening and transforming the host society.

Thus Mr. Young’s reference to “extreme racial reductionism” is a straw man. My position is that race matters, ethnicity matters, culture matters. I have never presented these ideas in the sort of reductionist fashion which ignores questions of _degrees_ of difference or denies human individuality. The question is, when looking at entire populations and their mutual assimilability, does race matter? Attacking the straw man of “extreme racial reductionism” does not answer that vitally important question.

As for Mr. Collins’s point that open immigration policy is motivated by “the knowledge … that success in a competitive world … requires a certain degree of openness, flexibility, and adaptability, both on an individual level, and on an institutional or societal level,” this fails to explain why the believers in open immigration disregard its obviously socially harmful effects. If they were truly motivated by a belief in openness, flexibility, and adaptability, then, when when saw their policy resulting in a degradation of education, in the third-worldization of social standards, in a proletarianization of the workforce, in increasing lawlessness and so on, they would adjust their policy to minimize those effects. But they don’t do so. Indeed, they entirely refuse to discuss immigration in a rational fashion, in terms of its benefits and harms. They discuss it only as an absolute good that only bad people would oppose. The inescapable conclusion is that immigration is not, pace Mr. Collins, motivated by a rational end, but by an ideological drive. For Wall Street Journal types, it may be an ideological demand for open markets and open borders. But for most everyone else, as I have said, it is the need to affirm that the particularities of race and ethnicity do not matter. For example, mainstream Protestant conservatives never discuss the immigration issue and automatically shy away from it as soon as it is raised. The reason for this is that to say that immigration is a problem is to say that racial, ethnic, and cultural differences matter. And they view that as absolutely wrong.

Thus, even if there was agreement that immigration is creating all kinds of non-racial and non-cultural problems, it will remain almost impossible for Americans to do anything about it, as long as they entertain the conviction of the wrongness of thinking that race matters.

Mr. Collins’ point is well taken. In fact his post is a good one, and I think that everyone here should take a look at it. He talks about different groups with different thoughts on the subject of immigration and racism, giving the example of generational differences. On this issue, I think that the generational differences are actually the most important. The combination of mass media and mass schooling shapes each generation in a particular way. Certain ideas that have colonized the media and schooling industries at certain points in time greatly affect those who are adolescents at that time. That is one of the reasons that I think it should be a priority to give educational control back to the parents, and clear out the ideologically sick teacher unions (and other entrenched educational interests) from the picture.

In that vein, I think Mr. Collins is quite right about the different interests that support immigration. I heard Mr. Victor Davis Hanson speaking about immigration supporters a while back. He mentioned that it is both the right and the left who come together to support immigration for quite different reasons. The left needs to do everything it can to show that it is not racist. Groups within the right support immigration for the cheap labor and also for the fact that open borders is a natural ideological ally to free trade. The alliance between right and left gives immigration supporters an upper hand even though a majority of the public on the right, and a substantial minority on the left, disagree with both these stances.

And he is quite right on tactics. There is no one message that is going to reverse the current situation. And frankly, every quality that he mentions at the end—which I will sum up as civility—are just the ones that are most necessary for our side to win this debate. It is the easy slide to incivility—and incivility’s later consequences in barbaric action—by those who hold group differences to be real that has the greatest potential to damn us as it has many groups in the past. Learning how to live civilly with the various races and nations of the world is a hard task. Giving up is one way out. To combat that tendency we need a real solution that respects the dignity of the individual as well as the primacy of culture and civilization.

As a follow-up to my last comment, which approach could we say makes more sense? To take the general position that race and ethnicity matter, and then find individual exceptions to that rule? Or to take the general position that race and ethnicity don’t matter, and then find individual exceptions to that rule? The first approach would make it possible to sustain a particular society and culture, while still recognizing that cultural boundaries are not absolute and admitting individuals of other groups who fit into our culture. The second approach leaves us where we are now, virtually unable to draw any boundaries at all. For example, some long-time supporters of open immigration now want to draw the line at admitting militant Muslims, but they’ve only thought of doing that after militant Muslims launched murderous war on us; and yet, even so, attempting to close the doors on them is almost impossible.

