Conscience as a Weapon
There’s no surer sign of a scam than an appeal to conscience by a politician – unless it’s one by a journalist.
The “humanitarian crisis” on the Southern border is instructive because the usual suspects aren’t bothering with the standard propaganda. No one is pretending that that the Children’s Crusade will “be good for the economy” or “help America compete in a globalized world.” Instead, we are simply told that in order to be good people, we are obligated to accept a seemingly unlimited number of Hispanic immigrants on the grounds that they “need” it.
Indeed, this is even framed as a punishment – Central America is poor because of American foreign policy, with reporters getting to drag out references to Ronald Reagan, Oscar Romero, and even John Foster Dulles. Having to deal with an influx of helpless Hispanics is just our “chickens coming home to roost.” One would think Central Americans would be insulted. But they know their place.
It would be unimaginable for a white migrants, however poor, to brag about using their existence as a tool to drag down a host country, or exploiting their own children as a moral weapon precisely because of their helplessness. This must be more of those “family values” south of the Rio Grande that George W. Bush loved so much. Yet it’s not just liberal reporters or Reconquista ideologues pushing this. Even a “senior representative” of the Honduran President vowed, “As long as (U.S.) immigration reform is not approved, the exodus of children to the United States will continue.”
It is a strange kind of patriotism they practice in Central America, where pride is expressed by fleeing the country and enemies are punished by sending them your own people. And how giving more people legal status would somehow halt the influx was left unclear.
Of course, hypocrisy is a major part of this. Nancy Pelosi pried herself away from Botox long enough to announce, “We are all Americans–North and South in this hemisphere,” a major step forward in the forthcoming linguistic campaign for force citizens of the United States to relinquish the name “Americans.” She also added that she wished she could “take them all home,” though needless to say there will be no anchor babiespopulating her estates any more than there are union workers in her vineyards. Nor does the billionaires’ consortium of Adelson, Bloomberg, or Gates seem likely to trouble themselves about the fate of the “children.”
But that doesn’t mean that the problem is simply limited to limousine liberals. The first stage of the “children” were welcomed by hysterical white liberal women, always eager to moralpreen with their beloved nonwhite pets. There are inquiries from around the country from people who want to adopt the “children.” Although the conservative media has revealed that this surge was largely planned, most conservative leaders have accepted the frame that this is a “humanitarian crisis” and that Obama is wrong precisely because he is endangering the precious “children.” Even when there are timid mutterings that Obama should enforce the law, they are prefaced by a monologue about how important it is to take care of the poor dears.
Needless to say, many of the children are teenagers or much older. Some are well over 30 – and trying to be let into American high schools. MS-13 is already using the processing center as a recruitment and coordination hub. Instead of “fleeing” gang violence, the planned influx of refugees is spreading it. Even those who are minors are absorbing resources and spreading diseases, one of which has already incapacitateda Border Patrol agent, who will suffer the effects for the rest of his life.
Oddly enough, we aren’t seeing much in the way of cute pictures of bambinos y bambinas clutching teddy bears and American flags. This is probably because the truth is far less photogenic than the propaganda. After all, even Congressmen trying to see what is going on are being turned away. The American towns who are being forced to deal with the illegals are not even receiving the courtesy of a notification. The “Intolerable Acts” that prompted colonial Bostonians to start the American Revolution have nothing on the President’s actions — but Sam Adams didn’t have to compete with Xbox One.
What President Obama, Eric Holder, and all the rest of the ruling clique are doing is simply pushing on an open door. To speak of “law” when the President casuallyignores the ones he doesn’t like is to proves oneself irrelevant.
The critical issue is moral. Americans lack the vocabulary to say why it is morally permissible to limit the people who are let into the United States of America for any reason whatsoever. The fact that it is mostly (but not solely) white people leading protests against the influx is taken as prima facieevidence that the invasion is good.
White advocates fondly hope that there will be some catalyst that will force whites en masse to “wake up” and confront the truth of their own dispossession. The truth is that many whites know they are being dispossessed, support it, and will fight against those who wish to save them. White victims of crime are eager to “forgive” their indifferent perpetrators. The parents of those murdered often seem angrier at white advocates promoting a story than nonwhites who butchered family members. The Amy Biehl Foundation exists, and will continue to exist for some time to come.
Part of this is pathological altruism, a bona fide mental disorder in its own right. And part of it is Christianity – though it is revealing that Christianity apparently a valid moral consideration when it comes to immigration, but not with abortion, sex, or gender roles. The greater problem behind all of it is a universal moral imperative which holds that someone’s suffering, anywhere in the world, constitutes a claim on us. This now has a racial element as whites – all whites—are held to be in a privileged position and responsible for both the suffering and the salvation of the nonwhite world.
There are easy rebuttals to this. The only thing we can do with the “suffering” of the “children” is share it by admitting them. Their own corrupt leaders (either in the state or in gangs) are simply exporting their problems in order to seek domestic advantage. And Obama’s talk about ceasing deportations is what’s leading to the deaths of children, not white American protesters.
But ultimately, morality isn’t about them. It’s about us. And what is happening throughout the Western world is one giant piece of performance art constituting areductio et absurdum that our moral code is a scam. Luis Gutierrez and Nancy Pelosi are making no sacrifices. It’s only the useful idiots of Christian America who are being condemned by their own sense of decency, what Ayn Rand called the “Sanction of the Victim.”
They will receive no gratitude for their charity – only more fury, as shown by the likes of Gutierrez, José Antonio Vargas, or the innumerable others who spend their lives taking revenge on a society that permitted them to enter. From the banlieues of Paris to the barrios of the American Southwest, the nonwhite masses seethe at the Europeans and their descendants who have built a world with wonders they could never achieve over millennia. And yet whites will continue to blame themselves, even though we are hated not for what we do, but for what we are.
Let us be clear, as the President would say. We owe these people nothing. The American government has a duty to its own citizens and no one else. And if the government has decided to abandon that duty, then the European-Americans who created, built, and sustain this country only owe concern and allegiance to our own people. Those who wish to abandon us in the name of universal moralism andegalitarianism are free to do so, but they may find their new pets rather angry at their decades of patronizing.
Yet the fundamental challenge is still before us. Whatever reasoning people can develop from the Bible, philosophy, or just common sense, most people would concede that moral idealism is on the other side and what we offer is practicality. It remains to develop a systematic moral philosophy that can speak to issues like this and be both emotionally compelling and logically defensible. Otherwise, we will continue to be held hostage by moral blackmail. If a moral code demands we must destroy ourselves, then it is that that code which needs to be destroyed – not us