Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: CPAC

Facing the Future As a Minority

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5-7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even get captivated, we must admit, by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectability; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time.

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it becomes an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.

* * *

That we have failed to stem immigration in our 45-year struggle is obvious enough.  Some major amnesties have been halted due to energetic, grassroots activists, but mass-immigration proponents have walked away from these battles with confidence that they’ll get it done next year.

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course.  Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White.  Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.  Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two.  Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go after announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

SYMBOLIC POLITICS

Beyond failure, there’s always been something . . . mendacious about immigration reform. Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

There are very good reasons, of course, for any nation to oppose lawless entry. And there are unalterable mathematical factors at play: all things being equal, more workers equals lowers wages. These are (and should) be the concerns of the “respectable” immigration-reform movement.

But these are not our concerns.

The issues the Beltway immigration reformers focus on are essentially quantitative in nature, as you can see by the names of their organizations: “numbers,” “carrying capacity,” etc.

Our concerns are qualitative. As they should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe?  Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t.  I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa.  We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.  It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Taking a step back, it seems that for everyone immigration” is a proxy, a mask, a lie.  Perhaps all of political activism and wonkery are manifestation of deeper, largely unconscious desires for power. When we hear any professional “Latino” support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say “more immigration is good”; she means “The Anglos are finished!”

In turn, we are right to view “conservative” activism—especially those hokey and embarrassing events like Glenn Beck rallies—as symbolic in-gatherings of America’s historic majority, as ways for Whites to feel a sense of belonging and identity in a world that is increasingly cold and hostile. Generic “conservatism”—despite itself—has become a kind of White identity politics.  And however flawed, all of its prominent ideological features resonate in the hearts of decent White people: self-reliance, freedom, uprightness etc.  And when White men talks about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America. However much we might critique these conservative ideas, we cannot deny this basic symbolism.  Indeed, it is due to this symbolism—and not policy—that conservative leaders like Glenn Beck have to envelope all-White events in “Martin Luther King” and the most useless political issues possible. They can’t let the natives get out of hand. . .

* * *

Now, if we accept that generic conservatism is symbolic, we should ask a higher-level question—Is this proxy actually good for our movement and, more important, for our race and civilization?

We were able to understand the futility of the immigration issue by asking not what would happen if the movement lost, but what would happen if it actually won.  In t
urn, we should ask an analogous question: what exactly would conservatism “restore” or “take back”?

We can look to history for answers.

In 1789, we had the Constitution. We had a government that was a mere flea in comparison to the elephant that rules us today. Confiscatory taxation was unheard of; the invasions of personal privacy we experience today wasn’t only rare but was, for the most part, infeasible.  We had a more republican, indeed, aristocratic, political system. We had bounteous natural resources and no threatening world power bordering our country.

Yet, within 75 years, we had inflicted upon ourselves a devastating Civil War—one that decimated the Founding stock of the country.  Within 125 to 150 years, our political system had become dominated by same kind of liberal egalitarianism it is today.

Why should we believe that, if we could “restore the Constitution,” the outcome would be any different? One should not rewind a movie, play it again, and then be surprised when it reaches the same unhappy ending.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant.  The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

Supporting Paul, or whatever version of the Tea Party or Republican “immigration hawk” comes up next, is not “pragmatic”; it is, to the contrary, entirely impractical.  And it would be devastating for our movement politically: we would be spending our limited resources of time, energy, and money on politicians whose rosiest conceivable outcome would not change anything.  “Restoring the Constitution” and “patriotic immigration reform”  are just more in a series of safety valves and escape hatches preventing us from confronting the real issues facing our race.

Before we can move forward, we must come to terms with some rather dismal truths. There are no policy proscriptions or politicians currently open to us that will fundamentally alter our destiny.  And, most likely, within our lifetimes, we will not see the kind rebirth of Occidental civilization that we in this room know is necessary.

What we can do now is begin to set a new and different course.  Our challenge is to reorient our people, spiritually as much as intellectually and politically, to a world that will be hostile towards them and towards a future beyond the United State of America.

