|
On immigration, it’s not that Republicans are stupid , but that they are completely under the sway of liberalism
David B. writes:
The reason many of us call the GOP the Stupid Party is because of the positions they take, or do not take. The main example is the fanatical support by Republican leaders (Bush, McCain, Hatch, etc) for open immigration which brings people into the country who will never support the GOP. This will make the Republicans a permanent minority. Pretty stupid, don’t you think?
LA replies:
Can’t get stupider.
However, it’s not just stupidity. Though it be mindlessness, yet there is method in it. Not the Republicans’ own method, but the method of the liberalism that exercises total control over the Republicans’ thought processes and makes them its creatures.
Consider: The Republicans see the Hispanic population increasing, they see they’re not doing well among the Hispanic electorate, and they keep lurching desperately for some way to win Hispanic votes. They keep thinking the flaw is in themselves. If they’re not winning Hispanic votes, it’s their fault, they must change. It never occurs to them to say, “The Hispanic population is rapidly increasing as a result of large-scale immigration, a majority of Hispanics will always vote Democratic, and therefore Hispanic immigration is absolutely dooming the Republican party and the conservative movement and consigning America to a leftist, statist, impoverished, Third-World style future.” Why don’t they see this obvious truth? Because to see it would require that they see something negative about Hispanic immigrants. But as followers of liberalism, who believe that the very meaning of America is openness to people who are different from us, they literally are incapable of forming or expressing a critical thought about Hispanic immigrants. It would be like saying that they believe in incest. Since it is impossible for them to think a critical thought about Hispanic immigration, and thus to imagine reducing or stopping Hispanic immigration, all they can do is try to figure out how they can adjust to the ever-increasing Hispanic population and win Hispanics’ votes. Which they can only do by appealing to Hispanics, which they can only do by supporting more legal and illegal Hispanic immigration, which speeds the doom of the Republican party and of any electorally viable conservatism, and thus seals the doom of American constitutionalism, freedom, and prosperity.
So the GOP—and, with it, America as a whole—is on a suicide spiral. The only way America can be saved is by Americans waking up to the falseness and destructiveness of the liberal belief in non-discriminatory immigration, and rejecting it.
- end of initial entry -
LA writes:
In his November 16, 2008 New York Times Magazine article about Obama, Ron Suskind puts in extravagant terms the current radical liberal view that immigration is not just an important part of our country’s history, but the very meaning of our country:
The transforming promise of the nation, after all, is the idea of welcoming the stranger, the outcast, to a place of limitless possibility—a place where each of us might discover our best self, be comfortable in our skin and find a home.
This is a quintessential example of how liberals, in the act of supposedly praising America, verbally destroy America. In their view, America is not a country, America has no being of its own, America is just the immigrants who come here.
E. writes from Florida:
Why can’t the rest of the world see things clearly, as does LA? You get right to the crux of the matter.
Gene writes from South Africa:
Very, very insightful.
David B. writes:
Yes, you’re right. They are under the sway of liberalism, but they seem to think it will work. I recall that after becoming House Speaker, Newt Gingrich advocated statehood for Puerto Rico. This would give the Democrats two U.S. Senators and several congressmen. Taking this kind of position is either stupidity, or an example of how eager Republicans are to display their own liberalism.
Samuel Francis wrote many essays calling Republicans the Stupid Party. Once he quoted former Texas Congressman Armey calling for more immigration from Mexico. Francis wrote that Armey did it out of “sheer stupidity.”
Mark J. writes:
You wrote:
“So the GOP—and, with it, America as a whole—is on a suicide spiral. The only way America can be saved is by Americans waking up to the falseness and destructiveness of the liberal belief in non-discriminatory immigration, and rejecting it.”
On reading this, something dawned on me: white Americans will not wake up to this in large enough numbers until some time after we are no longer in control and when we feel the badness of the situation can obviously no longer be blamed on us.
One of our great strengths, one which accounts for a large portion of our success, is that we will voluntarily conduct our lives according to abstract principles of right and wrong, even if it is individually to our disadvantage. The great majority of us, Democrats and Republicans, thoroughly inculcated with liberalism, believe at a deep level that it is our moral responsibility to stick with liberalism—i.e., be non-discriminatory—even if it means we end up in the minority and things get bad for us, because we believe being non-discriminatory is the right thing to do.
But once we ARE in the minority, once we have followed through on living up to our principles, we are freed. I don’t think it will be until that point that we, en masse, begin to reevaluate whether non-discrimination is really a higher moral value than preservation of our people and our sovereignty.
