|
Two complementary statements that lead to the possibility of Western survival
Over the years there have been two statements which I have frequently made, which I have not directly connected with each other. The first is that the West, if it is to survive, must initiate a steady net out-migration of Muslims and other recent non-European immigrants, particularly Mexicans, back to their native lands. In reply to this, readers have sometimes pointed out that such a “rollback” is a complete pipe dream, it will never happen, because, even if there were significant support for it, the liberals in our society would never allow it to happen. This objection cannot be easily dismissed. However, this brings us to the second of the two statements I’ve often made, or rather a prediction, which is that Western people must undergo loss, disaster, and real suffering before they will wake up to the horror that their liberal beliefs have brought upon them, at which point they will be ready to renounce their liberalism and take proper action to save their countries and their civilization. The second statement answers the objection to the first. On one hand, it is true that in the immediately foreseeable future, the liberal forces of the West will stand like a rock against any immigrant rollback plan. On the other hand, as the disasters resulting from immigration become worse and worse and are more and more widely understood, the liberal rock will start to dissolve. Real suffering, real loss, real horror, will bring liberals to the point where they have the common will to take actions that normally they would not contemplate. Which brings us to a third statement I’ve often made: A traditionalist or a reactionary sees a threat to the existence of his society the moment it appears, while a conservative or a liberal only sees the threat when it has half destroyed or completely destroyed the society, if he ever sees it at all. To put it another way, conservatives and liberals are unwilling to articulate, by a conceptual thought process, an existential threat to their society such as mass immigration, because to argue that such is the case would mean becoming explicitly non-liberal. It is only after the threat has caused tangible and unacceptable damage to the society that the liberals will be willing to talk about it, because at that point they will no longer need to articulate a non-liberal idea about the nature of reality in order to acknowledge the danger—it will have become an immediately sensed problem that everyone is feeling. At the same time, for people to move toward an alternative position on immigration, such a position must exist and be known. And this, I sadly believe, is our only long-term hope. In the interim, we must continue to argue for the truth, knowing that the society is not yet ready to hear it, but also knowing that as the problem gets worse and worse and the suffering gets worse and worse, more and more people will move in our direction, and then, even though they never acknowledge our statements, it will be in part the presence of our non-liberal concepts that will make it possible for them to take the non-conceptual leap to our non-liberal position.
As George Washington said, in a democratical republic, the people must feel, before they will see, hence this form of government is so slow. Email entry |