Ireland has rapidly growing immigrant population

In 1994 I spent three weeks in Ireland, and loved it. There were many things that deeply touched me about Ireland, and one of them was the fact that it was an all-white country. Notwithstanding their internal, relatively minor ethnic variations (mainly between Celtic and Anglo-Saxon) stemming from their long history and entanglement with England, the Irish were something almost unimaginable to a modern American—a real, intact, historical people, a true nation, in which geography, culture, religion, and race formed an organic, almost mythical unity. It seemed to me almost like a nation-sized Brigadoon, a land that had been miraculously left behind by modernity, free of many of the curses of the contemporary world, including most notably the mass Third-World immigration and the racial and cultural diversity that have degraded the historical character and cultural unity of so much of the West.

Near the end of my visit I noticed a newspaper story about non-European immigrants in Ireland. I brought the paper back with me to the U.S. to read later. That article literally sat unread in my apartment for years, as I couldn’t bear the thought of the same thing happening to Ireland that had happened in America and Britain and elsewhere, of the Irish joining with the modern liberal West and throwing away their unique and precious heritage. But, of course, over the course of the last ten years, that is what has happened. There are now about 400,000 immigrants in Ireland, over 10 percent of the total population, with a majority of the immigrants being from Asia and Africa, and with about 50,000 more arriving each year. This breaks my heart. According to the Baltimore Sun:

The first black ghettoes, mainly made up of West Africans, are appearing in Dublin. The Chinese and Indian business communities are well-established. East European migrant laborers are a daily phenomenon, often undercutting Irish competitors and boosting the already flourishing trade in drugs and prostitution.

In 10 years, it’s likely that the proportion of non-natives will have reached a critical mass of about 20 percent of the population, rendering the change permanent and unstoppable.

Ireland will at that point be a very different place, in which the traditionally “green” culture of rebel songs, Riverdance, hurling and churchgoing gives way to an approximation of the multiculturalism of London and New York.

[Walter Ellis, “Immigration is changing the face, heart of Ireland,” Baltimore Sun, January 4, 2004.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 11, 2004 06:19 PM | Send

When Ireland joined the EU, and elected the notorious Mary Robinson president, I suspected that it wasn’t long for this world. I wonder what all of the supposed Irish nationalists in the IRA think of this? Are they really just Marxists who have no problem with it? After all of the struggle to have their own country, they are now reduced to this. What a terrible irony.

Posted by: Carl on January 11, 2004 6:31 PM

All changed, changed utterly:
A terribly irony is born.

When I was at the National Museum in Dublin, at a historical exhibit on the nationalist movement and the Easter Rising of 1916, I spoke to a couple of museum guards and asked what this all meant to them. They said that today’s Irish didn’t care much about their national history, that what they cared about was joining Europe. I said to them they were making a terrible mistake, that if they continued in that direction they would throw their own precious nationhood away, as America had done.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 11, 2004 6:43 PM

The young Irish of he last 15 or 20 years have been seduced by the modern West, and its “troubles”. The festering, irrational hate that has kept many Irish at each others throats up North has not helped their cause. And of course, as mentioned; there was Mary Robinson.

Posted by: j.hagan on January 11, 2004 6:57 PM

There seems to be a genocidal effort that is directed at every single majority white nation on the face of the earth. Ireland was for years considered among the “oppressed” groups. One would think that they would be exempted from the genocide given their difficult history.

Did the majority of Irish really vote to destroy their nation in this way? If they did, when did the brainwashing begin? I’m beginning to think that

Posted by: Carl on January 11, 2004 7:23 PM

(Sorry for posting my comment before I finished it!) As a our colleague Matt has remarked numerous times, liberalism leads inevitably to nihilism and death. If a people has been infected by liberalism, and a democratic-style government is in place, they will vote themselves into minority status in their own country.

Posted by: Carl on January 11, 2004 7:38 PM

Well; Iceland anyone ?

Posted by: j.hagan on January 11, 2004 8:27 PM

I met last year an Irishman here in Korea who it seems epitomises the new generation. He was a raging, angry leftie. I, a patriotic American, was discussing with another patriotic American the immigration fiasco our nation faces. He butted in and, in one long breath, told us that (1)America has no right to control her borders, (2) Ireland can only benefit from Third-World immigration, (3)the IRA is right to kill British policmen and explode bombs in London, and (4)Israeli soldiers and civilians are ‘legitimate targets.’ The reasons he gave expose the leftist vision for what it is: nihilism. ‘We’re all brothers,’ he said. ‘Nigerians are good people.’ When I objected sheepishly that they’re better if they stay in Nigeria, I was reprimanded: ‘You lot are racist!’ When I asked why, if ‘we’re all brothers,’ shouldn’t the IRA and PLO just put down their guns, hug the Unionists and Israelis, and live in peace, he responded: ‘They’re defending their land!’ They’re ‘oppressed’ so it’s just dandy to kill anyone who happens to be unlucky.