MINORITY REPORT

I’m sure that when many heard the title of my talk, “Facing the Future as a Minority,” they cringed at the very notion.  It insults our pride and dignity to think that I might be suggesting we go out and find ourselves a White Al Sharpton, who could speak at demonstrations after various hate-crime hoaxes and badger politicians until Whites got a seat at the trough.  Perhaps I might start calling my “The Reverend” Richard Spencer and hold prayer vigils after some celebrity misused the word “cracker.”

Believe me, I find this just as offensive as you do.

The good news is that the “Al Sharpton” option will never be open to us.  Whites are and will always be the exception to multiculturalism; we will never be allowed to play the game.

We must also recognize that not only will we always be at odds with the multi-cult, but, at least at the beginning, we will be at odds with the people we seek to defend.  In White America’s unconscious, they are America.  And the process of letting that dream go will be painful.

Moreover, the era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. In the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”  For some, a White society might seem to be a retreat, towards less prosperity and dynamism.

Suffice it to say, this will be a hard path.

One characteristic that we must adopt as White minority advocates is a new openness to alternative political forms, even things that have previously made us cringe. One of those was suggested by our friends outside protesting our gathering.  No, not “Bomb Dresden Again!” but “Go Back to Europe!”  Emigration with an E is, of course, not practical for all Whites in North America; and at the moment at least, it seems that Western Europe is dedicated to its destruction almost as much as America.   But we should be open to this option.

Back to Europe? Not a bad idea... Back to Europe? Not a bad idea…

I would also direct you to the work on racial separatism of two men: Michael Hart and Rabbi Mayer Schiller, both of whom have presented real plans for dividing up the existing United States, mostly on the basis of race and partly on ideology.  (Michael generously offers Liberals the chance to live in “Diversity” canton if they so desire. . .)

There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries.  But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” have always been dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing.  This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their causes.  In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia).  Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so).  But this need not be the case.  1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.

OUR CAUSE

Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that’s different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance.  We need to be more than mere “reactionaries,” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies’ assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem “impossible.”

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

* * * 

I’m sure there’s no shortage of people, most likely even people in this room, who’d inform me that an Ethno-State would be beautiful but, alas, “infeasible.”  In the face of this, we need to remember something very important: the creation of a White Ethno-State on the American continent is perfectly feasible. Indeed, it is a modest project in comparison to brining democracy to the Middle East, narrowing the SAT score gap, or inspiring young women to become mathematicians, or countless other looney and infantile trillion-dollar initiative with which the American government is currently engaged.

We shouldn’t forget that before the current government dedicated its resources to equalizing mankind, it channelled billions—created industries, created whole cities—for the goal of space exploration. (It has since given up this project in favor of boosting the Muslim world’s self-esteem.)

When I travelled to my hometown recently, I noted that the wealthy Whites of Dallas, Texas, have dedicated their disposable income to a charity hospital skyscraper, built in the hopes of taking care of other peoples‘ children and other peoples‘ problems. (It’s hard to get them to give 100 bucks to AmRen or NPI.)

Action is, in a way, the easy part.

Channelling action, setting a goal, identifying a telos—saying yes and saying no—that is what is difficult.

In this way, our challenge is one of the spirit.

Our task is to capture the imaginations of our people (or the best of our people) and shock them out of their current assumption of what they think is possible.  The means of doing this is not to promise a 20-percent reductions in immigration or sales taxes—or the narrowing of the scope of government. To the contrary, we need to offer our people what Herzl called “the voluptuous idea.”

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.  Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.  We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

In Altneuland, Herzl wrote, referring to his “utopian” plan for a Jewish state in Palestine: “If you wish it, it is no fairy tale. . . If you don’t wish it, it is a fairly tale and will remain one.”

Or, to quote another historical figure: “I have a dream.”

No Comments on Facing the Future As a Minority

Christendom, Christianity, and Coulter

Coulter’s understanding that Africa is ultimately a global cultural “follower” reflects a more sophisticated understanding of reality than American Christians who act as if Africa will redeem the West for Christ. 

