What if we lose?

Jeff in England writes:

I have followed your dialogue about immigration with Malcolm Pollack at his blog and agree that he is too all over the place to hold a coherent conversation with. Even when he says he agrees with you!

Here’s a thought. You want immigration restricted by race and you make some good arguments for it. You want a white Christian dominated Western/American civilisation and you make some good arguments for it.

But what do you do when the huge majority of Westerners and Americans in particular reject your view(s)? How do you react when the West/America (including a majority of its white Christian citizens) democratically wants to be multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious and even multicultural?

Is there a point where you say that the West has made its choices regarding these matters, America has chosen, and I, Lawrence Auster respect those choices. And that I Lawrence Auster will now concentrate on ‘saving’ (renewing) the West in general, not just the white (Christian) West.

In other words, is there a point where the democratic choices of the people of the West (including whites) matter to you? Will they affect your focus and priorities regarding these matters?

This is a sincere question and not a trick to get you etc.

LA replies:

The scenario you’re describing is called “losing.” It’s like in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, where it turns out that there is not always a miraculous escape from danger, that sometimes the hero must die.

So of course it’s possible that the West will continue to subscribe to its own racial and cultural undoing, and that not enough people will resist it, and that we will lose. But I will never cede to it. I will never accept the folly, insanity, and monstrous crime by which the Western nations and the white race decided to commit suicide. If I’m the last person left opposing it, I will oppose it to the end.

But I don’t think that’s the case. I do think it can be turned around. As I’ve said a thousand times, to speak of giving up the fight, when there has never even been a fight, is ridiculous. So, before anyone even thinks about surrendering, let’s at least put up a fight. Let’s at least organize a resistance to the liberal destruction of the West and see what happens then.

LA continues:

As for Malcolm Pollack, it’s a waste of time talking to him. First, there is his spectacular lack of comprehension of the issue, though he imagines he understands it all. Second, there are his spectacularly contradictory and confusing statements of which he remains adamantly unaware, even after they are pointed out to him. Third, there is his insistence that he’s on the restrictionist side and that he agrees with me, even as he keeps snottily attacking my statements, as when, in his final comment, he dismissed my quotations of rap lyrics as beneath the level of acceptable discussion.

Also, he entirely misstated my point regarding rap lyrics. My point was not that there is no hope of decent relations between blacks and whites; my point was simply to offer contrary evidence to his Pollyanna statement that race tensions have dramatically diminished. A society in which blacks are freely allowed to give voice to the crudest expressions of anti-white hatred, such as the preachings at Trinity United Church in Chicago which identifies whites as the principle of evil, such as rap songs (recorded by mainstream entertainment corporations and performed by groups that are given music industry awards) that tell blacks to murder whites, cannot be fairly described as a society in which race-tensions are dramatically diminishing. It is a society in which race-blind whites systematically ignore the continuing, low-level race war being waged against whites, and prohibit race-aware whites from talking about it. And so, because the race-blind whites, such as Pollack, are only concerned about white racism and not nonwhite racism, and because any discussion by whites about nonwhite racism has been voluntarily or involuntarily suppressed, the race-blind whites imagine that racial tensions have dramatically diminished.

The same principle is at work in Peggy Noonan and David Horowitz. They celebrate the cross-racial patriotism and love-fest of the Obama inaugural, even as they acknowledge that the very condition of this cross-racial patriotism was nonwhites’ race-based identification with Obama. The race-blind whites cheer the nonwhites’ race-conscious identification with a nonwhite president, and call this event the onset of post-racial America, when, in principle and in reality, what they are cheering is the surrender of white America and the onset of nonwhite America.

February 1

LA writes:

You wrote:

I have followed your dialogue about immigration with Malcolm Pollack at his blog and agree that he is too all over the place to hold a coherent conversation with. Even when he says he agrees with you!

Thanks for seeing this.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 29, 2009 04:44 PM | Send