[Previously by Susie Green: Harmony before Insight? The Destruction of Western Man ]
There can be no better statement on the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge War than this:
The level of lying that has become common in the illegal alien debate is truly frightening and bespeaks an America that has passed some new threshold on the road to self-destruction.
One of these lies is intrinsic to the Senate bill and its variants: that these bills combine “enforcement” with amnesty. Given our current systematic failure to enforce the law and protect our borders, and given the president’s own palpable lack of interest in enforcing the law, and given the nonchalant or celebratory statements about illegal immigration by many of the president’s supporters, such as William Kristol and Michael Bloomberg, no intellectually honest person could believe that the enforcement side of the bill would be seriously acted upon.
Therefore the only way to establish the president’s and the government’s bona fides in this area is to pass an enforcement-only bill first and see if it is enforced. Otherwise we will inevitably end up with a vastly worse repetition of what happened in 1986, an amnesty of millions of illegal aliens, with no improvement in enforcement, leading to continued mass illegal immigration, followed by further calls for yet another amnesty.
Another big lie is the establishment’s denial that their various proposals are, in fact, amnesty proposals. Starting with the stinking head of our body politic…down to every liberal newspaper reporter, it is now simply taken for granted that a bill is only an amnesty bill if it involves giving the illegal alien instant citizenship. Anything short of that, such as giving him legal status in the United States with the option to pursue citizenship, is not, the establishment insists, amnesty.
Thus Jonathan Weisman writes in the Washington Post about a compromise bill that is now being floated:
The compromise could satisfy some conservatives opposed to any program that offers illegal immigrants a way to stay in the country and work toward citizenship, which they term “amnesty.”
See? A bill to allow illegal aliens to stay in the country legally and work toward citizenship is not amnesty. It is only falsely described as “amnesty”—by conservatives. See Weisman’s scare quotes. Thanks for straightening us out on that, Mr. Weisman.
In reality, amnesty means removing the penalty or the due consequence for a wrongful act. Under our law, the due consequence for a person who has illegally entered the United States is to be removed from the United States. Therefore to give illegal aliens legal residency in this country is amnesty, period.
All the bills that are on the table to give illegals some kind of legal status in the U.S., however that legal status is defined, are amnesty bills, period.”
[Hyperlinks added by VDARE.com]
Actually, wait a moment... that isn't about the Obama Administration's push for an Amnesty/ Immigration Surge at all! It’s about the second President Bush's efforts to push a nation-breaking legalization program in 2006, by my old friend, the late Lawrence M. Auster. [We must stop lying to ourselves or we will die, View From The Right, April 04, 2006 ]
It tells us something, both about Larry and about the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Bill, that not a word needs to be changed—and once again, Larry’s View From the Right blog cuts to the core of the issue.
Immigration patriots have been here before. This isn't the first and may not be the last time Americans will have to face down a “stupid and evil” effort to push through amnesty. Luckily, we have a guide to waging the long war in the writings of the late and lamented Lawrence Auster, who never stopped identifying the “permanent things” within the passing scene.
In my views, Larry’s greatest importance was as a systematic thinker. He was taken from us before he could complete a magnum opus, but his work constitutes a strategic plan of battle for analyzing the political issues of the day. Nowhere is this more true than in the long war over immigration, and the repeated battles against a nation-breaking amnesty.
Larry Auster first became known to immigration patriots with his seminal The Path to National Suicide (1990). Condemning the 'triviality' of how conservatives typically discussed immigration, Auster cut to the central importance of the issue.
In Huddled Clichés (1997), Larry quietly and effectively dismantled the tropes immigration patriots have been facing for years. Reviewing these works from decades ago, it is remarkable how fresh, energetic, and above all relevant Larry’s prose remains.
Why was he able to see issues with such clarity? Because he understood that, whatever the political issue of the moment, everything was grounded in deeper patterns and principles.
For example, in the wake of the Jason Richwine atrocity, it is worth revisiting what he said about conservatives and race:
They don't believe in the validity of the race issue. Because they won't deal with race, they cannot conceive of turning around the racial trends that are destroying the West. So it's all hopeless for them. They can only deal with these obscure, cultish type issues.
This insight confirms in me in my core principle that the concrete sense of peoplehood is the sine qua non of all conservatism. Once you give that up, you're done for. You've given up your concrete collective existence. So what are you? In order to have the things that conservatives believe in, religion, traditional values, a way of life, a rule of law, a high culture, family values, national defense, whatever, YOU MUST FIRST COLLECTIVELY EXIST. And conservatives who have given up that sense of collective existence are unable to hold the line on any other issues.