Because of her latest column about Christian missionaries in Africa and their role in bringing Ebola to the United States, Ann Coulter is being called “monstrous,” “sick,” a “detestable harpy” and a “bitter, vicious troll” – by the American Right. Coulter made the case that Dr. Kent Brantly and his nurse engaged in self-righteous moral preening for choosing to work in Africa.  In response, a cavalcade of screeching conservatives began wailing at a level unheard since Tumblr heard that someone called Lena Dunham fat.   

Coulter made the obvious point that by going to Africa, contracting Ebola, and necessitating a massively expensive effort to fly back to the United States for treatment, Dr. Brantly squandered millions of dollars that otherwise would have been used to save lives. In response, conservatives joined the Left to engage in a massive exercise in morally indignant wishful thinking. As Breeanne Howe, contributing editor at RedState put it, “He saved lives!  You put a price on that?”

He probably did, though not in the way Howe means. By inadvertently sabotaging charitable efforts in Africa, he may have saved many more African and European lives in the long term. After all, he sabotaged stubborn Western efforts to keep African populations at levels they can’t sustain. This overpopulation leads to the famines, resource wars, and monetary costs that plague them and us each and every day. He also accidentally cut the demand for African immigration into the West, thus sparing us the vibrant rapes, murders, and social disorder it entails. European children yet unborn thank you Dr. Brantly! And while we’re at it, probably some Africans too. 

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s accept Coulter’s premise. Dr. Brantly’s extravagance probably cost some lives in the short term at the monetary price of more than $2 million and counting, not including government expenditures.  Conservatives used to understand that however much we may sympathize with Dr. Brantly and his colleague’s suffering, “good intentions” are no excuse for harmful results. It would be demonic to gloat at Dr. Brantly’s suffering, a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Yet the cold reality is that Dr. Brantly increased the potential that far more will die in the admittedly unlikely but quite possible scenario that Ebola is not contained in the United States. 

Besides the obvious cost/benefit argument, Coulter makes more substantial points that (not surprisingly) seem to have gone over the heads of American conservatives: 

  • In the long term, the fate of Christianity in Africa and the world will ultimately depend on its strength in the First World, what we once called Christendom. In Coulter’s apt phrase, “[A]ny good that one attempts downstream is quickly overtaken by what happens upstream.”
  • To choose to work in Africa instead of America isn’t an act of courage – it’s the easy way out.   As Coulter put it, “[I]f Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore—as the pope did—that you don’t have to be a Christian to go to heaven. Evangelize in Liberia, and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof will be totally impressed.
  • Finally, African charity is a cheap way to garner social praise.  “There may be no reason for panic about the Ebola doctor, but there is reason for annoyance at Christian narcissism.”

Coulter’s understanding that Africa is ultimately a global cultural “follower” reflects a more sophisticated understanding of reality than American Christians who act as if Africa will redeem the West for Christ. Some “conservative” Episcopalians have aligned their ancient seats with the Church of Nigeria,  “traditional marriage” campaigners place their hopes on Uganda, and Christian missionaries compensate for the death of the Faith in the West by carving out a new Kingdom of God in the Dark Continent. All of this reflects surrender, rather than a crusading spirit.  It’s a way to be surrounded by helpless, dark skinned, agency-free mascots who, as a bonus, have never heard of Christopher Hitchens.

Of course, this is precisely the same way SWPLs use Africa. The only difference is that the pathological altruistic kick comes from racial cuckoldry rather than the Holy Spirit. With luck, you can even fail miserably at providing charity, thus allowing you to experience more of that sweet, sweet shame. As one white Huffington Post contributor (naturally) put it in a column bashing “little white boys” and “white girls,”

Our mission while at the orphanage was to build a library. Turns out that we, a group of highly educated private boarding school students were so bad at the most basic construction work that each night the men had to take down the structurally unsound bricks we had laid and rebuild the structure so that, when we woke up in the morning, we would be unaware of our failure. It is likely that this was a daily ritual. Us mixing cement and laying bricks for 6+ hours, them undoing our work after the sun set, re-laying the bricks, and then acting as if nothing had happened so that the cycle could continue.