To me it seems axiomatic that the only rational and safe approach is to assume that particularity matters and build a society based on that assumption, with room for appropriate exceptions, rather than the other way around, which, in practical terms, makes it impossible to make any exceptions at all.

I didn’t understand either Thrasy’s or Mr. Collins’ last paragraphs. The issue is not incivility. Of course, tempers may flare rhetorically on our side, given its ruthless treatment by the other side — the attempted stifling of all debate by means of the never-ending accusations of “racism,” “hater,” etc. But that’s not the issue. The issue is keeping certain ethno-cultures, our own first and foremost, from being erased by a combination of forces ranging from the frankly wicked to the childishly clueless.

An excuse one often hears for mass immigration into the United Kingdom is the need for younger workers, for “new blood,” for greater innovation to re-energise the British economy. With that comes its concomitant, the claim that racial diversity is in itself good and amusing: British society if it were just British would be too awfully boring - Great Britain needs that ethnic spice to keep from being little england.

There is an interesting debate underway in Scotland, one I am sure the proponents of mass immigration will win. Those of us who love Scotland, and wish her to remain Scottish, can only pray that high latitude and harsh weather will combine to deter people from hot countries from wanting to settle there.

Two apparatchiks, Labour’s McConnell (head of what Billy Connolly memorably called Scotland’s new “wee pretendy parliament”) and the Scottish National Party’s Swinney, are both demanding that Scotland actively court third world immigration, and complain that the ineffectual faux-efforts the Labour government at Westminster makes to control the influx are too restrictive.

The arguments both make, along with the obligatory hosannas for diversity, are Scotland’s need for “new blood” and the need to reverse a declining population. There is another, Scottish, way to address these concerns, one that might let Scotland remain Scottish. Scotland was for a long time a country of emigration, to North America and the Antipodes as well as to England. Why not try, coupled with the tax reforms needed to make Scotland attractive economically, to appeal to some of those overseas Scots to return to their ancestral home? As the countries they emigrated to descend into the multicultural morass, a surprising number might consider it. While the principal target for such an appeal would be born Scotsmen who have moved away, there is no reason such an appeal could not extend to Canadians, Australians, Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians… who are ethnically Scottish.

Naturally, so racist a suggestion will go nowhere. In a sane society, it would be seen to make a lot of sense. HRS

I believe the vote for the Scottish National Parliament occured on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Someone should ask McConnell and Swinney, “Would William Wallace favor third-world immigration into Scotland?”

In the “Braveheart” version of those events, the main force pushing for Scottish acquiescence was the Scottish nobles who wanted good economic relations with the English—sort of like the economic elites of today for whom national identity is nothing.

David assumes McConnell and Swinney know about Wallace, or care! If Wallace’s enemy had been anyone other than the Sassenachs so many Scotsmen affect to despise, they would think him a revolting xenophobe.

There is a curious hypocrisy at work in British politics. Nationally it is most prominent in the Labour Party (although it exists elsewhere), while in Scotland it is found in the SNP and in Wales in Plaid Cymru, both parties nominally pledged to full independence for their respective countries. All these political actors have clamored for greater autonomy for Scotland and Wales - from the British government and, of course, the English, the ritual bogeymen in all of this. With the invention of the revived Scottish Parliament and the new Welsh Assembly, they have achieved a simulacrum of it.

The falseness of their nationalist pretences is revealed when one looks at Labour’s (for the UK as a whole), the SNP’s (for Scotland) and PC’s (for Wales) positions vis-a-vis the sovereignty-destroying European Union. All are all for it - the Euro, common defence, the lot. In essence, and in return for anticipated EU transfer payments, the SNP seek to make Scotland independent of the UK only to submerge her in the destructive and potentially tyrannical EU. The SNP crew are not real Scottish nationalists, they are international socialists, as are the comrades of “New” Labour. No doubt one can say the same of most Welsh “nationalists.” In that all-important respect, they are no different from the Labour government they nominally oppose. It is also no surprise that they are generally untroubled by mass immigration. They don’t care what color the proles are as long as there are enough of them and they can be relied on to vote for Leftists.

