Sobran calls for total surrender to illegal immigration (did he ever even oppose it?)
think my opinion of Joseph Sobran could get any lower, but after reading this article
by him on the illegal immigration issue it just dropped by another order of magnitude. I’ll try to provide some commentary on it later in the week. For the moment, I’ll just say I think the man’s a total nihilist.
A reader writes:
Dear Mr. Auster:
I’ve followed Sobran for 25 years or so, and continue to read his column even though there are several issues on which I disagree with him strongly. He makes an occasional effort to explain his hostility toward Israel, but has never bothered to do so regarding his insouciance about immigration. Apparently it just strikes him as no big deal. I attribute his attitude to his devout Catholicism. Your essay on open-borders Christianity was very illuminating in this regard.
Sobran hates Israel—he is personally bent out of shape about Israel—as much as anyone in the world except maybe the Palestinian terrorists and the president of Iran. He is also indifferent to the ethnocultural survival of America. And a couple of years ago he abandoned his life-long devotion to the original Constitution and became a Rothbardian anarchist subscribing to the notion that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a coup d’état. So, what does this guy believe in? My sense is that he’s a broken spirit who hates the world, doesn’t give a damn what happens to the world, and finds some kind of consolation in the Catholic Church.
Of all the people in America that one would not want to be in a fox hole with, Sobran would be at the top of the list.
A few months ago, I received an audiotape of a “Tribute To Samuel Francis.” This was part of the annual John Randolph Club, Francis having been perhaps its key member. Sobran was one of the speakers.
At the start of his speech, Sobran said, “I didn’t agree with Samuel Francis on immigration.” Those were his exact words. I thought, if you didn’t agree with Francis on this issue, what are you going to talk about? Sobran went on in a forgettable way, praising Francis for his courage, but not saying much of anything.
Sobran did not seem very energetic. As for his indifference to the Hispanic invasion, Sobran may want to think they are “fellow Catholics.” He doesn’t seem to care what happens to the country he was born in.
Stephen T. writes:
Joseph Sobran writes about the influx of Mexicans, “As for angry talk of an “invasion,” it’s a pretty peaceful one….”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2006 06:27 PM | Send
That’s likely only because the invaders have encountered nothing more than “angry talk” thus far. But the intent and ultimate consequence of an invasion are more important than the new age vibe that accompanies it. Many bank robberies, rapes, and hijackings will also proceed without violence if the victims submit in the same manner Sobran suggests we ought, limiting their objections to angry talk among themselves. Sobran and others (incl., I have to say, Dennis Prager) who rhapsodize about the mild manners and superior spirituality of Mestizo Mexicans should realize that, to date, these trespassers have enjoyed unremitting success in achieving what must be beyond even their own wildest dreams: the subversion of the laws, occupation of the territory, and displacement of the culture of the mighty U.S., with almost no resistance from the populace or government. But what will occur if/when these smiling, good-hearted migrants are ever denied, or even frustrated, in seizing the bounty they have come to believe is theirs for the taking may be something other than peaceful. As one American of Mexican descent who supports border control warned on a local L.A. blog recently, “You Anglos have no idea the s**t that is heading our way if we try to stop these people from coming. As for myself, I’m buying ammunition.”