The anti-white left and the non pro-white right

David Zirin writing in The Nation says that conservatives’ dislike of soccer is really an expression of “racism and imperial arrogance”:

Among adults, the sport is also growing because people from Latin America, Africa, and the West Indies have brought their love of the beautiful game to an increasingly multicultural United States. As sports journalist Simon Kuper wrote very adroitly in his book Soccer Against the Enemy, “When we say Americans don’t play soccer we are thinking of the big white people who live in the suburbs. Tens of millions of Hispanic Americans [and other nationalities] do play, and watch and read about soccer.” In other words, [Glen] Beck rejects soccer because his idealized “real America”—in all its monochromatic glory—rejects it as well. To be clear, I know a lot of folks who can’t stand soccer. It’s simply a matter of taste. But for Beck it’s a lot more than, “Gee. It’s kind of boring.” Instead it’s, “Look out whitey! Felipe Melo’s gonna get your mama!”…

But maybe this isn’t just sports as avatar for their racism and imperial arrogance….

The left really has it both ways, doesn’t it? The reality is that white America, including conservative white America, is voluntarily and without any debate whatsoever allowing the country to be turned into a nonwhite-majority country (with the latest apocalyptic but barely debated news being that 49 percent of current new-born babies in America are nonwhite). After all, what is the single statement about immigration we hear most frequently from conservatives? “Legal immigration is good. It’s only illegal immigration that’s a problem.” So the conservatives have placed the issue of (legal) immigration completely off the table. Whoever comes through America’s door legally, from whatever culture and in whatever numbers, is fine by the conservatives. Yet the anti-racist left gives the anti-racist right zero credit for the latter’s anti-racism. They can’t even take in the fact that the conservatives’ support for wide-open non-European immigration disproves the notion that conservatives are right-wing fascists. Did you ever say to a liberal, who had called GW Bush a racist, “How can Bush be a racist given that he is strongly pushing for amnesty, open borders, and the Hispanicization of America?” I have said it. And the response was blank incomprehension. Liberals cannot take in any fact that contradicts the liberal script which casts Republicans and conservatives as racists against whom the virtuous white liberals must struggle.

But the bigotry of the left doesn’t stop there. Not only do the left-liberals give the conservatives no credit for their embrace of the non-racist immigration policy which is turning America rapidly into a nonwhite country, but if conservatives express any opinion or preference different from a liberal opinion or preference in an area that has nothing to do with race,—if, say, the conservatives oppose Obamacare, or express lack of interest in soccer, or stand in line for Sarah Palin at a book signing—liberals accuse the conservatives of therein expressing racist hatred of nonwhites. The liberal-left’s bigoted campaign to delegitimize and dehumanize conservatives is thus total and absolute.

But the hell of it doesn’t stop there. The worst part is that the conservatives themselves are so much under the thumb of liberal-left premises that they never attack the left for what it is doing to them. As a result of which the left gets away with it. Oh, sure, when a Chris Matthews makes some absurd statement about Obamacare opponents being racists, conservatives strike back. But the conservative never identify what the left is really up to, namely removing any human value from conservatives by painting them as hopelessly sick and immoral racists who deserve to be racially marginalized and turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. The conservatives don’t identify it, because they themselves have no principle by which they can oppose being turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. And the reason they have no such principle is that they themselves subscribe to the liberal view that any concern by whites about race is disgusting and immoral.

The upshot is: the more racially liberal and racially suicidal white conservatives are, the more they are condemned as racists. The more they turn the country over to nonwhites, the more they are ridiculed for having racist fears of nonwhites.

It’s just like with Israel: the more accommodating Israel has become toward the Arabs (e.g., giving them control over their own territory under the “peace” process, handing Gaza over to them) , the more they have been accused of being intransigent racist oppressors of Arabs. And the Israelis don’t get it any more than the American conservatives get it, because both groups subscribe to the liberalism which aims at their destruction.

- end of initial entry -

Jeff W. writes:

Thanks for posting your article “The anti-white left and the non pro-white right.” You ably summarized our political problems in a few paragraphs.

Today I was reading some libertarian stuff at lewrockwell.com, and I was asking myself, “What’s wrong with this stuff?”

The answer I got back was “No tribal loyalty.”

The libertarians are another bunch of whites who think that they are much too advanced to have any loyalty to other white people. They think they can safely dwell in the land of the theoretical.

In wartime, however, tribal loyalty is the only politics that matters. The closer we get to tribal warfare, the more libertarianism will seem like a parlor game.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 15, 2010 07:29 PM | Send