So, it is seeing and being ready to speak about the importance of race and of preserving and restoring the white majority dominant character of our society that gives us hope. By upholding that principle, we are challenging the dominant liberalism at its core. That makes us unrespectable and marginal (for now), but it also gives us a strength, solidity and confidence that other conservatives lack—because they lack a principle that opposes the dominant liberalism.[Private correspondence.]
What was Larry’s alternative? A systematic attack on the overall philosophy of liberalism and its highest principle, that of non-discrimination. As he wrote:
It's not exactly because they have no belief in country and in traditional values; it's that they believe that discrimination is wrong.
Without the concrete identity, all their "traditional values" start to take on the coloration of neoconservative-type "ideas." They believe in this idea, they believe in that idea, but they don't believe in themselves as a concrete entity. Therefore they don't see how openness to mass influx of Mexicans and Muslims threatens us, because they don't think of America as a concrete entity that can be harmed.
We must attack non-discrimination, and we must seek to restore our lost sense of peoplehood, without which it is not possible for people to oppose the non-discrimination idea.
But I would add that even in the case of a normal people with a national identity, if you inject the idea of tolerance into their moral code as their highest value, as happened after WWII, then that alone will be enough to undo them.[Why opposing liberal anti-discrimination is not enough, View From The Right,May 18, 2007]
In the face of this, is there any hope? Yes, but not by simply returning to the past. Auster knew that ideas have a terrible momentum all their own.
The truth is that whites live under the tyranny of a false ideology that demonizes them as racists and aims at their collective harm; and that whites dare not publicly oppose this ideology, even with relatively mild statements, because of the fear of more particular harms that would come to them individually for doing so.
I feel that the power of liberalism over the souls of the great mass of Westerners is such that they will keep following liberalism all the way into the abyss. I don’t know that I’m right. I hope I’m wrong. But that is the way I see things now.
I am not aware of any past society that turned against itself as the modern West has done, demonizing itself and worshipping aliens and enemies.
I no longer believe that the West in its current form can be saved. This does not mean that we don’t keep fighting on all the issues we care about. It just means that I no longer expect the Western societies as societies to turn around before it’s too late. We keep working at trying to save the West, but if it is saved, it will be in a different form from what it is now. Preparing for that new form is our task.
In order for a society to maintain its principles, it must have actual people who are ready, willing, and able to defend those principles. An America whose historic white majority has been stripped of its moral legitimacy lacks such people.
I declare that this government is no longer a constitutional and moral form of government. I will deal with it, and I will obey its laws, and I will support it when it is defending our country from foreign and domestic enemies. But I will never accept it. I aim at a restoration of constitutional and moral order.[Are whites brain-dead—or toiling under the reign of fear? , View From The Right, February 14, 2012 0]
I first discovered Larry Auster’s blog, View From the Right, some eight years ago. I had seen his name before in various contexts—letters to the editor, articles, comments on other websites. When I found his own website, I was thrilled that I could read him on a daily basis. VFR and VDARE.com were always the first sites I turned to everyday.
Here was a philosopher with great insight, and an extremely high intellect. His was a unique talent able to create elegant prose on highly controversial concepts, written without hate or fear. There was no pulling punches. And this encouraged his readers and commenters to do the same. He would not tolerate ignorance or hateful language.
It was his mission to prevent the decline and decay of Western Civilization. His weapon was his pen. He gave clarity to the confused. He rebelled against the modern world and its decadence, the egalitarian disease rotting Western Civilization from within. But despite this grim mission, he was always communicative with his readers. Many came to consider him to be a friend, even though often they had never met.
He was gracious as well as demanding, constantly seeking clarity, always excited and eager to give credit when he gained new ideas. Remarkably, despite his prolific output as a blogger, he was often engaged in dozens of private email conversations at once. He seemed to be awake always at his computer, single-handedly bringing a sense of community and spiritual elevation to many Westerners (and non-Westerners) around the world, who otherwise felt isolated and impotent in the face of their dispossession
As I read his words, I realize how much I miss him. Every day. Where now can we go for such insight and courage? I hope someone will arise and carry on his legacy.
In the meantime, let us celebrate and honor a man who opted for a life of ideas and truths. That was his joy, his meaning in life. No self-sacrifice here, just a man who trained himself to question all modern ideals and to be hard with himself and others to face the truth. He couldn’t have it any other way.
A future for mankind based on liberty, responsibility, courage. This was an affirmation to his own happiness as a mentor and philosopher whose ideas will be proven true.
In a sense it was a life of joy; one that he chose freely and with gladness. By affirming these ideas he was affirming himself—and all of us.
Rest in Peace, dear Larry.
Susie Green (email her) is an American of Jewish background. She has worked in New York City all of her professional life in various high-level managerial jobs. She is married and has a large blended family of children and stepchildren.