How passive anti-whiteness becomes active anti-whiteness

Responding, I believe, to this discussion, where I said that the real motivation of the open-borderites “is to destroy American racism, once and for all—by destroying white America,” Roger writes:

The idea that this is motivated by some kind of death or suicidal wish doesn’t sound right to me. It’s a common error to infer intentionality from consequences so in this case since the result would ultimately be national suicide that must be tbe motivation driving it. I think that the problem rather may be that they simply can’t see that it will lead to national suicide. When the senate leader of one of the two political parties thinks that making English the national language is racist what does that tell us? To recognize that the current immigration proposals would ultimately lead to cultural and national suicide would in his mind be racist, so he’s not going to see it, because this would cause too much cognitive dissonance. To them it’s just “immigration”. Distinctions are no longer made between legal and illegal immigrants or the qualifications of the immigrants in terms of what they have to offer the country or where they are from. Therefore if immigration is part of the American tradition and is a good thing then all immigration is a good thing period.

LA replies:

Their motivation as you describe it is the passive side of the active motivation I’m describing. The active side of the motivation is: we’re racist, we don’t deserve to defend ourselves or to exist. The passive side is: We can’t defend ourselves and our existence, because that would be racist. I don’t see these two “modes” as necessarily mutually exclusive. They can be seen as different phases of the same activity. It could start out passive, and then become active. In fact, that is exactly what I’m talking about. They started out, in 1965, saying, “We can’t discriminate against any group, that would be racist.” Now this statement is tantamount to saying that America has no right to be a white country. It’s not put in those words, but that’s it’s real meaning. Now let’s say by a few decades later, the massive changes being brought by immigration are becoming clearer and clearer, and there’s more and more popular resistance to it. How is your good, non-discriminatory, passively anti-racist American to react? He’s going to believe that concern about this invasion on the part of the American majority is an expression of racism. He’s going to believe that to stop this invasion would be racist. He’s going to realize that as long as there is this white majority in existence, there is going to be resistance to this huge immigration, and thus racism. It is at this point that he might flip over to the active mode of anti-racism. and decide that the white majority must simply be crushed in order to rid America of its racism. One of the things he will urge will be a huge increase in immigration, far beyond what it’s ever been.

The active mode is not different in its essential position from the passive mode. Already in the passive mode (i.e., in the 1965 Immigration Act barring any national or racial discrimination) there is the implicit idea that America does not have the right to exist as a white majority society. When someone swiches to the active mode, he is seeking to do away with something that he has long implicitly believed does not have the right to exist.

Or, to put it another way, right-liberalism, the belief that only the individual matters and that race and ethnicity do not matter, evolves by a natural progress into left-liberalism or leftism, which consciously desires the destruction of the white race and its civilization.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 22, 2006 07:15 AM | Send