Sadly, the only party capable of opposing the breakup of the United Kingdom from within and the stripping of its sovereignty from without is the Conservative Party, which suffers from chronic indecision and is paralyzed about issues such as immigration by fears of being called racist. The multiculturalist pap that issues from the mouth of its current uninspiring leader, Iain Duncan Smith, is really no different from Blair’s emotings.

Things will get far worse in Great Britain before they get better. As with the United States and its Mexican and other invasions, the longer immigration is left unchecked the harder (because of the importation of pro-immigration alien constituencies) it becomes to restrict or - ideally - end it. HRS

What Mr. Sutherland says about regional nationalism really assisting European centralization is of course true. It also exemplifies the point that libertarianism really serves centralization. Libertarians support the devolution of the British state in the name of local autonomy; but all that that really accomplishes is the weakening of the one actually existing entity—the British nation—that has the ability to stand against the globalist centralizers.

As I’ve said before, the libertarianism of liberalism, and the totalitarianism of liberalism, are two complimentary parts of the same agenda. Libertarianism breaks down the traditional, intermediary sources of order, leaving no recourse but a new global order.

Thanks for the replies. I was being facetious in my above comment. Yes, the nobles were the sellouts in Braveheart, just as the ruling elites are today.

One can understand why apparatchiks of the new order like McConnell and Swinney act the way they do - they are an unsavory combination of ideological Leftist and practical politician. The United States is full of them (look at the upper echelons of the Democratic and Republican Parties), as is the rest of Great Britain (ditto for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and, yes, the Tories). There are coherent, if detestable, ideological reasons for their opposition to anything traditional and to most things that make their own country distinct (Scotland or the United Kingdom; both apply). What is curious to me is that, while they are plainly traitors of a sort, there is so little effective opposition to their betrayals.

What I do not understand is why ordinary people, who presumably have natural attachments to their own land and people, accept the destruction. I am familiar with the explanations offered here and elsewhere, that we have been so conditioned by our Marxisant educational system and media to despise Western Civilization and the white race that we meekly submit lest we be racists. Still I think that alone is not enough - there must be some more elemental failure. Westerners seem to be suffering terminal battle-fatigue, except that most do not realize they are in a battle.

Whatever the reason, popular sentiments among many Europeans and Americans, especially about fraught topics like race and immigration, find no reflection in the political structure of putatively democratic societies. I lived for much of the 1990s in England. I lived and worked among Britons of all sorts. Of those who spoke freely, which was most (political correctness is less ingrained in British society, once away from government), most detested the EU, most disliked the increase in immigration that was becoming ever more obvious, and most thought Tony Blair, then on the make, was a con-man. Admittedly, my friends and acquaintances may not be a representative sample, but at the same time they were expressing those sentiments, their country was becoming ever more enmeshed in the EU, immigration was exploding and Blair’s Labour Party won a general election in a landslide. As far as I could see, political results bore no resemblance to the way most people actually thought.

The parallels with the United States, in such areas as immigration, race preference and abortion, are obvious. In the United States, however, many of these frustrations are partly the doing of a renegade Supreme Court. There is not (yet) such a body in the United Kingdom arbitrarily removing controversial issues from politics. Does anyone else see a more elemental breakdown, a sickness in the Western soul that cannot be ascribed entirely to liberalism’s propaganda, in all this? While I believe that if Western nations were still healthy Christian societies they would be far less susceptible to liberal devastation, I am not sure even that explains it - after all, Western churches have become propagandists for many of liberalism’s most toxic notions. A large question, I know, but in keeping with the thrust of this thread, I think. HRS

I have had the same thoughts and experiences as Howard. A few months ago, I was talking to a man in his late twenties. His main activity away from work is watching CNN and sports on TV, a consumer of popular culture. He remarked to me about something he had just seen on CNN. “A report says that Hispanics have higher birth rates than anyone. They will eventually become the majority in many places.”

