The Times declares war against white America

George writes:

I wanted to alert you to this unbelievable editorial on immigration in the September 9 New York Times. I believe it gives credence to your theory that liberalism has become consumed with a malevalence that will manifest itself in ever-more terrible ways if liberals perceive that they are losing power.

The Times writes:

The nonnatives are restless. On Sept. 14, Washington will see the first rally by highly skilled immigrants, the engineers and Ph.D.’s who play by the rules and still get the visa runaround. Members of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network have allied with home-health-care and domestic workers. And a crackdown in Prince William County, Va., inspired a boycott and a fiery march last week led by a testy group called Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. You didn’t think they were just going to roll over, did you? They’re immigrants: smart, industrious self-starters, like your grandparents.

The “You” is clearly addressed to white Americans. By addressing white Americans in this way, the left-liberals are exposing their true identity. That identity, as you have indicated recently, is demonic in nature. They are essentially stating:

“You whites continue to resist left liberalism in terms of race replacement. We left liberals must therefore thoroughly dispossess you. We will stop at nothing to dispossess you via non-white immigration, because we, left liberals, believe ourselves to be gods. Because we have elevated ourselves over culture, over nation, and over nature, we will exterminate the white race and destroy civilization on earth because it will make us feel good about ourselves, and that is the only thing that matters in the entire universe.”

Left liberals are now openly at war with human nature itself, and, by extension, have declared war on God, who is the author of human nature.

This is not a demonstration of madness, it is a display of evil, similar in many ways to the first evil which was Satan’s original attempt to overthrow and replace God and so elevate the Devil’s will and nature over all of creation. Since the attempt to become godlike is the original sin, it is also the greatest sin because it is the cause of all the others and was committed by the greatest sinner of them all.

Although I had always viewed liberalism as dangerous, I never previously seen it as completely evil. But after reading this article and thinking more about liberalism recently, I now fully agree with you that we are not facing an ordinary political movement, but something supernatural that is outside the hands of human beings to control. Liberalism will indeed go down violently, but go down it must because it cannot ultimately triumph over God’s will.

The question is, will Western Civilization survive the fall of liberalism?

LA replies:

I thank George for noticing this extraordinary editorial. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. It seems to me that his insight into the malevolence that governs the Times is correct, and also, as he points out, it supports my recent prediction that if patriotic Westerners start to defend themselves from destruction (as they did in last spring’s immigration battle), the liberals will seek with intensified fury the destruction of the West. As evidence, consider this passage, which George already quoted:

And a crackdown in Prince William County, Va., inspired a boycott and a fiery march last week led by a testy group called Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. You didn’t think they were just going to roll over, did you? They’re immigrants: smart, industrious self-starters, like your grandparents.

Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, Mexicans Without Borders, are people who do not respect the borders and sovereignty of the U.S. They are invaders, and the Times is vengefully taking their side against Americans who favor immigration controls (“You didn’t think they were just going to roll over, did you?”). But then, in the same breath, the Times describes these enemies of America as “like your grandparents,” meaning, they are immigrants like your grandparents, therefore you cannot morally seek to exclude them. But of course our grandparents were not enemy invaders, as these Mexicans without Borders are. So the Times, moving in for the kill against the psyche of patriotic Americans, has it both ways. It says: these Mexicans are coming to destroy you, AND you do not have the moral right to resist them, because they are like your grandparents.

The open borders forces thus reveal the true hatred of America that has always lurked beneath their phony-big-hearted slogans about America being a nation of immigrants that is welcome to all.

On a secondary though still remarkable point, the Times, unbelievably, paints Bush as someone who wasn’t loyal to comprehensive immigration reform, as someone who “disowned” open borders—Bush, the biggest open borders proponent in American history! Bush, who tried as hard as he could to get open borders and was beaten despite his best efforts! The editors of the Times cannot give him credit for this, they must portray him as a meanie who doesn’t really believe in immigration. This shows their madness and malevolence.

Here is the entire editorial:

Is It Fixed Yet?
Published: September 9, 2007

The immigration battle that ended this summer was a victory for the simple, straight-ahead approach. The supporters of comprehensive reform did not have the votes for their exotic blend of tough compassion, of punishing then rewarding illegal immigrants with a nonamnesty that everybody called amnesty. The Republicans’ bill-killing argument was: punish all the lawbreakers and seal the border, just seal it already.