To her credit, while the author is still moral preening via the Huffington Post, at least she recognizes that her attempt to “help” was inefficient at best. Christian critics of Coulter seem completely unaware of this possibility in regards to Dr. Brantly.In their mind, only good intensions count.  More importantly, “respectable” conservatives (koshercons) see this as an opportunity to purge Coulter, ridding “the movement” of someone who upsets the open bar circuit when she gives anti-immigration speeches at CPAC

Ultimately, what is at stake is the focus of Christian morality. Christians historically considered their religion as part of the social order which defined and sustained that entity known as Christendom. This concept survived even the massive bloodletting that followed the Reformation and the collapse of the Christian consensus in the non-Orthodox West. Even well into the post-French Revolutionary era, there was an understanding of Christianity’s role that did not necessarily deny belief but also did not require it. As Napoleon Bonaparte said, “I do not see in religion the mystery of the incarnation so much as the mystery of the social order.” 

A traditional Christian has duties to his God, his family, his country (and sovereign), and his kin—none of which requires immoral behavior towards humanity at large. Traditionalists and Kinists are some of the few survivors of this kind of Christianity, which would have been recognized by men of sincere faith like Stonewall Jackson. God i
s the source of all, and as such, is also at the pinnacle of the great Chain of Being, a concept which is older that Christianity itself.  It’s this civilizational Christianity that Coulter is defending, however distantly.

One “Latino conservative” who goes by “SooperMeixcan” said, “So, ironically, Christianity would never have come to @AnnCoulter if early Christians thought the way she does.  That’s how stupid she is.” Of course, Christianity spread throughout the West and came to Ann Coulter – and the rest of us – because it was turned into a Germanic religion of Empire. Absent Constantine, we might be Odinists, Mithras worshippers, or Muslims—which is why Christians historically saw Constantine as an instrument of divine will, along with Charlemagne. 

The faith was spread to the European pagan and the foreigner through steel, not alms. “SooperMeixcan” is Christian because conquistadores forced it on his indigenous ancestors. Today, Christianity is dying in its Middle Eastern birthplace by the sword – and the Christian Right could not care less. One would think they could at least spare a hashtag.

 The god that is “worshipped” by many mainstream Christians can’t really be called “God” at all. It’s simply liberal morality conflated into the figure of a personality known as “Jesus,” or, if you are one of the more enthusiastic Judeo-Christians, “Yeshua.” Many Christians, like the conservatives at “Twitchy,” are content to engage in PC Judo in order to prove that they are the real universalists and the real liberals. The result is rather than a real religion, we get a floating deracinated abstraction – a belief in “Jesus” as your savior, however that is interpreted – which defines a global “community of believers.” Those “conservative” denominations that still exist take care to reinterpret Scripture at a stately pace, keeping behind the culture at large, but still moving in the same direction.

Therefore, to spread the belief in Christ as Savior to as many people as possible is more virtuous than trying to build a Christian community or nation at home – because community and nation ultimately don’t matter except insofar as they lead people to profess belief in the abstraction. Nor can many Christians even agree what social norms should be anymore. Even enforcing behavior such as supporting restrictions on sexual behavior or traditional gender roles becomes secondary to spreading the faith abroad. This only seems to intensify as the faith collapses at home. 

As even a casual comparison of the “Christianity” of Haiti, China, Nigeria, or South Korea shows, how the belief in “Christ” is understood is apparently not that important. To quote the one Bible verse all leftists know, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 KJV)

But if modern Christianity leads to a moral structure ultimately indistinguishable from secular humanism, why not just dismiss the supernatural elements?  Well, exactly – hence the great secularization taking place throughout the West, and now even in America. Christians who ground their apologetics in trying to rationally explain the irrational concede the battle. As Coulter implies, if Christianity collapses in the West, its cultural colonies in the West will collapse too, and whether they are a generation or so behind the times in terms of feminism or gay marriage will make no difference to the survival of traditional moral values. What we will be left with is slave morality without a master, divine or otherwise.   

What conservatives and many American Christians are doing is simply playing for time. They can avoid the crucial struggles at the core of the global system by kidding around at the margins. As if in an unconscious parody of Marx, they are moving the process of History forward by trying to drag Africa out of barbarism into liberal modernity, and so sowing the grounds of their own irrelevance. By valuing abstract belief over civilizational order and identity, and seeking praise from liberalism rather than its destruction, the American Right is taking the easy way out. Getting Ebola is less morally terrifying than being called a bigot. And feeling like you helped someone (and getting lots of applause for it) is far harder than confronting the cold truths that human well-being rests upon. 