Posted by: Adam on January 12, 2004 2:22 AM

I don’t think that that Irishman epitomizes today’s Irish people. He sounds like an IRA supporter, an extreme leftist. My impression is that most Irish in the Republic are more or less hostile to the IRA and aren’t all that concerned about joining Northern Ireland with the Republic.

No, the Irish are like other Western, liberalizing people today. They’re passively going along with the immigration, not really enthusiastic about it, but robbed by modern liberalism of any moral principle by which they could actively oppose it.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 12, 2004 2:35 AM

There is in Great Britain an excellent magazine called Christian Order (, devoted to a robust defense of traditional Roman Catholicism. CO is at its best identifying and skewering the Church’s internal foes, but there are good articles on a variety of Catholic subjects. The December 2003 issue includes “Ireland, the Most Anti-Catholic Catholic Country in the World” by C.J. O’Hehir (on line at: It is worth reading for background about how a homogeneous, Christian country such as Ireland could so quickly have been lured into the Euro-miasma. Most depressing for Catholic (and I hope any Christian) readers is how complicit the country’s bishops have been in urging the delights of the diabolical EU on the Irish. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 12, 2004 8:14 AM

So, the Irish in Ireland finally did for their own country what the Irish in America did to the U.S.

Posted by: paulccc on January 12, 2004 9:44 AM


Whilst I am British and live in Northern Ireland, I agree that Irish people are some of the nicest people you will find anywhere. HOWEVER…the Irish political establishment is so left-wing that their idea of ultra-conservatism is to tax at around 42%. Further, Ireland has been duplicitous in the war against terror. The media rail against the USA valiant war effort, turn a blind eye to IRA terrorism, and embrace every liberal nonsense dessiminated from the EU.

And as for the dreaded Mary Robinson..don’t start me talking…!!!

Posted by: David Vance on January 12, 2004 2:30 PM

Mr. Vance’s comments do not contradict what I said, but support it. Ireland has indeed become a part of the transnational left. Ireland at present has no effective traditionalist or anti-liberal forces. It’s often been observed that the only conservative institution in the country was the Church, so that, once the Church began to lose its position of leadership, there were no other institutions remaining in Ireland to stand against the left. There is no equivalent in Ireland of the sort of conservative movement(s) we have in America.

It’s a deeply discouraging situation. I don’t know what can be done about it.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 12, 2004 2:37 PM

If anything, the Irish situation is worse than Mr. Auster intimates. The Church has lost much of her moral leadership (the much-publicized adulterous amours of the Bishop of Galway, I think it was, some years back did not help), but the Church is in any event no longer a truly conservative social force, any more than she is in the United States. While Ireland’s prelates stand firm, if not always enthusiastically so, on abortion, some are among the country’s most eager proselytisers for the EU, an institution viscerally hostile to Christianity generally and Catholicism especially.

The Irish have been very successfully indoctrinated into believing that the Ireland of earlier decades when the Church was strong was a woefully socially repressed place. Since the country is materially more prosperous under today’s libertinism, the argument has a certain facile appeal. Also, a lot of Irishmen (and especially Irishwomen, who really run the place) think that having Irish people like Robinson in important international positions is a sign of maturity, that Ireland is part of the big, wide world now, no longer mired in Papist obscurantism. They think that diversity in Dublin shows the same thing. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 12, 2004 3:11 PM

I expect the only thing that could actually be done about it would be a well-organized military coup, if there were any true Irish patriots remaining in the Irish military. The same applies to most countries in the EU, I expect. When the majority of a population have been brainwashed into national suicide while aliens flood in at the same time, democratic means are doomed to failure. Ireland needs a General Franco.

Posted by: Carl on January 12, 2004 4:57 PM

Carl proposes an interesting alternative for Ireland, but the Irish Republic has hardly any armed forces to speak of. There is the Garda, a national police force, but I have no idea how that institution would act - probably it is tied to the rest of the permanent government through patronage. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 12, 2004 5:04 PM

You seem to have conveniently ignored the religious strife that has gripped Ireland since the days of Oliver Cromwell.

