FrontPage endorces Australia’s—and America’s—historic pro-Western immigration policies

FrontPage Magazine, which in the past has consistently turned down articles by me arguing that mass non-European immigration is a problem in and of itself, never ceases to surprise. Today it is running a piece by Ilana Mercer about the Australian race riots which concludes this way:

A threat that commenced approximately 40 years ago, when Australian central planners decided in favor of mass importation of immigrants from the Third World. Hitherto, a limited and selective immigration policy had guaranteed newcomers reinforced the ethnic and cultural composition of the founding folk. If this sounds familiar, it’s because “Camelot knight-errant” Ted Kennedy engineered a similar coup in the United States.

The statist revolution was (and still is) directed from above by a treacherous political class which has shared the ideological cockpit with “intellectuals” (a misnomer, if ever there was one), who hate their country’s history and inhabitants (aboriginals excluded). This hatred has fueled their quest to marginalize North-Western Europeans, whose “culture” has facilitated “the fundamental constitutional norms associated with the rule of law, representative government and individual rights,” to quote Andrew Fraser (now banned in Oz).

An 18-year-old Anglo, wearing mirrored sunglasses and a baseball cap, arrived on the beachfront riding an undersized push-bike. As he sifted a fistful of sand through his fingers, he told “The Australian”:

“This is what we’re fighting for. Like our fathers, our grandfathers, fought for these beaches and now it’s our turn.”

More bathos than pathos, perhaps. But not half bad, considering this parting shot comes from someone who was raised on a diet of state-sponsored multiculturalism and cultural relativism, and who has been taught to hate his heritage.

While I’m excited that FrontPage would publish this, I disagree with Ilana Mercer’s implication that the opening of Australia and America to non-Westerners was a “statist revolution.” Mercer is being affected here by a certain libertarian myopia. The previous whites-only immigration policy in Australia that she praises was just as much the work of the state as the present non-whites immigration policy that she condemns. However, I think it is also the case the FP only published this piece because Mercer managed to fit the question of non-white immigration within the political context of multiculturalism and leftist anti-Westernism.

In other words, David Horowitz, the editor of FrontPage, will publish a critique of non-white immigration, if the article shows that such immigration is a weapon being employed by the left against the West. And this approach makes perfect sense, since to displace the majority people of a society is obviously to harm the society itself. Thus Horowitz would not, as a white racialist would, defend the white West as the white West, but he does, as a conservative, defend the West as the West. Furthermore, unlike any other leading mainstream conservative in America today, he recognizes that to attack the historic majority people of Western culture is to attack the West, and on that basis he will defend whiteness. Following a similar rationale, he published my articles, “Guilty Whites” and “How Multiculturalism Took over America.”

- end -

Ilana Mercer writes:

Lawrence,

Thanks; I didn’t know FrontPageMagazine had run the piece, although I don’t think it means they endorse a perspective that would be a start to fixing immigration policy and ameliorating the Islamic threat. Thanks for the interesting critique/point you raise. My answer would be (in addition to “No, I am not affected by libertarian myopia”) as follows: when the state returns to a policy that is closer to the rules of private property, it is preferable than when it initiates a radical policy that is designed to transform a people and overturn a certain natural order.

My reply:

But, Ilana, like all libertarians, you ignore the fact that this “natural order” you speak of (and take for granted) could not have expressed itself in the form of an organized human society without the state! The STATE restricted immigration in the past. The STATE opened up immigration to non-whites in the post World War II period.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 19, 2005 12:40 PM | Send