|
Why?
Of course, even from the post-national, universalist, economist perspective of today’s “conservatives” such as George Will, amnesty and open borders make no rational sense, since the burgeoning numbers of unassimilable, low-skill Third Worlders will destroy universalism and drag down the economy to Third World levels. Why then do the conservatives support it? And here is my answer:
This is not about rational calculation. This is about whites’ total inability to defend themselves from nonwhites, which in practice becomes a compulsion to surrender to nonwhites. If the immigrants were Scandinavians, George Will would not be saying what he’s saying.We must understand this. As explained in the linked article, Mexico is carrying out an expansive, vengeful crusade against us as the long-superior white people to the north, a campaign that is promoted in explicitly racial as well as territorial and national terms; notwithstanding Mexico’s racial diversity, its official identity is as a single, Mestizo race that has been historically humiliated by the gringo. At the same time the American left, for its own reasons, also seeks to drag down America’s dominant white race. For the rest of us to defend ourselves from this at least partially racially motivated, anti-white campaign, we would first have to acknowledge its existence, and we would then have to assert ourselves, not only as regular people against leftists, not only as the well-to-do against the poor and demanding, not only as Americans against non-Americans, but as whites against people who are non-white. Many white people of today’s West would rather die than do that—literally. And that is what drives their support for open borders and amnesty. The West can only survive if white people regain the natural, normal, non-guilty sense of racial consciousness that they once possessed, but unnaturally gave up over the last 60 years. The moral need and justification for such racial consciousness should be evident. If some ethnic group, say Jews, were being targeted as Jews, they obviously wouldn’t be able to defend themselves if they felt it was immorally ethnocentric to think of themselves as Jews. Yet people today regard it as immorally racist for whites to refer to themselves as whites, even when they are being attacked as whites. Whites are the only racial or cultural group that dare not speak its name (except, of course, to condemn its own white evil and guilt). The prohibition is dangerous, unjust, and unsustainable. Also, as I have explained many times, to have normal racial consciousness does not mean making a cult out of race, and it certainly doesn’t mean treating race as the basis for a program to transform the world. It means recognizing race as one of the formative dimensions of human existence, along with many others; it is not an assertion of will, but an acknowledgement of the multilayered biological, social, and spiritual reality in which we live. The normal racial consciousness of which I speak is thus neither completely identical with the West, nor entirely separate from it, but is historically a part of it. Rejection of the West implies the loss of that consciousness, just as loss of that consciousness spells the doom of the West. There is a further discussion of this blog entry here. The Washington Times reports:
House conservatives yesterday issued a dire warning to President Bush and Republican leadership that they will pay a devastating political price if they proceed with a guest-worker program or anything resembling amnesty for illegal aliens before securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration laws.But Bush and the GOP leadership don’t care about ruining their party, just as they don’t care about ruining the country. They are operating under a non-rational compulsion leading to their own annihilation. Or, as I state in a nearby blog entry, “the positive enactment of white guilt, the positive embrace of our own punishment and destruction, is all that’s left of Christianity.”
Email entry |