Trying to figure out the French—and ourselves

Jeremy G. writes:

When I read about the riots in France and ponder the frantic inaction of the political class, which only emboldens the Muslims, I wonder what goes through the minds of the liberals who brought the Muslims into France and who continue to agitate for their increasing numbers and power? Do they experience a sense of unease? Or do they side passionately with the Muslims? Do they still believe that integration will move along splendidly? Or do they even care anymore about integration? I’m having trouble thinking through the liberal mindset. And when do liberals transition from being naive do-gooders to being traitorous collaborators?

LA replies:

To attempt to understand such strangeness, I go back to my first principles. A liberal is someone who no longer believes in the reality and value of his own country. In fact, he doesn’t believe in the reality and value of ANY larger entity or category such as God, truth, humanity, the sexes, the races, religions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he goes around actively denying the reality of these things, and indeed he may believe in them in a limited sense, but he has no ability to assert them as an objective truth.

His cultural relativism is analogous to moral relativism. The moral relativist says, “Yes, of course, I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, but who am I to impose my values on others?” When he says this, the moral relativist is really saying that his own notion of right and wrong is not based even potentially on real truth, but is just his own preference.

The same thing is true of the cultural relativist. The cultural relativist says, “Yes, of course, I care about my country, but really, aren’t all countries just artificial constructions based on the domination of the less powerful by the powerful? To care more about our own country than other countries is exclusivist and racist.” The bottom line is that he sort of believes in his country, as a pragmatic preference impossible to avoid, but he doesn’t really believe in it as an objectively existing and worthy thing.

And this brings us back to your question. Once a person feels that way, it becomes impossible for him to think, “We must have been crazy to let all these Muslims in,” because to think that thought would require him to think that his own society is an objectively existing and worthy entity which is distinct from the reality of Muslims. In the liberal’s mental universe, there are no hard, distinct things, since hard, distinct things threaten equality and nondiscrimination. The liberal lacks the ability to form logical conclusions from facts if those conclusions would require the belief in objective and distinct entities, in “us” and “them.” He cannot form the thought, “They threaten us,” because to do would be to assert the distinct reality and the right to exist of “us,” as well as his moral obligation to defend “us.” If there is a threat, he must downplay it, to maintain his egalitarianism and nonjudgmentalism.

Since liberalism begins with the denial of objective essences, the transition from naive do-gooder to traitorous collaborator is built into liberalism from the start.

- end of initial entry -

Mark A. writes:

I fear that VFR does not pay enough attention to the root cause of why Muslims were brought into France. It is the same reason that Mexicans are brought into the U.S.: the business and political classes desire to import more labor so that wages decline, which thereby lowers their cost of labor. Capital moves freely. Labor does not. This is why political elites are hellbent on open borders. It finally allows labor to move freely which depresses high wages.

France brought Muslims over for cheap labor following World War II. At first they were docile and complacent and were happy to make a few dollars. Of course, this doesn’t last as their children desire to move up the chain of society. We do this in the U.S. all the time. In the 1600s, someone realized, “Hey, picking cotton is hard! Let’s get some Negroes to do this.” Later someone said, “Hey, mining coal is hard! Let’s get some French and Germans to do this.” In 2007, “Hey, cleaning toilets and picking lettuce is hard! Let’s get Mexicans to do this.” This is the mentality of the business class that runs the U.S. You’ll note that the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas. Why is that? Do we not have enough students here? They were here in the hopes that they would take a science and engineering job at low pay while Americans work an easy office job.

I fear that the right (not necessarily VFR) equates all discussion of labor as being some horrible pro-Marxist rant of the 19th century. However, it is very pertinent as it guides the immigration policy in both the United States and Europe.

LA replies:

I disagree with any theory that makes economic factors primary in explaining the West’s surrender to the non-West.

Think of the desire for low-cost labor as a constant in a society, just as the presence of bacteria is a constant in the human body. So long as our body is strong and our immune system is functioning, the bacteria are suppressed and cannot do us any harm. But when the body loses its integrity (as with HIV), it loses the ability to fend off the bacteria that are always there. Without the loss of belief in higher truth and in our country that is liberalism, the economic desire for cheap labor would not have been allowed to determine the direction of our society. A healthy society would not allow a desire for economic convenience to dissolve it as a society. The supposed imperative for low-wage labor is thus an opportunistic infection, made possible by the primary disease, which is the nation’s loss of identity.