Posted by: whynot on January 12, 2004 5:38 PM

Does the poster named “whynot” have a point he would like to make, or is his purpose simply to suggest that people here are deliberately covering up something (we don’t know exactly what) that “whynot” thinks should be emphasized?

If one is interested in participating in a discussion, accusing all the previous participants of bad faith may not be the best way of doing that.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 12, 2004 5:42 PM

My point is simply that even homogeneous “white” societies which you imply to be perfect in some way have their own forms of ethnic disputes. To me your post sanitizes a country which is not without its faults.

Posted by: whynot on January 13, 2004 9:00 AM

“My point is simply that even homogeneous “white” societies which you imply to be perfect in some way have their own forms of ethnic disputes. To me your post sanitizes a country which is not without its faults.”

This is a very common liberal fallacy, that if a person defends a society from destruction, or if he says, “Here is a culture worth preserving, and its loss would be a tragedy,” that means he is “sanitizing” the society of all faults. (Note: I’m not saying “whynote” is a liberal. I’m speaking not about him but about a common way of thinking which his comment exemplifies.) Similarly, if a conservative speaks well of the America of the past, pointing out the good things we have lost, liberals will instantly reply that the conservative is creating an ideal America that never was. It’s the same with morality. If a conservative upholds some moral principle that is being attacked by liberal society, liberals will say that the conservative is claiming to be morally perfect. And since the conservative is obviously not morally perfect, his argument is therefore a fake.

At the core of this fallacy is the denial of transcendence, of a truth higher than ourselves, in the light of which we ourselves are imperfect. Since liberals do not believe there is a truth higher than ourselves, they naturally believe that if a person asserts some truth or some value, he is making that assertion _about himself_. A great example of this was the New York Post editor some years ago who published a photo of Rush Limbaugh with a caption below it quoting Rush as saying, “I am God.” Now of course Rush never said, “I am God.” He spoke every day on his show of having “talent on loan from God,” as anyone knows who has listened to his show even once. How could the editor have gotten that quote so wrong? It was because liberals (or rather, modern people) cannot imagine anything higher than ourselves, because for them the self is all there is, therefore they interpret any mention of belief in God as an assertion by the believer that he himself is identical to God or is directly in contact with God and receiving God’s orders.

Because liberals deny the transcendent, they also deny gradations of good and bad. Therefore, as I said, any failure by upholders of morality to be morally perfect is taken by liberals to mean that all morality is hypocrisy and ought to be dropped.

In the same way, if a person says a culture is good and irreplaceable and ought to be protected, the liberal assumes that the person is saying that that culture is perfect. And since the culture is obviously not perfect, therefore the defense of it is hypocrisy.

So, in conclusion, I was not in any way “sanitizing” Irish society. I do not claim a profound understanding of Ireland and its problems. I was simply saying, here is something special, precious, and irreplaceable, and it is being needlessly destroyed, and this is a tragedy.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 9:50 AM

The liberal denial of transcendence that Mr. Auster rightly notes leads not only to automatic condemnation of any society or institution that fails to meet liberal approval. It leads beyond: liberals, as arbiters of what is good for us, feel perfectly free to destroy any traditional form that does not please liberals (i.e., all such forms). The question to ask the liberals is by what authority do they, mostly secular non-believers, claim judgment so perfect that it must transcend mere human wisdom? Every traditional human institution that they critique is, in their view, fatally flawed. What makes liberalism different?

Unprincipled exception? HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 13, 2004 10:52 AM

In the real world, truth is above us. Our life is in relationship with a truth that is outside our ordinary selves. Our life consists every moment in either moving closer to the truth, or falling away from it.

Liberalism turns this structure of existence on its head. Liberalism says there is no truth higher than us. The only truth is the truth of the equality and freedom of all humans. Therefore goodness does not consist in a person’s harmony with the good that is higher than himself and which he can only imperfectly attain. Goodness consists of the embrace of the immanent equality and freedom of all humans.

Under liberalism, traditional morality is debunked in two ways. First, it is debunked because, in the absence of transcendence and the understanding of imperfection it affords, traditional morality is seen as hypocritical in its _own_ terms: since no one is really good, since people are violating the moral law all the time, therefore morality is a big fraud used by uptight Bible freaks to gain power over others. Second, traditional morality is debunked because it is not moral in _liberal_ terms. Perhaps the most common liberal slogan is that conservatives’ or Christians’ professions of belief in morality are hypocritical because the conservatives and Christians oppose some government program, or because they’re not doing enough about ending poverty or world hunger, or whatever. The well-known phenomenon resulting from this attitude is the person who acts as a monster in his private life but is considered a great man because he makes lots of professions about his belief in world peace. We recently had a president of the United States who was the very embodiment of that idea.

With traditional morality dismissed as inherently false and hypocritical, only liberal morality remains.

So, returning to Mr. Sutherland’s question, liberalism derives its unique authority from its very denial of transcendent truth and the hypocritical morality associated with that (false and unattainable) truth. With liberalism we have _real_ morality, which consists in the equality and material well-being of all humans. Of course, as we all know, this liberal program is no more achievable (actually it is far less achievable) than traditional morality. Liberal morality therefore comes down to pious expressions of _belief_ in liberal goals, in demonstrations of one’s “good intentions.” But, unlike traditional morality, all this moral preening by liberals is not seen as hypocritical, because liberalism defines the self as the highest reality. The self infused with the sense of its own virtue IS virtue. It is liberalism’s very denial of a truth which is higher than the self and which shows the self’s imperfections, that gives the liberals their extraordinary energy and confidence.

Liberals are therefore not just opposed to the supposed hypocrisy of conservatives. They are opposed to the very structure of existence that makes hypocrisy possible. Since goodness has become identical with their own liberal selves, the very possibility of hypocrisy has been eliminated.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 11:40 AM

I see a problem, though: if liberal morality consists of acknowledging the equality of all men, to put it non-liberally, then liberals can criticize nothing man-made. As all men are equal, liberals are no better than those who created (acknowledged, a believer would say) traditional social orders. From what premise of superiority do liberals then presume to criticize those to whom they acknowledge themselves merely equal? This goes circular quickly. For if the liberal’s self is equal to every other, how can the liberal assert his self’s desires and preferences over anyone else’s? How, in the absence of a transcendent standard by which to judge, can the liberal say that his self is more virtuous than anyone else’s?

I am not saying that this is how liberals actually think; they are more emotional. But if one applies the liberal presumption of absolute human equality honestly, criticism of any human creation is paralyzed. Maybe that is why we now have so much bad art, architecture, writing and music along with our disordered politics.

The liberal’s only way out of this conceptual cul-de-sac is … an unprincipled exception. The UE posits that whatever point of view allows the maximum personal autonomy (usually in sexual terms now) is the most virtuous. Libertinism is the highest virtue. The hypocrisy, of course, is that in the name of this personal freedom, liberals rigidly suppress any dissenting point of view. But aren’t those dissenting points of view held by people who are objectively the liberals’ equals? And around we go… HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 13, 2004 12:24 PM

I suppose the liberal would say that the truth of equality is the only truth, that all other truths are mutually contradictory and lead to war and oppression. Creations that embody inequality are inferior. In their own minds, the liberals are not being hypocritical. They believe that the good of liberalism, of an equal social order, is superior to other goods.

The fallacy Mr. Sutherland has identified in liberalism is similar to the relativist fallacy of saying “There is no truth.” The statement in quotes is of course the very sort of general truth-claim that relativism precludes. When liberals are confronted by this argument they just laugh it off. They have no reply. They are in effect privileging their own relativistic truth-claim over all others.

This is also like the liberal who keeps saying, “Everything is a matter of opinion,” “people can believe what they like,” but who reacts furiously when an opinion he doesnt like is put forward. As with all professions of equality, the real aim is not a democracy of all truth-claims, but the toppling of opposing truth claims so as to make the liberal truth-claims supreme.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 12:36 PM

Gripping information from Mr. Auster. Perhaps I could propose that we do not owe anyone a justification for what we want or do. It is sufficient that we say we want it. This point is not made often enough by conservatives. It is what politics is all about: power, not morality. Conservatives need only say, “I don’t want illegal immigration, and I don’t care if I am an immigrant.” George Bush is saying he wants illegal immigration and has no justification; he simply mouths a bunch of words, which have no reality except in his own mind.

If I want to live in a segregated society, I have no need to justify my desire. I intend to just do it, if given the chance; the same holds for most people. Liberal rationalizations such as equality and freedom are just words; we can’t see or touch these things. Where did liberals get these ideas? The answer is they made them up; but they won’t admit they are just made up, just as they make up their infinite number of exceptions to their principles. They delude themselves into believing these words have meaning; they must delude, because they believe there is nothing else worth believing in. Liberals do whatever they want and purport to justify it with words. They are not behaving better than conservatives; but they like to think they are.

As it turns out, I believe I do need to justify my actions, but only to my God and to my family. I may want to play off the ideas of liberals in an attempt to persuade and to confuse liberals, but the objective always is to get what I want, not what liberals want.

