I, like many other immigration restrictionists and race realists, have been contemplating what the future will hold for the immigration question now that amnesty got shot down.
My opinion, after thinking about recent developments in the immigration debate, is that banning Muslim immigration is going to be the DECISIVE fight in the immigration question and winning this battle will be the key to fatally wounding liberalism as the governing ideology of our civilization.
Let me explain …
One conundrum I have been mulling over is why exactly did the backlash against illegal immigration also develop into a nascent backlash against legal immigration among the public at large and among a number of establicons.
For example, during the immigration fight in the Senate, a major establishment conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, came out strongly against unskilled legal immigrants and chain migration by correctly arguing that unskilled legal immigrants take more tax dollars in government services than they pay in taxes. Other Republican conservatives, like Malkin, have tepidly raised questions about the cultural impact of importing immigrants who are too different from ourselves. There are other examples.
Frankly, I was extremely surprised to see the anti-illegal immigration backlash, to an extent, bleed over into the legal immigration question like ink bleeding into a pair of khakis.
Before the Senate battle began, I assumed that Beltway Republican thinkers would continue to repeat their old song and dance on legal immigration: “I’m not a racist, I LOVE legal immigration. I love importing low IQ Rwandans, Iraqi Arabs and Mexican welfare mothers so long as they come in legally!.”
Fortunately I was wrong and the legal immigration was addressed albeit in a limited way, and after the London terror plots the public and some commentators are wondering if we should ban Muslim immigration, which is another big step forward for the anti-legal immigration movement.
Why has the legal immigration debate come up at all?
Legal immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular are coming up as an issue in the public mind because the illegal immigration debate has allowed the public to start thinking and talking openly about GROUP differences. Because Bush has forced the illegal immigration debate to the fore, the public has taken a hard look at Hispanic illegal immigrants as a GROUP and determined that their actions are not compatible with our ways. (The Iraq fiasco has had a similar effect on the average American’s thinking regarding foreign policy—another big worry for left-liberals and neocons.)
By thinking about group differences, the immigration debate has opened the door to an embryonic discussion about LEGAL immigrants and how legal immigrants act and behave as a group—not as individuals.
This change in public consciousness is a mortal danger to modern liberalism.
Radical anti-white liberalism is centered on the assumption that group and racial differences are nothing more than airy social constructs that can be erased by bureaucratic manipulation and putting the screws to whites.
According to this theory, group differences are merely empty concepts invented by evil heterosexual white men, and so group differences do not ACTUALLY exist. This is why “The Usual Suspects” in Britain, National Review and elsewhere are agonizing so much over the Muslim immigration question.
On the one hand, The Usual Suspects recognize at some level of consciousness that Muslims are a danger as a GROUP because Muslims ARE Muslims. Muslims are distinct. But as liberals, The Usual Suspects cannot acknowledge that group differences are a concrete reality of life on earth or else their entire world view will come crashing down.
Acknowledgment of group differences as a fundamental reality of society is the greatest danger to liberalism.
If the U.S. government were to say that a group of people, as opposed to individual trouble makers within that group, who compose approximately 20 percent of the human race are unfit to live among us, the government will in effect be saying that WE are a distinct people, not a concept. WE are distinct and THEY are DIFFERENT from us.
For the U.S. government to acknowledge that Muslims are incompatible with OUR nation would mortally wound liberalism as an ideology because then white Americans will be free to talk about who we ARE and what other groups—not individuals—are compatible and not compatible with who WE are.
That is a defeat that Liberalism cannot ultimately survive because it is liberalism, not race and culture, that is the empty smoke and mirrors phenomenon that has no basis in logic or reality. Because liberalism has no basis in reality, liberals must NEVER allow large portions of the public openly and aggressively to question and challenge the underlying assumption and concept of liberalism which is radical non-discrimination, or else all the other societal dominoes liberals have built up will begin to fall.
That is why left-liberals and a number of right-liberals, following the next series of inevitable terrorist attacks, will fight with all their corrupt power in the United States to prevent popular opinion from forcing the U.S. government to ban the immigration of approximately 20 percent of the human race from America.
When the next terrorist attack hits the U.S., as it inevitably will, simply because we have over two million Muslims here and have open borders, liberals MUST win the debate over Muslim immigration which will follow.
If the liberals fail, and the public backlash forces the government to ban Muslim immigration,—just as the illegal immigration backlash forced the government to throw in the towel on amnesty—liberalism itself as the central world view of Western society will begin to unravel rapidly and a new world view will be poised to take liberalism’s place once liberalism has been mortally wounded.
Jeremy G. writes: