Right now I'm writing a 30 page research paper on how the pro-illegal immigration crowd provides cover for true racists within the anti-illegal immigration movement.
Through their prolific use of the race card against non-racist, anti-illegal immigration leaders and organizations, pro-illegal immigration leaders are creating an environment where nobody takes their cry of wolf seriously anymore. As the accusation of racism is essentially ignored by those on the anti-illegal side nowadays, a culture is developing within the movement where even the real racists can operate with impunity in our midst. As long as they don't seem overtly racist, i.e., they don't use racial slurs, they seem well educated, and they don't look like hicks, we won't believe that they are racist--even if the pro-illegal immigration crowd screams about their obvious, racial separatist agenda.
These white nationalist racists among us operate under a doctrine of racial realism--meaning they don't believe that the races can ever get along peacefully. They seem to believe, as Lincoln stated in the first of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, that everyone has inalienable rights, but that the tribal nature of mankind requires the races to be kept separate. If not separate, then one race has to be in a superior position to the others to avoid power clashes. In this way they have abandoned the fundamental tenants of Christian equality, and are working within the anti-illegal immigration movement to foment a leftist-like backlash against the current insane multiculturalism and affirmative action programs. Instead of claiming that such programs need to be dismantled, because of their inherent, un-Constitutional bias against white people--white males in particular--they say that we ought to adopt a similar stance and push for white-culturalism. If the minorities can have their own culture and eat it too, then so should the whites. Instead of working for true equality for everyone, and working toward a unified national identity, they think that whites need to work to protect their own people, and their European culture, against the immigrating masses of ethnic minorities from the third world, who are increasing their numbers within our country.
This new call for white power is essentially the giving up of these white nationalists on the ideal of racial integration in the U.S., and a call for white "European" people to circle the wagons in a fight for their racial and cultural survival. By the pro-illegal immigration crowd calling everyone who disagrees with them "racist," they are distracting our attention away from these true racists among us--who are gaining adherents within the anti-illegal immigration movement, and are becoming better financed and better organized every day.
According to Prof. Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University, the only way to diffuse the rise, and the evident appeal, of white nationalism in the U.S., is to abandon support for multicultural separatism among ethnic minorities, abandon unfair affirmative action policies, and to get a handle on illegal immigration. If we don't, she says, white nationalism will, justifiably, continue to grow. If it is allowed to grow, it will inevitably lead to interracial conflict and massive national disunity and division. Not a good outcome for those of us who try to love all people and who believe in the God-given equality inherent in every unique, amazing person in our nation.
So, is this true? Is a white nationalist ideology on the rise, and is the pro-illegal immigration left providing cover for them through their overuse of the race card?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 193 reads
Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. It's not about race. It's about enforcing the damn immigration laws and protecting our borders before we merge with Mexico and Canada. Racists are racists. They won't find much comfort in the anti illegal immigration campaign considering it consists of people of all races.
I too am against illegal immigration and this is from a person that works in the concrete industry that is filled with illegals. It seems there is always a cheap labor pool that is introduced into the American job market. History seems to sweep these events under the rug and used race as a cover to make it justified.
When the Railroads used the Irish and Chinese to build their rail lines, I am sure there was a familiar cry that they were only taking jobs Americans were not willing to do. The truth is that these jobs were as much a form of slavery as any in America at that time. More that likely the railroad wanted this group because they could be abused, beaten and paid nearly nothing and they would not complain. Like there was any group to complain to. In comparison, the illegals of todays job market are finding a free ride through the American system: They are nearly a preferred labor group because they can get the benefits that Americans are turned away from.
Another case of throwing a cheap labor group into the American labor pool is when once slave owners found themselves competing for work with their ex-slaves. The south was being assumed by bankers using carpetbaggers to oust the land owners of the south off their land. This not only put the plantation owner out of business, but it also unleashed the once slaves into a freedom that contained a poverty stricken lifestyle that did neither the ex-slaves or the ex-slave owners anything good. But the revisionist history book will never tell Americans this part of the story. The south saw humans abandoning their homeland in an effort to feed themselves. That brings us the the next point.
When southerners sought a new start, they were offered the "40 acres and a mule" homesteads. This was another failure because these new territories were in Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and other states where the soil is not exactly ready for planting. When these homesteaders began to become debtors, they had to hand their land over to financial lenders and these homesteaders became sharecroppers. They raised the crop, and shared a portion of the profit with the owners. One dust bowl later, these "Okies" found themselves killing themselves harvesting crops in California. They were another cheap labor source that kept the price of getting things done for the wealthy.
But the difference is that most of these groups did not have the American government to fall back on like the illegals of today have. So in this regard, the illegals of today should not be put in the same category as what real history has taught us about labor. If I were able to get free health care from the government, that would be a burden taken off the shoulders of my employer. If I could have two identifications and one was collecting welfare while the other worked a full time job, I might better be able to buy a home. If I didn't have to pay income taxes, I might better be able to live with ten others like myself while sending all the money I could back to Mexico where I plan to retire in a few decades as a wealthy land owner. Instead, I am an American that will never see retirement because the Government is spending every dollar of my Social Security contributions as soon as they collect them. I too am a slave of the system just as much as the coal miners where who had a portion of their pay given in company scrip that could only be spent at the company store.