This young man said this in a SLIGHTLY disapproving tone. He may not like it…but. I said, “Why do we accept things like this?” He sort of hung his head and said, “Er, we do.” There you have it. People don’t really like these changes, but they can’t or won’t stand up on their own. I believe that the “popular culture” really does have a lot to do with this, as some of us have been saying for a long time.

This is in addition to the fact that virtually every political leader is a proponent of unlimited immigration. The most recent column by Samel Francis has this theme. Politicians won’t talk about it because they support it, and they assume they will be insulated from it.

To help Mr. Sutherland answer the question he has raised, I would encourage him to focus on one case: mainstream, Christian conservatives. These people are largely unconscious of the immigration disaster, and shy away from the issue whenever it is brought up. It is their passivity on this issue which, more than any other single factor, constitutes the passivity of America as a whole.

Why the passivity? I’ve given my explanation before. The immigrants are of different races and ethnicities from white Americans. To think of immigration as a problem, even as a mortal threat to our society, is to see people of different races as a problem. Such an attitude is impossible for mainstream conservatives, because they have lost any sense of whiteness as a value, and they are convinced that to object to people of a different race because of their race is totally immoral and un-American. Thus white Americans do not possess the moral/intellectual equipment to say, in good conscience, that America is a white-majority, European-stock country and ought to remain so. They may be uncomfortable about various aspects of immigration, but they are unable or unwilling to form those sensations of discomfort into an articulate concept that they can stand behind.

In order to oppose immigration, a person must have had certain experiences. First, he must believe in the white race and see America as a basically European-stock country. Second, he must see the fact that present immigration is destroying the white-majority America, and thus destroying everything we have been. Third, he must have the conviction that it is morally right to oppose this destruction.

If a person has not had those specific experiences, he will be unable or unwilling to oppose present immigration policies.

Now I ask Mr. Sutherland: how many whites does he think have had these experiences? And what would be necessary for people to have them, if they haven’t already had them? Those are the questions on which the survival of our civilization depends.

Taking Mr. Auster’s three requirements one at a time:

The media and the schools have done quite a job convincing Americans that there is no virtue in the white race and in selling the lie that the United States has always been a multi-racial country. True, yet there is a natural, and I believe healthy attachment to one’s own that should be quite resistant to propaganda. That instinct still exists but has been sublimated to an extraordinary degree. How? That is the question I still stumble over.

Many (probably most, even today) Americans sense that immigration is changing the America they knew irrevocably, although most probably would not phrase it in terms of whiteness (they would have been far more frank before 1960) and would balk at the idea that it is destroying, as opposed to changing, America. There the problem is lack of interest, lack of education and not knowing how or where to find hard evidence of the destructive changes.

Mr. Auster is right: without the conviction that America as it was (white majority, Western Christian culture) was virtuous and worth preserving, our hypothetical American is unarmed in the face of the onslaught.

As for his question, I do not know how many Americans have had the sorts of experiences that will shock them out of their torpor about the transformation of their country. Engineers thrown out of work to be replaced by cheaper Indians and Chinese, people who have been the victims of crimes committed by Mexican and Salvadoran gang-bangers, people on and near the border who have to endure the vandalism and filth that comes with uncontrolled border jumping - these are people who have those experiences. How many have drawn the moral is hard to say.

One of the worst aspects of this is how resistant to reality people are when reality conflicts with the new orthodoxy. How much more dramatic an example of the perils of unpoliced immigration than the events of September 11, 2001 can we stand? The whole country shared that experience, thanks to television, and it has hardly made a dent. So, to answer Mr. Auster’s last question, I do not know. Until its aftermath, it was inconceivable to me that September 11th would not cause such an awakening. It has not. HRS

To return to Mr. Sutherland’s earlier question, he assumes that whites have a consciousness of their peoplehood and civilization, and therefore he can make no sense of their lack of reaction to their own destruction. But the whole point is that whites DO NOT HAVE such a consciousness. They once had it, but it has been bred and educated out of them. And since they have no consciousness of themselves as an ethnic people and culture, they have no basis on which to respond to a mortal threat to that peoplehood and culture.