Mark A. replies:

It is not the primary cause. But it is one the largest causes today.

You say “Without the loss of belief in higher truth and in our country that is liberalism, the economic desire for cheap labor would not have been allowed to determine the direction of our society.” This doesn’t help explain the situation. American society certainly had a belief in higher truth and in our country in 1790. However, it also believed in slavery in order to provide low-cost (free) labor. Many traditionalist societies believe in higher truth, but also believe in a caste of slaves and serfs to do their dirty work. (Medieval Europe, England until quite recently, etc.)

LA replies:

The slave trade was of course a crippling wound into our country before our country was even born. And yes, it was done for economic advantage. But it was not part of a suicidal liberal project to undo white Western society.

Believing in higher truth and in country does not secure a people against all folly. But it would secure them against the folly of liberalism.

Laura W. writes:

That is an interesting discussion between you and Mark A., who makes some good points. I especially liked your metaphor. It makes the relative significance of economic motives easy to grasp.

Mark says, “Many traditionalist societies believe in a higher truth, but they also believe in a caste of serfs and slaves to do their dirty work.”

But how many traditionalist societies gave those serfs and slaves an easy route to full citizenship? How many paid generously from the tax coffers to educate them and maintain their health? How many actively encouraged them to intermarry with their own citizens and accommodated their language in everyday business transactions? It seems there is a glaring contrast between us and those earlier traditionalist societies, which erected an impenetrable divide between imported workers and hosts unless the workers were considered compatible with the surrounding culture.

Mark A. writes:

I do not disagree with anything you or Laura W. have said thus far. Laura W. makes an excellent point. However, England and the U.S. had Christian motives to give former serfs and slaves a path to citizenship. Christian groups pushed for universal suffrage. But I think I’m getting off point. The thrust of my desire to discuss economic motives is that it is a great tactical way to bring back a traditional country through immigration restriction. We have universal suffrage in the U.S. We cannot get around this right now. Half of the country has below average intelligence. We can’t get around this either. I fear it is impossible to motivate voters to restrict immigration by arguing for a “traditional” European society and discussing the Tower of Babel, etc. These are very abstract discussions that common people ignore or don’t understand today. Telling an average voter that W. wants open borders to lower his paycheck, however, immediately gets his attention. Am I arguing for a dumbing down of the debate? Some may say that. However, we have universal suffrage and half of the voting electorate has below average intelligence. The electoral process was dumbed down the second everyone got the right to vote. Thus, it is essential that we use tactically advantageous methods to argue for immigration restrictions: such as bringing to light the sinister economic motives that people like W. have to promote open borders.

Laura W. writes:

Mark A. says: “I fear it is impossible to motivate voters to restrict immigration by arguing for a “traditional” European society and discussing the Tower of Babel, etc. These are very abstract discussions that common people ignore or don’t understand today. Telling an average voter that W. wants open borders to lower his paycheck, however, immediately gets his attention.”

But, the average guy already does understand the economic argument. He knows the immigrant is here because he is cheaper than an American. (It’s the elite who can’t see the exploitation.) What he doesn’t understand is why he should argue for economic advantage over the immigrant, who is just as much the pawn of nefarious economic forces as he is. The answer to this is not too abstract for him. In fact, he knows the answer instinctively. It is abstractions that have gotten him into trouble in the first place, abstractions that have kept him from following what he already knows. If the average guy can understand the abstract idea that it is evil and racist to preserve and love one’s national identity then he is cognitively capable of grasping the opposite idea. Traditionalism isn’t mainly an intellectual thing anyway and Mark shouldn’t worry that it is or that we need some tactical gimmick to get to the little guy. It’s not that it isn’t about ideas; yeah, it is. But, it’s also a clearing away of the gunk of ideas to get at the non-idea that lies at the center of all things. Everyone is capable of seeing it.

LA writes:

The average guy understands the economic issue, the undercutting of wages; what he doesn’t know is that we have the moral right to stop immigration that is undercutting wages. The current ideology tells him that only the economics can be allowed to operate, that there is a global borderless market of goods and labor and we must just accept the consequences of that; and that there is no such entity as a country that has the right to control who enters it.

So he knows the economic truth that immigration reduces wages, and he’s been imbued with the libertarian economic message that he has no right to do anything about that. What’s been kept from him is the traditionalist truth of the moral reality of nations and their right to preserve themselves as nations, which is the only thing that can stand against the libertarian economic message.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 27, 2007 05:13 PM | Send