Here it comes:

“Illegals rise 15% since Bush plan —
Border Patrol seeing increase in attempts at busiest crossing”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36831

Congratulations to Mr. Sutherland. I take back my ill considered past negative remark about TAC magazine. I realize TAC does have value if it entertains articles by Mr. Sutherland. When I wrote Pat Buchanan around six months ago, I urged him to look at this Website, and he said he would. So maybe my letter writing has in some small way contributed to the publishing of the article.

My thanks to Mr. Auster for calling attention to the article. My draft was much improved by the efforts of TAC’s editors, who deserve credit for taking on President Bush’s amnesty plan. HRS

In his TAC article, Mr. Sutherland writes in part, “…President Bush is a sincere multiculturalist with a special affection for Mexico-which he sees an ally on par with Great Britain and Canada, a sentiment, incidentally, that is hardly grounded in American historical experience.”

This reminded me of a column I saw (don’t remember author’s name) in the WSJ during the 2000 campaign, I believe. The writer claimed GWB was going to move away from ties to the European allies and draw closer to Latin America and especially Mexico. A couple of years ago, Bush actually called Mexico, “Our number one strategic partner in the world,” or words to that effect.

“Our number one strategic partner in the world” stands with us in UN in about 30% of all votes. With partners like this one can be very choosy in selecting enemies.

Here is an interesting column about Islamic terrorists getting into the USA across the Mexican border: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040128.shtml

Re: David’s post.

I remember that WSJ column too. I remember thinking at the time that there was a certain element among the ‘conservative movement’ that was consciously trying to distance America from Europe, and thinking that this marked a real sea change in American conservatism. Yes, there has always been a certain scepticism about Europe and certainly disagreement with the ‘socialist’ policies followed by most Euro governments. Yet for all that there was still a recognition of a common culture and heritage and ties that were deeper than mere economics. Think of how many European (continental) writers National Review used to feature. Thomas Molnar, Erik von K , Otto Hapsburg to name a few.

Now it has become evident that this was part and parcel of the ‘neocon’ strategy. At the time, of course, neocon still had its old meaning of a ex-leftist who went right and who used social science techniques in their support of conservatism. Now, the second stringers who wear the neocon lable are totally unrestrained in their hatred of Europe and Europeans. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with Nat Review Online or The Weekly Standard has seen the raw hatred of the neocon for the anything European, and that has come to include the European descended population of these United States

The Townhall article is amazing. I guess Mr. Kourani just came here to “do the job [organizing a Hezbollah terror cell] that an American won’t do.”

Thanks to Mr. Young for his post. I had wondered if anyone else had seen that WSJ column. You see this more among the neocons, though I think Bush favors Mexicans for his own reasons. I saw somewhere that Frum in his latest book wants us to regard France as an enemy.

But getting back to the WSJ. Five or six years ago, I saw an unsigned editorial on their editorial page. It reported that the most common surname of new home-owners in LA County was Gonzalez. The writer was exultant at this news. Here is the question: Why do Gigot and Company favor the replacement of Americans by Mexicans? We talk a lot about the motivations of Bush and the neocons, but why do the WSJ “Economic Conservatives” favor replacing conservative-voting middle class Americans with people who vote for the most liberal candidates?

Here’s one attempt at an answer to David’s question.

Liberalism by its nature keeps sliding further to the left. A right-liberal or a global capitalist will see people as identical rights-bearing units or as wealth-producing and consuming units. Now the global capitalist should logically prefer an electorate with a high level of abilities that will support free enterprise, not a low-ability, welfare-seeking electorate. However, the global capitalist’s reduction of society into individual de-culturalized atoms inevitably leads to the mass immigration of people from other cultures. Once this starts to happen, the global capitalist, having already abandoned his nation’s culture as a mere hindrance to global capitalism, has no basis on which to say, “Hmm, these newcomers with this different culture are not so desirable as capitalists or as voters.” To say that would mean renouncing his right-liberal ideology that ethnicity and culture don’t matter. So he has no choice but to change from a right-liberal, believing in the individual, to a left-liberal, celebrating the ascendancy of alien cultures over his own. Instead of returning to an allegiance to his own culture, which would block the flow of global capitalism, he prefers to start embracing other cultures, in the hope that in the long run, they also can be atomized into economic units. But when it turns out that they can’t be, he will have no choice but to keep embracing them more and more. But he will keep the appearance of his ideology alive by redefining the openness he believes in as an openness to other cultures rather than an openness to de-racinated individuals.

Liberal individualism turns our own culture into a void, and so inevitably moves in the direction of multiculturalism.