Soon enough President Bush disowned his commitment to comprehensive reform and offered an executive-branch crackdown. States and local governments began whip-cracking. The country has made its bed and will have to sleep in it awhile, but a few developments suggest getting tough may not be as simple as advertised.

The courts are objecting. In Hazleton, Pa., and then in Herndon, Va., judges have ruled against harsh anti-immigrant ordinances. It turns out the First Amendment and the equal-protection clause cover noncitizens too. Herndon’s law forbidding day laborers and contractors to talk shop has been ruled unconstitutional, so it plans to shut down a successful day-labor hiring site rather than allow it to accept everybody, illegal immigrants too.

Meanwhile, a pillar of Mr. Bush’s crackdown, a Social Security purge to get illegal immigrants off the books, has been held up in the courts. Businesses said it would cause unjust layoffs of thousands of workers, citizens included. But now the Social Security Administration is warning that the nightmare is coming if the crackdown doesn’t proceed: a processing logjam holding up benefits for millions of Americans.

The nonnatives are restless. On Sept. 14, Washington will see the first rally by highly skilled immigrants, the engineers and Ph.D.’s who play by the rules and still get the visa runaround. Members of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network have allied with home-health-care and domestic workers. And a crackdown in Prince William County, Va., inspired a boycott and a fiery march last week led by a testy group called Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. You didn’t think they were just going to roll over, did you? They’re immigrants: smart, industrious self-starters, like your grandparents.

The debate is rotted. Republican presidential candidates are still playing ¿Quien es mas macho? Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani are in their cardboard tough-guy armor, bickering about “sanctuary cities” and who used to treat his immigrant constituents more harshly.

Congress is back and may yet eke out little victories. A hearing was held in the House last week on the Strive Act, the smartest, most workable immigration bill left. There is support for two relatively uncontroversial provisions of the dead Senate bill, to help farms and farmworkers and to give an educational leg up to children who had no say in crossing the border illegally.

With the Republican minority tacking xenophobic amendments onto every bill in sight, the chances of real, broad immigration reform seem as bleak as ever. Some say it is time to consider throwing out the old arguments. Bruce Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman with an extensive immigration portfolio, makes an interesting pro-immigrant case for ditching comprehensive reform. Fix legal immigration first, he says—get those backlogs down, get a steady supply of nurses, engineers and M.B.A.’s flowing, and impose strict biometric workplace IDs so that all future hiring is legitimate.

Maybe then, he says, you will establish the trust you need to tackle the problem of the 12 million undocumented. Maybe the public mood will be more forgiving. Seems optimistic, but nothing else has worked.

end of editorial

- end of initial entry -

Spencer Warren writes:

What I find most noteworthy about the editorial you quote today is the way it is written: totally one-sided, dogmatic to the point of misrepresentation (e.g. that Bush is against them on immigration fundamentals), completely emotional and devoid of reasoned argument. Indeed, it is hysterical. It is the product of an ideological passion, the ideology of Cultural Marxism advancing radical egalitarianism, in which immigrants, women, minorities, etc. take the place of the proletariat. Otherwise, the Marxist class war is the same, as is the hatred of the bourgeoisie—here, white males, European America.

It is not too much to say that the way this editorial is written has more in common with an editorial in Soviet Pravda or Hitler’s Volkischer Beobachter than with what one find in a newspaper in a free country. Except that the Pravda editorials (which I read in translation when I studied Soviet politics in graduate school) did not suffer from the juvenile, vulgar, contrived striving for a conversational, impassioned effect that makes the NY Times “writing” so pathetic.

And I don’t think this one is unique in the pages of the Times; its manner also characterizes the writing of their columnists Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd.

We truly are in a war with these people and the sooner “conservatives” wake up to it, the better. They can begin by not quoting the Times or its dishonest polls. This paper must be de-legitimized in the minds of the thinking public.

Mr. Warren continues:

What a pathetic joke that paper is, yet the Republicans still show it respect, just as the fools allowed the dishonest CNN to host one of their debates and just as the senators I saw on C-Span didn’t say BOO against the Dem leaders’ traitorous attacks on Gen. Petraeus. If FDR were president, the Dems of today would never have the nerve, because he would destroy them as the “Fifth columnist appeasers” they are, whose words are “heard in Berlin and Tokyo”—as he said of Lindbergh et al.

Here too, what a weak leader Bush is.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 11, 2007 10:44 PM | Send