To put it another way: America is not defending itself from its own destruction, because it has _already_ been, in essense, destroyed. He who has not, will lose even that which he hath.

As I wrote in a recent article, “What are European Americans?”, paraphrasing a famous document from the French Revolution, white America is now, in a spiritual sense, NOTHING. If it is to defend its own existence, it must first become SOMETHING.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001631.html

If Mr. Auster is right, then America is not the First Universal Nation of Wattenberg’s dreams, but the First Nothing Nation. I can’t quite believe that yet, although I admit that is where our elite is taking us.

I do believe that there is a residual sense of American-ness, whiteness if you like, among many ordinary Americans, but perhaps that has become irrelevant as such people lack political and social power. The Left’s victory is to have leached any sense of belonging to a distinct ethnic people out of the American elite. Partly this has been achieved by substitution among the elite, replacing WASPs with people of more recent immigrant stock who do not have the blood and soil ties to the American land that Old Americans might be expected to have. Part of it has been achieved through conquering the former citadels of that Old America (think of any ivy league university today) and turning those institutions into ardent propagandists against those who founded them.

In effect, the Left has decapitated ordinary American society, replacing the old head, which may have been short-sighted, with a new one fundamentally hostile to the society it squats on. Where I disagree with Mr. Auster is in believing that in that social body there are still many people, so to speak from the neck down, who are not taken in by the liberal takeover and do not subscribe to it, even in racial matters. The question then becomes how to convert those people’s skepticism into active resistance to liberalism. I confess I do not know the answer. HRS

Mr. Sutherland adopts the view that liberal elites, the head, have taken over a basically sound American society, the body, whereas I tend to the view that both head and body are deeply disordered. Either way, a new elite, with a new philosophy, is needed.

Also, because we’ve been focusing on the crucial racial aspect of the problem in this discussion, that should not be taken to mean that it’s the whole of the problem.

Hey, I wasn’t attacking anyone. And when I commented on ‘extreme racial reductionism’, I was not thinking of L.A. so much as a very engaging writer at vdare.com writer , S.S.

Mr. Auster is certainly right that the Brits have every right to stop their country being turned into a Hindu country, Islamic country, whatever. I was just trying to point out in my post that there are some complexities on the ground that are rather interesting.

In fact, one of the most interesting examples is anti-immigration sentiment being focussed on white people. Particularly Albanians, Romanians, and Eastern Europeans in general. You have a situation where long established (for good or ill) none white populations in Britain are objecting to white immigration.

Those in this forum might take heart in the fact that when the BBC recently staged a program on Asylum seekers, with the viewing audience invited to call in and vote on ‘accepting’ or ‘rejecting’ four cases (made as weepy as the BBC possibly could), all four were rejected by the public that called in, and by substantial if not landslide margins. (Of course, this is not a scientific sample, but it shows how the interested public feels).

Mr. Young’s reference to the BBC’s call-in show (remarkably impolitic of the Beeb to allow such a thing) is another example of the disconnect between rulers and ruled with respect to immigration. He also raises another aspect of the British case.

It is true that Great Britain is the destination for lots of Indian, West Indian, Middle Eastern and African migrants, who collectively impose a great strain on British society and threaten both its cohesiveness and its Britishness. That is not the whole story. As Mr. Young notes, Britain is also the destination of choice, thanks to tragically lax asylum policies, for most of the Balkans - Christian, Moslem and other. These are Europeans of a sort, but hardly compatible with British society as traditionally understood. In their case, one can argue that Indians and Pakistanis - educated ones, anyway - who are products of a system that owes much to Britain, are more compatible.