So, simply say you are against illegal immigration as your first line of defense and get to work to stopping it. Buttress this “argument” with “ I don’t care whether they do jobs Americans don’t want,” “I don’t care if I am a racist,” “I don’t care….” Of course it is better if you study the issue and have factual counterarguments for your friends and family; but don’t underestimate the power of forcefully saying what you want no matter what your opponent says. Why are you against illegal immigrants? Because I am.

Posted by: P Murgos on January 13, 2004 1:11 PM

In answer to Mr. Sutherland’s questions in his 12:24 PM post today, as noted by Thomas Sowell in “A Conflict of Visions”, the liberal perspective is motivated greatly by a belief in the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man. However, all around us, there is evidence of the imperfection and destructiveness of man. The tension between the ideology and the empirical evidence is resolved by believing in the POTENTIAL goodness, perfectibility, and equality of all men, but then blaming the artificial constructs of civilized society for preventing the realization of all this goodness, a la Rousseau and the later Romantics.

Hence, some people are career criminals by the age of 15, but rather than proving that men are willful, and dangerous if their wills are not molded to God’s will from an early age, this merely proves that outside forces corrupted them somehow. With better social services and public schools, this would not have happened! Etc., etc., apply this kind of thinking to every issue, ad nauseam.

Thus, everyone is obviously not equal in goodness, much less in income or any other way, but it is all because there are not enough liberal programs (and funding for them) to bring about the utopia that is just around the corner, if only those evil conservatives would get out of the way and let it happen. Every evil in the world, which the conservative takes as obvious support for his very different view of man, does not produce the cognitive dissonance we would expect it to produce in the liberal mind, because the ideology removes all individual responsibility and makes it collective societal responsibility. Since people pass down their dysfunctional attitudes (conservativism, anti-egalitarianism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) to the next generation, it is no surprise to the liberal that so much of what should be utopia is actually dystopia.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on January 13, 2004 2:24 PM

I don’t believe Mr. Murgos is saying that we should just assert whatever we want without regard to reason. I think he’s saying that, with regard to any issue, there comes a point where, as a practical matter, it necessarily becomes a matter of will and assertion and not argument.

Take the question of national existence. A basic premise of liberalism is that a nation doesn’t have the right to exist unless it is fulfilling certain moral, i.e., liberally correct, purposes (though of course it’s only Western nations and Israel that are held to this standard). The liberals then lay out values that no country can fulfil, and then say, since you’re not meeting these, you have no right to exist. If any people is to survive, they must reject the notion that their legitimacy is dependent on some external factors like that. They must have it in them to say, we exist, we have the right to exist, and we intend to go on existing.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 2:26 PM

What Mr. Murgos is talking about is also the quality of authority. There are times when authority needs to give its reasons. There are other times when authority, to be authority, must simply assert itself.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 3:04 PM

In the immigration debate that authority should be the will of the American people, diffuse concept though that is. Americans should be able, through the political process, to say “we exist, we have the right to exist, and we intend to go on existing.” What immigration does is change who makes up the “American people” who exercise that will, making the citizenry of the United States ever-less American.

Millions of people whom I consider in no sense American, whether naturalized or not, have a growing role in our politics. They interfere by becoming naturalized and voting, or by voting illegally even though they are not citizens (“motor voter” laws invite aliens to vote in American elections), and by exerting influence through pressure from foreign governments (Mexico, again, but also Communist China and India). The result is a continuous and increasing dilution of native Americans’ citizenship rights and our ability to express our political will as Americans. The “rotten borough” phenomenon that arises from the interplay of the Census’ counting every person physically in the country and using that count in congressional redistricting has the same effect. The dilution of native Americans’ citizenship and political power is why this struggle is so urgent: our elites are midwifing a new “American people,” one with a very large alien component uninterested in preserving the historic America with which it has no connection and - in the case of Mexicans especially - may despise.

President Bush, who must feel no connection to the historic America either, has raised the stakes with his national suicide plan. We need to assert our will on this issue now before we are diluted into utter impotence. Of course, we seem impotent to restrict immigration already. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 13, 2004 3:37 PM

This passage from Huddled Clichés also addresses the issue Mr. Murgos and Mr. Sutherland have raised. When the issue is your very existence, must you come up with a REASON why you should be allowed to go on existing? That’s what liberalism says.

excerpt from Huddled Clichés:

Suppose there were two families, the Smiths and the Joneses, living next door to each other. The two families get along, the children play together, the parents occasionally socialize with each other. Then one day the Joneses announce that they want to move in permanently with the Smiths. When the Smiths seem less than enthusiastic about this proposal, the Joneses say: “What’s your problem? You have enough room, your house is bigger than ours, and we get along together. Besides, the nuclear family is only a modern invention. A dual family will enrich all of us.” To back up these claims, the Joneses bring in an economist who says that two-family households have larger aggregate wealth than one-family households. They bring in a sociologist who cites studies showing that the children raised in two-family households have superior abilities in adjusting to different types of people in a diverse society. Faced with this aggressive challenge to their existence as a family, what can the Smiths say? Their family, as a unique, autonomous association, is a value in itself to its members. It cannot be defended on the basis of quantifiable facts. In the same way, the nation is a family whose distinct character and values cannot be defended on a purely rationalistic basis. To insist that it do so is to deny its right to exist.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 3:50 PM

The situation in Mr. Auster’s analogy is better than the one we face today. What we have today is a Smith house with, say, 15 residents. Three or four of them are Joneses who have moved in already, and Smith paterfamilias has been hoodwinked by the economist and sociologist and wants to move the rest of the Joneses in as soon as possible, no matter what the rest of the Smiths think and even though there won’t be room and board enough to go around. If space gets tight, Smith paterfamilias would be happy to have Smiths turn over their bedrooms to Joneses and go sleep in the garage. Smith paterfamilias sincerely believes that even if the Joneses come to outnumber the Smiths in the Smith household, it will still somehow be the same Smith family. He has lost any sense of the meaning of being a Smith. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 13, 2004 4:21 PM

After reading Mr. Auster’s wonderful reference to Huddled Clichés, I will certainly try to get a copy. I learned from Mr. Auster that one can’t rationalize everything. Mr. Auster also points out that this is a fundamental principle of traditionalism.

Liberals want everyone but themselves to justify their points of view with logic. If you ask a liberal why equality and freedom are fundamental, there is no rational answer that can be given. So liberals make a lot of sounds that might at first sound like reasons, but the sounds are gibberish to Mr. Auster and most of the rest of us here.

Liberals simply pick a source that many respect and conclude everyone must believe the source also. But lo and behold, in the next breath they refuse to adhere to all of the source’s utterances; instead they make the infamous (infamous here) unprincipled exception. Perhaps the only fundamental principle that liberals always adhere to is one must not tolerate intolerance towards liberal points of view.

Posted by: P Murgos on January 13, 2004 10:27 PM

Well said by Mr. Murgos. Equality of course is inherently inimical to liberty. But what I would underscore in Mr. Murgos’s statement is this appearance of a recurrence to ‘logic’ that liberals falsely make.

At the Constitutional Convention, John Dickenson put it well: “Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.” The lessons of history, with all its sordid episodes of the misadventures of fallen, sinful humanity is what must inform our positions and actions. Our recurrence must ever be, in Col. Mason’s words, to “fundamental principles.”

As Carter Pittman put it well: “History explains. Philosophy confuses. Philosophers have usually thrived in the midst of tryannies. Those who have urged historic precedents in defense of practical liberty have always been the ones to be led off to knives and halters.”

Failing to recognize and act upon the lessons of history, particulary where our entire civilization is threatened with extinction, recalls Mr. Auster’s warning of “courting Nemesis.” (Read the Path to National Suicide.)

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 13, 2004 11:04 PM

In our efforts to figure out liberalism, with its built-in contradictions and its unprincipled exceptions, the question has often arisen, what is the consistent principle of liberalism that always holds? Mr. Murgos has just given as shrewd an answer to that question as we’ve yet heard, at least as far as the pragmatic operation of liberalism is concerned:

“Perhaps the only fundamental principle that liberals always adhere to is that one must not tolerate intolerance towards liberal points of view.”

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 13, 2004 11:27 PM

From Mr. Auster’s statement form 11:40 AM:

“Liberal morality therefore comes down to pious expressions of _belief_ in liberal goals, in demonstrations of one’s “good intentions.” But, unlike traditional morality, all this moral preening by liberals is not seen as hypocritical, because liberalism defines the self as the highest reality. The self infused with the sense of its own virtue IS virtue. It is liberalism’s very denial of a truth which is higher than the self and which shows the self’s imperfections, that gives the liberals their extraordinary energy and confidence.

Liberals are therefore not just opposed to the supposed hypocrisy of conservatives. They are opposed to the very structure of existence that makes hypocrisy possible. Since goodness has become identical with their own liberal selves, the very possibility of hypocrisy has been eliminated.”

