|
The nexus of non-Western immigration and anti-Western education
Writing in the Auburn Plainsman, a student newspaper at Alabama’s Auburn University, Michael J. Thompson calls for immigration restrictions and makes the important connection (which so many “conservatives” still fail to see) between immigration and multiculturalism. He continues:
Aristotle, in his Politics, said, “No one will doubt that a lawgiver should direct his attention above all to the education of youth, or that the neglect of education does harm to the states. The citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives. For each government has a peculiar character, which originally formed and which continues to preserve it.”In reply, I would say that, by Aristotle’s own terms, it’s not at all illogical that America would allow mass non-Western immigration while teaching anti-Western values. If “[t]he citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives,” then, obviously, today’s citizens are being molded to suit our liberal, multiracial, multicultural society. From the point of view of the new America that is being erected on the ruins of the old, to keep letting in non-Western immigrants and to keep infusing young people (including inmmigrants) with anti-Westernism makes perfect sense. At bottom the problem is not that education is letting our society down. The problem is that we have defined our society as a multiculturalist society, and education is naturally reflecting that. Therefore the cure is not to attack the schools, the cure is to win back America, and then the schools will follow. Of course it’s more complicated than that, since the schools have played a leading role in this re-definition of America. However, the fact that people have not protested the multiculturalization of the schools in any serious way suggests that the schools are only reflecting what the larger society regards as normal. As I wrote in National Review in 1992:
Multiculturalism, in sum, is far more than a radical ideology or misconceived educational reform; it is a mainstream phenomenon, a systematic dismantling of America’s unitary national identity in response to unprecedented ethnic and racial transformation. [“The Forbidden Topic,” April 27, 1992.]This is a lesson almost impossible for conservatives to understand, because their world view and identity are based on the assumption that a majority of the American people are fine and sound and conservative and that all our political ills come from a leftist elite. To think that America itself—mainstream America—is actively or passively leftist would paralyze most conservatives, because it would leave them with the choice either of becoming dissidents rather than conservatives, or of surrendering to the left. This point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the open collapse of the conservative movement since June 2003, as seen, most notably, in its pathetic non-response to the revolutionary Grutter decision and in National Review’s sounds of surrender to homosexual marriage. Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 22, 2003 08:15 AM | Send Comments
I think that your onto an important point here: There is no “moral majority” out there. American society, even the red counties from the 2000 election map, is overwhelmingly liberal in outlook. That is why the left’s agenda of multiculturalism and mass immigration (to name but one) advances with so little opposition. Things described in the media as resurging conservatism are really unpricipled exceptions from the general liberalism. Even James Dobson, one of the great leaders of Evangelical Christianity, holds up the Marxist fellow-traveler and moral degenerate Martin Luther King as an example of conservatism. Most of us here are indeed dissidents. Posted by: Carl on September 22, 2003 12:42 PMRobert Bork makes the point that the liberal ideology is a phenomenon of the “chattering class” more than of the average American. There are certain types of ideas and patterns of thought that are enormously successful among those who make their living off of their opinions. Mass communication is only compatible with certain types of expression. Mass education is somewhat similar, which has led to the mentioned transformation. Most Americans still have good instincts on these matters. What they do not have is an acceptable forum to express themselves in. When immigration destroys a community, who is going to talk about it? Certainly not the local newspaper which now has a new subscriber base. Not a local politician who cannot do anything about the problem anyway and who has a new electorate to please. Not either of the national parties who seem fine with the status quo. Posted by: Thrasymachus on September 22, 2003 1:15 PMThrasymachus writes: I think Robert Bork is wrong. If you collect any 100 random Americans into a room, the odds that they will all unanimously agree that government exists to protect our equal rights are very high. There will be wildly differing opinions as to what protecting our equal rights entails; but liberalism itself is indeed a mainstream phenomenon, as Mr. Auster contends, and is really closer to a unanimous phenomenon. Even Robert Bork himself defends his own version of liberalism with the procedural-substantive classical liberal dance. Posted by: Matt on September 22, 2003 2:09 PMMr. Auster has it right! Conservatives have been blinded into thinking that most Americans are traditionalists— at least in heart— because to admit