If one is concerned about Great Britain remaining British (England mostly English, Scotland mostly Scottish, Wales mostly Welsh, with an overarching Britishness holding the Union together), then one has to call a halt to immigration altogether. The influx of Balkan refugees will be almost as destructive of Britain’s traditional character as non-European immigration. Indeed, one should encourage repatriation. If, as I do not believe, the already very crowded island needs more bodies, do as I suggested in an earlier post and make it a place Britons who have left will want to return to. The world is full of British expatriates. One can’t change the weather (which really isn’t bad anyway), but one can change the tax structure. And - one can still leave the EU! HRS

Lawrence Auster writes: “I would encourage … focus on one case: mainstream, Christian conservatives. These people are largely unconscious of the immigration disaster, and shy away from the issue whenever it is brought up. It is their passivity on this issue which, more than any other single factor, constitutes the passivity of America as a whole.”

**********

Are you sure? I have found them to be quite aware of immigration. And they are certainly not passive. In fact, many of them are leading advocates of it. Why? To fill their pews and, especially, to increase their viewership. I encourage Mr. Auster to take a look at some of the evangelical programs on satellite or cable. You’ll find a *very* active pursuit of Latin immigrants at work. The Roman church may be more ideologically wedded to immigration—and it may be more politically active in bringing immigrants into the US in violation of US law. But a large number of conservative Christians have bought the immigration poison, hook, line and sinker. Where do you think the notion of “compassionate conservatism” came from?

Paul is correct. I did not mean to say that “conservative” Christians in all cases are merely silent and passive on immigration. Clearly many of them actively support it. I meant that even those conservatives who do not actively support it, passively accept it.

Mr. Auster wrote,

“The fundamental motive driving white Western suicide in general, and open immigration in particular, is the desire to show that we are not racist. That is why even the non-racial concerns about immigration, such as its effects on wages or the environment, are ignored by the very liberals who would normally have those concerns. The need to prove that we are not racist trumps everything else.”

“The need to prove that we are not racist trumps everything else.” Not only that, but there is an additional mechanism at work which makes the vast enterprise society has undertaken of “disproving its racism” trump everything else. That is that since everyone is in fact a racist (CERTAINLY SO by the inadequate meaning of that word currently available: there is no one who breathes on this planet who doesn’t take race into account in at least some of the ways the other side claims make someone a racist), and since it is therefore impossible for anyone to “prove” he isn’t one (a falsehood can’t be proven), the efforts of the other side to “prove they aren’t racist” can never come to an end — the “Q.E.D.” can never be reached.

This guarantees that the efforts at completing this (uncompleteable) proof will be forced to continue ad infinitum, as the other side, too dishonest and unintelligent to see and admit what’s going on, strives to make bigger and more dramatic demonstrations of unracism in order to seem more convincing, until whole societies and civilizations are swallowed up, sacrificed due to the inadequacies of the weak-minded (and the nefariousness of forces behind the scenes whose dupes they are).

Along the same lines as Unadorned, here is a passage from the chapter “On the Meaning of Racism” in The Path to National Suicide:

What we have here is an Orwellian version of Original Sin—complete with a new class of racism-awareness “priests” who will absolve us of the sin of racism if we show a penitent attitude, utter the required formulae, and—last but not least—give in to all their demands. America, whose whole past is racist, can only become “good” to the extent it overcomes the evil of racism. But since America is inherently racist, it can never succeed in doing that. It follows that America can only become a good country when it ceases to exist, i.e., when its European-rooted civilization is dismantled.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001100.html

This thread seems to be the main one on VFR discussing recent immigration news in the UK. In this vein, has anyone heard what has happened to the right wing magazine entitled “Right Now”.
It seems the website, right-now.org is no
longer in existence. When I did a google of its editor’s name (Derek Turner), a number of articles did appear with an obvious leftist slant, accusing Turner of being an ‘Irish Nazi’.
Was this magazine shut down because of new UK ‘hate crimes’ laws? Maybe they got fined by some sort of human rights tribunal and were bankrupted ?
Anyone heard anything?