Both liberals and modern Christians (or do I repeat myself?) need Africa. It is the Passive Continent, always that which is acted upon, rather than acting for itself.  Whether it is the source of meaningless and poorly understood “conversions” or a tool to enhance the self-satisfaction of white liberals makes no difference. Far easier to save 10 African souls or build a well in a village than run a public school for one day in a typical American city. 

Be it for Christians or SWPLs, the African humanitarian trip is as pure of an expression of modernity as playing Clash of Clans on your cell phone.  It’s an indulgence – in both senses of the word. And if Africa didn’t exist, it would be necessary for them to invent it.   

To close with a reading from the Good Book,

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  (Matthew 6:2, KJV)

“But Rabbi,” we can almost hear the modern disciples say, “what about our Facebook likes?”

No Comments on Christendom, Christianity, and Coulter

Immigration Respectability

This year’s CPAC offered few opportunities for anyone in our movement to get a word in about the issues we care about. The “minority outreach” panel—which included a bold agenda for winning Detroit!—was sparsely attended and didn’t include a Q&A.  I was, however, able to ask a question at Thursday afternoon’s panel on immigration—“Can There be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?”  

This year’s CPAC offered few opportunities for anyone in our movement to get a word in about the issues we care about. The “minority outreach” panel—which included a bold agenda for winning Detroit!—was sparsely attended and didn’t include a Q&A. I was, however, able to ask a question at Thursday afternoon’s panel on immigration—“Can There be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?”

This event featured four speakers. The first, Helen Kriebel, advocated for a market-based guest-worker program with minimal government involvement. Businesses would determine who entered the country based on their needs; and workers would gain admittance on a strictly temporary basis, with no promise of citizenship. In others words, Kriebel seeks the creation of a Helot class.[1].

Derrick Morgan of The Heritage Foundation came next. He argued against amnesty in the safest, most boring manner possible. He also stated that no immigration reform of any kind should be enacted at this time because “we can’t trust Obama.”

There final two panelists were Hispanics: Alfonso Aguilar, a former immigration minister from the George W. Bush administration, and the Reverend Luis Cortés, Jr.

I waited patiently … and when Q&A finally came, I sprung into action. Some dissidents like to highjack the mic and turn a Q&A into a lecture—which almost always eventuates in the questioner annoying the audience, getting silenced and then ignored. I wanted to ask a question that would actually get answered. (You can jump directly to my question here . . . in fact, don’t watch the entire panel unless you’re suffering from insomnia.)

I have a moral question, actually, and I think that’s very important. I was struck by Helen Kriegel’s statement that “we don’t want an immigration policy that’s Republican; we want one that’s truly American. Actually, there are a lot of precedents we can look to for those policies. One of them would be the 1924 immigration act, which restricted immigration to Northern Europeans. You could actually go back a lot further and look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, which restricted immigration to “free white persons of good character.”

The motive for all these acts was that Americans really understood their nation as an extended family, and they wanted to choose people they had something in common with; they wanted to value their own over others.

Do you find that immoral? Do you find this American tradition of valuing our own people, European Christians, over others to be immoral, when it seems to be so much a part of America?

Before I the panel started, I was told by a friend, who works in the Beltway, that Derrick Morgan was “really solid.” My impression is that too many people in our movement, starved as we are for allies, think that someone who makes an argument against amnesty—even one that rejects European identity—must secretly be “one of us.” Perhaps Morgan does oppose amnesty because he, secretly, doesn’t want to experience the displacement of his people? I can’t say. It is noteworthy, though, that after I asked my question, Morgan asserted that American Whites do not have a moral right to create an immigration policy based on identity; indeed, such things are “shameful.” In the end, whatever reasonable things he might say, I can only conclude that Morgan is as much a part of the problem as his ostensible opponents.


