|
Getting it backward
The point made by Jeremy G. and me in the below exchange is that indirect methods of tackling an existential threat like uncontrolled Third-World immigration or Islamization do not work. There is no way to reduce Third-World immigration except by reducing Third-World immigration. There is no way to oppose the Islamization of your country except by opposing the Islamization of your country. Every partial or delaying tactic, such as, “We first need to regain our national confidence,” or “We first need to defeat PC,” is simply a manifestation of the liberalism that refuses to identify an unassimilable or dangerous group as an unassimilable or dangerous group and to say that we don’t want them here. Jeremy G. writes:
In reply to a commenter who suggested that perhaps the inadequate Islam critics see their proposed return of patriotism and self-confidence as a first step toward opposing Islam, you said: “I doubt that people will gain the confidence to take a meaningful stand against Islam by systematically avoiding taking a meaningful stand against Islam.”LA replies:
To shift the topic back to the infinitely less Islamized and therefore far easier to save America (which has perhaps three million Muslims, the majority of them immigrants, compared to the 130 million native Muslims in India), the contingent that says, “We must regain our national self-confidence and defeat PC before we can oppose Islamic immigration,” have it exactly backward. The way to regain our national confidence and defeat PC is to oppose—and stop—Islamic immigration. Mark Presco writes:
I cannot agree with you more that the indirect approach is not solving the immigration problem. My first priority in life is to save my culture. We must return to the traditional white values of independence and self reliance. To that end I have admitted that my agenda is racist. I seem to be the only one with backbone enough to do this. I cannot be disarmed by being called a racist. I have lost all white guilt.LA replies:
As I’ve discussed many times, I do not agree with the widespread idea, embraced by many whites, of calling oneself a racist. Beyond the incorrect, bloated, and vicious uses of the word racist by liberals of all stripes, the word has real meaning that cannot be gotten rid of: morally wrong speech and acts directed at other people because of their race. To affirm oneself as a racist is to say that there is no action by one’s own race toward people of other races that may be morally wrong. My position is that we can defend and preserve the white race and its civilization, without being racists. I describe my own view as moral racialism, meaning a belief in one’s own race and the rightness and necessity of defending it, combined with a belief in the moral law.LA continues:
In the thread, Should the word “racism” be shelved altogether?, I argue against a position that is different from Mr. Presco’s, namely that we should simply stop using the word racist. But my argument there is the same as my argument here: I think racism is a legitimate word, but to prevent its misuse we must insist that it be defined carefully.Alan Roebuck writes:
Mark Presco said:LA replies:
Well, didn’t I say that when people deliberately adopt the label “racist” for themselves, it means that they have rejected the very idea of morality as we know it? His calling the Christian God “evil” would seem to be a pretty strong indication of that.LA continues:
I just glanced at Mr. Presco’s article, and this was the first thing I saw: Email entry |