the truth would be to accept the concept that there is nothing left to “conserve” and there is no “base” to inform. Hasn’t anyone noticed that contributions to conservative organizations do no good? That voting for Republicans does no good? Remember how conservatives kept hoping the newest major scandal involving Bill Clinton—there was at least one a week— would certainly be the one that would “wake up” a sleeping America? The fact is, America wasn’t sleeping; it was too busy protecting its special government programs and welfare state and comfortable accounting tricks and rejection of traditional morality. Sure, Clinton was corrupt, but 1) who isn’t, and 2) it’s his private business anyway, and 3) it’s best not to rock the boat so we still get what’s coming to us. Republicans were not spineless or unprincipled; they were merely reflecting their constituencies. What do you do if you go to your doctor for a digestive problem and you find out that you have inoperable cancer that has metasticized throughout the body? Any healthy tissues or organs left are basically out of luck. On a national scale, have nations or civilizations lasted? Or do they come and go? Even star systems and galaxies die as others are born. Was any created thing meant to last forever? Can you pray for a miracle? Yes, and miracles do happen—occasionally. The chances that you, among millions of others, will be the one blessed is not supported by the odds. Can you have faith in spite of the odds? Sure, play the Lottery as well, but you are not being realistic to rely on it. Conservatives who keep hoping that a different president, or an awakened America, or a change in the parties, or some other political solution is going to “save” the country are, in my opinion, in denial. But it’s very understandable. And comfortable. I choose to face the facts, as Mr. Auster did in this posting, before I am forced to. My conservative brethren may ask, “OK, but now what will you do?” My reply is, “What will you do when you are given two months to live?” Mr. Raymond’s post is most interesting, but I don’t think his analogy between impending national disaster on one hand and the immediate prospect of one’s personal death on the other holds up. In personal death, a person (as he is known in this world) comes to an end. That person is not there anymore. It is extinction, from the point of view of that personal, physical existence. But that’s not what we face on a national scale. Our nation as we know it may come to an end, but WE will not have come to an end. Life will go on in some form, even if our culture has been destroyed. In other words, Mr. Raymond’s image of national calamity falsely suggests simple extinction, and thus the end of all our problems, whereas the problems of how Western white people are to survive and function in that future society will still be there. The more accurate way to think about what’s happening is not the extinction of America and its people, but their replacement and takeover by some new society and people. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 22, 2003 3:04 PMMr. Auster’s point is very well taken that the “demise” of American culture/government does not mean the extinction of people living on the North Ameircan continent. My analogy to death, probably a very poor one or carried too far—certainly not meant to be taken literally—is directed to those who place their faith and action in an America that used to be, but is “dying”. What will these people— that is, most conservatives—do when they finally see that what they base their hope on restoring is not going to be? What lies on the other side of our cultural/national “death” is as problematic as what lies on the other side of physical death…it is not clearly apparent at this time. I am in complete agreement that we need to be concerned about what new people/ philosophy/ government will replace our current liberal one. In fact, I think efforts should be in this direction rather than in trying to reform or restore what is on its way out.
Hope is needed, and there is hope. This one little college student’s editorial in a college newspaper proves there is hope. The student responses were numerous and favorable by far, despite the massive liberal brainwashing effort that has been directed at these students all of their lives. He even cited Mr. Auster! (I am going to make another try at congratulating the student.) Mr. Kalb has pointed out that as more and more people are confronted with the ideas here, liberalism will suffer more and more until, hopefully, it is destroyed. So don’t give up hope and fail to advertise these ideas (especially to your representatives). Remember that just a few years ago, the House Immigration Caucus did not exist and now it has over 60 members! Also, stay tuned to what is happening in Congress so that your representative gets your views near the time he or she must vote. I keep abreast of immigration-related legislation, for example, by regularly getting e-mails from an immigration reform group (FAIR). There are OTHER such groups, so take your pick. In my experience, FAIR is the most current and reliable when it comes to keeping its readers informed with alerts telling readers when committees and representatives will be voting. Sure it takes some effort; but compare the efforts of George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge and rejoice at how easy the troops have made it for the rest of us. (FAIR has not paid me or asked me to advertise.)
|