  1. It would be interesting to ask Kriegel whether the businesses that engaged these guest worker would not just benefit from cheap labor but would be made to pay damages if, say, one of their recruits committed a crime in the U.S. or overstayed his work visa.  ↩
No Comments on Immigration Respectability

NPI@CPAC: The “Unconference”

On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years.  NPI will provide for wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere.  Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”

As we announced last week, NPI will be attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, which begins on March 6 and will stretch through the weekend. (Perhaps “crash” is a better choice of words than “attend,” despite the fact that we’ll be on our best behavior.)

THE PLAN

On Thursday and Friday (March 6 and 7), I will be listening to some of CPAC’s speeches and panel discussions and participating, when possible, in Q&A. If you see me in the halls, please say hello.

On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years. NPI will provide wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere.

Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”

The “unconference” idea is a response to fact that most people don’t attend conferences to hear speeches—they attend to connect with people. Thus, our gathering will be something like a free-flowing conversation. Jared and I will get the discussion started with some remarks, and our guests will take it from there.

We expect excellent people to attend, and we hope that some from the CPAC crowd will want to see where the real action is. (No doubt, we will be “unconferencing” into the wee hours.)

Nota Bene

First and foremost, the gathering will be discreet to the best of our powers.

Our desire for privacy is one reason that we will not be releasing the exact location of the dinner and unconference until the morning of March 7. We will say now that the events will be conveniently located near the Gaylord Resort Hotel at the National Harbor.

Secondly, because of our discretion, you must register for our dinner and unconfenece beforehand using the form below. (This will be the only way we can alert you to our gatherings’ locations.)

Thirdly, you should be confident that you can attend in an anonymous fashion (short of donning a disguise and voice modulator): no name tags will be issued; no recordings will be made; and all discussion will be strictly “off the record.” Our guests, we hope, will feel comfortable expressing themselves.

Fourthly, though we hope you’ll join us for the entire evening, we understand if you could only attend either the dinner or hospitality suite.


This is a chance for our movement to have a real presence at a major forum for ideas (and perhaps mug a few conservatives with reality). And more important, it’s a chance for us to network and talk about our future.

I hope to see you there!

Name *
Name
Phone
Phone

No Comments on NPI@CPAC: The “Unconference”

NPI@CPAC 2014

Every spring, the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, meets in Washington, DC, to set an agenda for politicians, lobbyists, and activists of America’s right-wing (such as it is). The 2014 edition will take place at the Gaylord National Resort on March 6 through 8. For years, supporters have urged NPI to make an appearance at CPAC. This year, we’re doing it.    

 

 

Every spring, the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, meets in Washington, DC, to set an agenda for politicians, lobbyists, and activists of America’s right-wing (such as it is). The 2014 edition will take place at the Gaylord National Resort on March 6 through 8.

For years, supporters have urged NPI to make an appearance at CPAC. This year, we’re doing it.

I will be attending panels that are relevant to our movement, and on Friday, March 7, we will host a private gathering for friends, supporters, and interested attendees. We will be joined by a special guest, whose identity will be revealed in the coming days.

In attending CPAC, we must be realistic about what can be accomplished. NPI is not an official sponsor, and thus our ability to affect CPAC’s agenda is limited to say the least. (Don’t expect Sarah Palin to evoke archeo-futurism in her keynote address.)

But then, people don’t really attend CPAC for what happens on stage. They go to meet people. And CPAC is a captive audience of individuals who self-identify as conservative. Our ideas resonate with many of them; and most all of them, I would guess, have a gut feeling that something is terribly wrong with America.

And this year, CPAC might be particularly interesting. The Republican leadership has expressed its wish for legislation that offers legal status for illegal immigrants. There’s a chance a revolt might occur . . . At the very least, CPAC is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to attendees the necessity of choosing a different path than the “Tax Cuts Will Solve Everything” agenda that has defined the conservative movement for decades.

Put simply, CPAC is a major forum for the debate of ideas, and we should be there.

More details are forthcoming. In the meantime, if you’re interested in meeting up and/or taking part in our private event, please fill out the form below. For the sake of discretion, we will announce the exact time and place of our gathering via text message and email on the morning of Friday, March 7.

Name *
Name
Phone
Phone

Please tell us about your commitment. This information will help us plan the best event.

No Comments on NPI@CPAC 2014

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search