This looks like a classic example of the great sin of pride. By denying the existence of any morality or virtue transcending themselves, they have in effect declared themselves to be God. To describe it in Nietschean terms: They have murdered God and seated themselves upon his throne. This goes a long way towards explaining the sheer power and energy of liberalism and its ardent proponents. It also offers us an explanation of the seething hate directed towards Christianity at the same time praise is bestowed upon the very illiberal system created by Mohammedism.

At a church I was attending about two decades ago, I recall a very interesting explanation given of the significance of the number 666 given in the Book of Revelation or the Apocalypse. In the Jewish numerology practiced in that era, 6 was the numeric symbol for man or mankind, while 7 was the symbol of God or perfection. One way of describing the famous 666 would be as 6 trying to change itself into 7 - and never quite making it.

With its continual promise of a utopia just around the corner, and the mountains of corpses and rivers of blood generated over the past century in the persuit of this goal, the poison tree of liberalism stands in stark contrast to the tree of life which is symbolic of the the Divine Kingdom.

Posted by: Carl on January 14, 2004 1:17 AM

In my local Catholic Church in Ireland for Christmas mass this year, I was treated to a sermon calling for understanding with Islam and to treat Islam with as much respect as with our own church as we now live in a pluralistic society. Lovely.

Other points, Firstly, There is indeed no resistence at all to the new order, there are outspoken individuals and those with a more conservative ideological persuasion, but those that havent been assaulted by the media are keeping thier true colors hidden or are moving towards the left slowly.

Secondly Sinn Fein have been one of the biggest promoters of multiculturalism in ireland, many people I know will vote Sinn Fein as a protest vote not realising completely that these ‘patriots’ are simply a collection of marxists, student liberals and the very confused.

Its a shame but I dont see much change in the future or the emergence of any effective resistance.

Posted by: Stephen on January 14, 2004 1:23 AM

Depressing situation in Ireland, in England, in Wales (where the Welsh, having clung to their language and culture for 1500 years will finally succumb to the English, who are being driven out of England by immigration), in Scotland (whose government is seeking to increase foreign immigration).

The irony is that the continent is in much better shape, far more likely to have a turnaround. Look at Fortyn’s party’s successes in Denmark, Le Pen’s success in France, real restrictionist policy in Germany, the Swedish people voting against the Euro, the rightwing sucess in Denmark.

One of the great triumphs of neoconservative/neoliberal propagandists has been to turn Americans against the Continent. This has seperated white Americans from our roots, delegitimized the idea of the ethnically based nation, and turned politics into a subdivision of economics.

While surely there is a Europhilic elite there, there is also much more political space for the real right, and I believe more chance for enacting policies that will save the west. The ‘anglosphere’ on the other hand is nothing but Bush’s vision for America writ large — i.e. America without Americans, Anglosphere without Anglos.

Posted by: Mitchell Young on January 14, 2004 2:31 AM

Mr. LeFevre wrote (post of 11:04 PM last night),

“Well said by Mr. Murgos. Equality of course is inherently inimical to liberty.”

When the pig said, “All animals are equal,” that was the liberal principle. When he qualified that with, “But some are more equal than others,” that was the unprincipled exception without which liberalism can’t function. (The true version of this principle, not requiring any unprincipled exceptions, of course, would be the Anglo-Saxon one of all animals being equal *before the law.* But the libs haven’t the wit or honesty to see that.)

Mr. LeFevre wrote,

“At the Constitutional Convention, John Dickenson put it well: ‘Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.’ ”

I can’t help but think Jim Kalb might express exactly this idea, something like this: “Tradition must not be discounted. Reducing governance to ‘rational’ bureaucracies and markets to the exclusion of all else including the wisdom of tried-and-true time-tested tradition does not always lead to a livable, workable society, assuming it ever does.” Burke in opposing the extremes of the “hyper-rational” French Revolution was in a way pointing out the same thing.

Mitchell Young (I refer to his post of 02:31 AM), I wouldn’t bet on Sweden’s chances of preserving itself into the future after reading this: . On the contrary, the prescient H.G. Wells foresaw Sweden’s future perfectly: they’re to become the Eloi. (Denmark and perhaps Norway are starting, it’s true, to show signs of escaping that fate-worse-than-death.) Thank you, Gunnar Myrdal, left-wing icon, and thank you especially Olaf Palme, beardless hyper-leftwing eunuch, and all clueless Swedes who voted for him.

Posted by: Unadorned on January 14, 2004 5:06 AM

Just a note to Mitchell Young, Pim Fortyn was Dutch, not Danish. And while, anti-immigration sentiment is growing in Denmark, the Netherlands is probably a lost cause. Muslims are simply everywhere. To boot, the Dutch (I speak as someone of Dutch-Welsh ancestry, albeit over 200 years removed from those countries) have no spine to buck the takeover of their country. Since Fortyn’s murder, his movement has become largely ineffective.