Illegal aliens are rewarded for breaking the law. American workers are punished for following the law. Give it a few more years and we may well find that greed will cripple this country and Americans will become the minority in their own country. Hispanics who are American citizens must come to understand that when the ship goes down, they will go with it. They need to help fight this economic plague and many do. I have plenty of Hispanic friends that do not approve of illegals. When they hear the argument that these "poor helpless illegals are just trying to make a living", they roll their eyes and shake their heads because they know the truth.
You don't reward law breakers and expect a Republic to last.
Calling someone a racist constitutes an ad hominem attack. The issue is policy, not the
person. They need to be gently led away from anti-humanist patterns by example and through
the subtle pressure of friendship. There is freedom of association, and all the racists can go
hang out by themselves (on private property)somewhere if they want. I find racially mixed areas
much more friendly and less plagued by coercive busybodies. People are really much better behaved.
Our national cultural identity cannot be imposed by somebody's think tank; it could only
evolve in an organic way, through the interaction of people. Visit New York if you want to
see that. Multiple ethnicities living in close proximity works very well, as long as a substantial
portion of the populace strongly and actively oppose coercive behavior wherever it occurs and
without regard as to who's doing it. One person is all it takes to set that tone.
I'm against illegal immigration. The current situation creates a perverse incentive for every
Mexican mother to have a few extra children so they can move here and send home money.
If the extreme oligarchy there should ever abate, the problem would diminish. If the situation
persists we'll just have an equally extreme oligarchy here. That's the goal of the controllers.
I agree that a national identity ought not to be imposed by some kind of think tank propaganda mill, but that is the way the current culture has been cooked up.
The current problem has been created by the culture of identity politics, which is the half-whit child of the social progressive academy, globalist think tanks and ethnic identity NGOs. I think these groups have purposely promoted a culture of ethnic separation and division through multiculturalism, affirmative action and massive illegal immigration. If that onslaught against American racial equality is not countered by a segment of the American intelligentsia-- through promoting an alternative, "American" identity through the academy, media and public policy--then it will be countered by an increase in the current, white nationalist backlash. If that white nationalist backlash against the current racial separatism increases, then history tells us that it will devolve into interracial violence--possibly to the point of civil war.
I think the Ron Paul revolution would be extremely helpful in helping to re-mold a new (actually quite old) American political identity based on the truths expressed in our Declaration of Independence. Lincoln knew (as expressed in his famous "House Divided" speech) that the tension between the increase of slave states and the societal ideal of equal rights, found in the Declaration, would eventually lead to a "crisis." I believe that he knew that that particular crisis would be resolved in favor of the Declaration, where I'm not so sure that our current one will--unless the principles of the Declaration become more a part of our common American culture. If the egg-heads don't start giving more weight to the equality of all PEOPLE--as the Declaration states--and less to the equality of all CULTURES, then our future integrity as a nation is suspect.
I'd be very interested in reading your paper when it is finished. Do you "name names"?
If the "unified national identity" you hope for is not to be based on ethnicity or culture, what do you think it ought to be based on?
"If it is allowed to grow, it will inevitably lead to interracial conflict and massive national disunity and division." Unfortunately, a great many people would say that is what we have now, white nationalism or no.
I do name a few names, though I don't have room in this paper to go into white nationalism, per se, in depth. Mostly I spend time dissecting the anti-illegal immigration movement to see what segments are breeding racism and which are not. Though there is a lot of cross-pollination taking place between the main four anti-illegal immigration segments, the only segment that is for bald-faced racial separatism is the white nationalist segment. The other segments consist of the neo-Conservatives (though I think their motives are highly suspect), the neo-Malthusians and the rule-of-law Constitutionalists. The neo-Malthusians are the most highly organized, where the Constitutionalists are the most vocal. The white nationalists are just kind of slippery and play around a lot in the background of all these groups--though they seem to be more highly associated with the neo-Malthusians.
I think our national identity ought to be based on the principle of God-given equal rights--as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Those principles transcend all cultures and races, and can apply to everyone regardless of social class or social standing. The problem with multiculturalism today is it creates a problem, in each of the different cultures being "celebrated," of having to make comparisons with other cultures within the same nation-state. If you start having to make comparisons, i.e. Latinos comparing their culture to that of white Americans, or "African-Americans" comparing their culture to that of "Asian-Americans," then they will have to compare their cultures favorably, and the others dis-favorably. Once this happens, then you have created racial separation, which will lead to non-communication between disparate racial groups, which will lead to interracial conflict, which will lead to violence.
Any culture or ethnic group that has a problem with equal rights for everyone would be incompatible with the American culture. That means Latino/Chicano separatism is out--as its locus is formed around the Trojan horse of La Raza, and the mythical, supposedly non-geographical, land of Aztlan. White nationalism would be out, as well, as it promotes the idea of bring racial identity politics to the white "European" crowd and promoting a Euro-culture as being primary for white people to support. This white-centered primacy intentionally excludes non-whites because of the white nationalist focus on the "tribal nature" of the human race--as if that is a law that cannot be transcended. They pretend that they do not have a problem with equality for all people, but they would be willing to pass laws against non-whites to "keep them in their place," so to speak. That would create an unequal situation among the races, which would be similar to the current policies encompassed in affirmative action laws against whitey.
It has to be either equal rights for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, color or creed, or it will eventually be interracial violence. We need to work to promote the Declaration of Independence as the standard for peace between all people.