I am reminded of a statement I read by a liberal woman in Britain a few years ago who wasn’t happy to think of white Britons becoming a minority in their own homeland, but felt there was nothing she could (morally) do to oppose it. But then she added that she kind of welcomed being able to be in the minority and openly identify with her ethnic group and start to agitate for her ethnic group’s interests without a guilty conscience.
For me, this insight answers the question “when will white people wake up?” I don’t think it will be until, by allowing ourselves to become the minority, we have “paid penance” for the sins liberals claim we are responsible for, nor until we have demonstrated that we have lived up to the moral responsibility to be non-discriminatory that liberalism has taught us is right by allowing ourselves to be dispossessed. When we are the minority, when we are out of power and non-whites are making our lives miserable, THEN we can say: we lived up to our principles, and kept our promises, and we now owe you nothing.
This realization gives me a degree of peace, since it means I can relax a little and stop worrying so much about whether whites will “wake up in time.” I believe we will wake up in time to save ourselves (though I think there will be fewer of us by then) but I don’t think we’ll wake up before we are a minority and are being persecuted. Knowing that, I can focus on preparing for that time and spend less time being anxious about whether we can avoid it.
This shouldn’t be taken as defeatism. I’m just saying that it will take being in the minority for whites to feel they have permission to reevaluate the hierarchy of morals that liberalism has taught us. We have to be shown first-hand that just because we adhere to non-discrimination does not mean that the 90 percent of the world that is non-white will also adhere to it, and that we are not obligated to vanish from the earth in order to stand by a principle that no other people on earth will observe.
C., a secular liberal acquaintance, writes:
It is the job of the Republican Party to get and maintain power by election to public office. (They are not alone in this, but don’t think the Republicans are doing anything else.) You see all those clusters of “conservatives” meeting all over the place after the election, trying to figure out What To Do Next? They’re not refining their own thought processes. (Each faction says it is still right, “we” lost because the party took the other faction’s advice, not mine. They are not spending a single moment on theory. The entire exercise is how to garner more votes next time.) They are plotting a return to power. Their vehicle to do so, they have believed for four decades, is the Republican Party, which is why these clusters of “conservatives” are worrying about “Republican” election victories.
The peculiar genius of the Republican Party since Reagan has been to find ways to get people whose interests normally do not lie with the fiscal policies of Republicans to vote Republican. This is done, mostly, by appeals to “values” and social issues. Opening a “big tent” may have meant something approaching genuine inclusiveness at the time of, say, George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller, maybe Gerald Ford. Now, it means getting working class and poor people to vote against their economic self-interest by pulling the Republican lever. [LA replies: Ahh, the supremely condescending argument of Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas, who says that if conservative voters actually believe the things they believe, they are irrational dolts being manipulated by Karl Rove. In the Frank view, conservatives’ real self-interest is left-liberals’ notion of their self-interest—those same left-liberals who regard those same conservative voters as dolts for caring about moral and cultural issues!] And the Republicans have had astonishing success at it. Obama may have been stupid to say it, and to say it in the way he did, but he was correct that in tough economic times, people look for comfort—and respite—to guns and religion. The Republicans not only know it, they encourage it and trade on it. They advertise it and pander to it.
Doesn’t it strike you as odd to be saying that the Republican Party is under the sway of liberalism (which is only close to what you said, not exactly)? When you hear hoofbeats on London Bridge, don’t look for unicorns. Non-liberals aren’t liberals. Republicans want the votes of Hispanics. They don’t have to want Hispanics to be here; they don’t have to like Hispanics; they don’t even have to offer any good to Hispanics. They just have to make Hispanics vote for them (or not vote for Democrats), the same way Reagan got his Democrats to vote for him. You’re kidding yourself if you think Republicans or conservatives are “changing themselves” to appeal to Hispanics. They’re just talking about changing the appeal they make to Hispanics in order to get their votes.
Of course, you recognize all this. The premise of your piece is that Republicans are “lurching desperately for some way to win Hispanic votes.” Not to do anything beneficial for Hispanics, but only to get their votes. Larry, name one top-rank Republican who has not “form[ed] or express[ed] a critical thought about Hispanic immigrants.” Your 3—McCain, Bush and Hatch—have no love of Hispanics. They may cage it in terms of being against “illegal” immigrants, but not one of them is in favor, in his gut, of legal Hispanic immigration, either. They tolerate Hispanics because so many are here illegally and industry (the folks the Repubs really do care about) has depended on the law turning a blind eye all this time. Their status of not being here legally makes them willing to take back-breaking jobs at low pay. They don’t want more voters of Hispanic descent, they just want more of the votes of those who are already here, and they intend to get those votes by telling those voters things, not by actually doing anything for them.
Oh, and something to keep in mind whenever you write about politicians and ideologues. It can and almost certainly will get stupider.
LA replies:
To get what I’m saying about the GOP being liberal , dispense with all other aspects of the situation except the core idea which you omitted to address, or, rather, that you denied, when you said, “They don’t want more voters of Hispanic descent.” The reality is that Republicans support, and never question, the mass legal immigration of Hispanics into the U.S. The GOP would not be thinking about how to win Hispanics’ votes if the Hispanics were not already here. How did they get here? Through the mass legal immigration that the Republicans do not question and wouldn’t dream of questioning, and which, pace you, Bush and McCain passionately and sincerely support for moral reasons.
What does it mean that they are doing this?
To let tens of millions of culturally, nationally, and racially different people into a country, because (a) it’s morally wrong to exclude other people who are culturally, ethnically or racially different, (b) all people are God’s children, (c) family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande, (d) all human beings are the same and want the same things, is a LIBERAL thing to do.
Why are Republicans supporting the mass immigration of a population, whose entry and growth in this country spells the certain doom of the Republican party? Are the Republicans doing it out of self-interest? Obviously not. They are doing it out of adherence to a moral belief, which happens to be the ruling moral belief of our society: that is it morally wrong to discriminate. Leaving aside those commercial interests who want immigrants as low-wage workers, the driving force for immigration, for from being self-interested, is idealistic and self-sacrificing.
This is what I mean when I say that the Republicans are controlled by liberalism.
I’m not talking about other issues where Republicans and conservatives are arguably non-liberal. I’m talking about immigration. You believe that Republicans are non-liberals, period. If that belief prevents you from seeing that supporting the immigration of tens of millions of people who are culturally and racially different from the majority population of this country is a LIBERAL thing to do, if you somehow imagine that it’s a CONSERVATIVE thing to do, then we have no basis for further discussion on this topic.
November 19
Karen writes from England:
The same problem dogs the Conservative Party in Britain. Both the Republicans in the U.S. and Conservatives in Britain must awake to the realisation that immigrants will never vote for conservative political parties. They will always vote for leftist parties which offer them more rights, benefits, welfare and less scrutiny. The “conservative” parties will cease to exist unless they drop their liberalism and formulate policies which will restore the traditional culture of the country—a cessation of immigration, deportation of illegal immigrants, restricted rights for immigrants, deportation of Muslims and other hostile aliens, for starters. The problem is that most of the politicians have been bought and paid for and are interested only in representing the wishes of their sponsors. For both the UK and the USA a revolution will be essential to stop the political cascade to the left.
LA replies:
Well said. With a slight qualification added, your sentence should be hammered into every Republican and Conservative politician:
The great mass of immigrants will never vote for conservative political parties. They will always vote for leftist parties which offer them more rights, benefits, welfare and less scrutiny.
Van Wijk writes:
Mark J. said:
I am reminded of a statement I read by a liberal woman in Britain a few years ago who wasn’t happy to think of white Britons becoming a minority in their own homeland, but felt there was nothing she could (morally) do to oppose it. But then she added that she kind of welcomed being able to be in the minority and openly identify with her ethnic group and start to agitate for her ethnic group’s interests without a guilty conscience.
Minorities are encouraged to agitate within the structure of white liberal guilt. If whites become a minority, their agitation must exist within a different structure.
Does Mark J. think that our roles will be seamlessly reversed, so that the guiltless white minority will agitate against the guilty brown majority? I think not. Just look at South Africa. When whites become a minority in this country, non-whites will not try to placate us. They will move in for the kill. Rapes and murders and general displacement will increase, not decrease.
I refuse to put myself within the power of such a state.
LA replies:
I agree with you, but I’m not sure that Mark meant that the new nonwhite majority would be guilty toward the new white minority, only that the white minority would be free of its guilt and start to stand up for itself.
Clem writes:
Your reader C. wrote:
They don’t have to want Hispanics to be here; they don’t have to like Hispanics; they don’t even have to offer any good to Hispanics. They just have to make Hispanics vote for them (or not vote for Democrats), the same way Reagan got his Democrats to vote for him. You’re kidding yourself if you think Republicans or conservatives are “changing themselves” to appeal to Hispanics. They’re just talking about changing the appeal they make to Hispanics in order to get their votes.
I’ve read this several times and I’m not sure I really understand what the writer is saying exactly. If he’s saying that the GOP exists solely to get votes and it matters not one whit where those votes come from, how they get them or what they ultimately stand for, what does that say about people who would support or vote for them? For that matter what is or would be the point of having political parties at all? If self preservation and continuation is not the pinnacle of the political process then we as white Western Europeans need to find a different vehicle.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Send
|