Posted by: paulccc on January 14, 2004 10:27 AM

“Racist thugs in Northern Ireland are forcing black people out of their homes in part of an apparently orchestrated plan to “ethnically cleanse” Belfast.”

A possible harbinger of conflicts to come?

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 14, 2004 10:17 PM

Mr. LeFevre’s last post offers hope that at last there is one thing that might unite Northern Ireland’s RC’s and Protestants.

Posted by: paulccc on January 15, 2004 9:34 AM

Mr. Murgos argues that liberals hold to the principle that one must not tolerate intolerance toward the liberal point of view. Alas, they often do tolerate it — either from the left or from external anti-Western forces such as Muslim fanatics. It is only opposition from internal, conservative Westerners that is impermissible.

Posted by: Alan Levine on January 15, 2004 5:54 PM

But to the liberal mind, Moslems are the Other, the discriminated against. Like other minorities, Moslems play an indispensable role within liberal society as the “oppressed” toward whom the liberals exercise their compassion and inclusiveness. The anti-liberalism of such groups is not seen as a threat to liberalism, but rather as the very Otherness through which the liberals, by including and embracing the Other (including the anti-liberalism of the Other), express their liberalism. Since liberalism is the principle of non-existence, and specifically the principle of Western suicide, it is in surrender to the anti-liberal Other, and to the Nothingness that ensues, that liberalism most truly fulfills itself.

Not so with the anti-liberalism of Western conservatives, since they are not the oppressed but the oppressor, who, along with the civilization they defend, are to be overthrown by the liberals’ embrace and inclusion of the oppressed.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 15, 2004 6:11 PM

“Since liberalism is the principle of non-existence, and specifically the principle of Western suicide, it is in surrender to the anti-liberal Other, and to the Nothingness that ensues, that liberalism most truly fulfills itself.” - Lawrence Auster, Jan. 15, 2004 06:11 PM

This reminds me of a point that has been raised previously, that liberalism is doomed regardless of who wins in the conflict between Islam and the West. If the West is to be victorious, liberalism must die (or at least be completely discredited and marginalized politically). If Islam wins, liberalism will die with the West. In short, liberalism has reached its end stage - checkmated and doomed no matter what. As the remnant of the traditional West, our first obligation is to survive. Ideally, our goal is to bring liberalism down from within. The alternative is to survive as a remnant somehwere on the planet until Islam finally self-destructs.

Posted by: Carl on January 15, 2004 7:44 PM

Here’s an article of mine called “The Apocalypse of Liberalism” which expands on the point Carl just made:

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 15, 2004 8:12 PM

I appreciate Mr. Auster’s point. My response would be that almost anybody can serve as the Other in the sense of being the proper scourge for the West. Once it was the Communists, now it is the Muslim fanatics — though the two are antithetical in principle. For the left, the crucial issue is hating their own society and civilzation. Almost any enemy bent on destroying it will serve.

Posted by: Alan Levine on January 16, 2004 3:31 PM

Right. That’s why, for example, most Western liberal feminists don’t oppose Moslem immigration, even though the growth of Islam obviously threatens feminism. For feminists, the drive to destroy our civilization trumps their commitment to feminism. Feminism is a way of destroying our civilization; Moslem immigration is also a way of destroying our civilization. All these destructive forces are equally welcome to the mix, they are all seen as part of the same rich diversity which spells our doom.

Of course, the feminists don’t put this in terms of “destroying our civilization.” They put in terms of all people’s right to be equally free to express themselves and practice their culture, with no hierarchy above them. The fact that Moslems would establish a hierarchy infinitely more oppressive than any Western hierarchy is irrelevant to the feminists, because the only hierarchy they are concerned about overcoming is the Western. But Western hierarchy is identical with Western social order.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 16, 2004 4:02 PM

It just doesn’t get any better than Lawrence Auster’s comments of 06:11 yesterday and 04:02 today, especially the former. It just does not get any better than this. (Equaled, maybe — but not surpassed.)

Posted by: Unadorned on January 16, 2004 11:10 PM

Whoo-ee! Thanks Unadorned. :-)

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 17, 2004 12:22 AM

The British National Party (BNP) is going to help the Irish repel the flood of immigrants. They sure need all the help they can get! Here is the link:

If only we had something like the BNP in Canada!

Posted by: WA on March 5, 2004 9:51 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):