The column attempts to persuade readers: 1) that the immigration debate should be focused on whether immigrants are legal or illegal, 2) that race should not be part of the debate, and 3) those who make race part of the debate are ideologues (read, evil racists). Ho hum, yawn. Goldberg also writes of his dismay at the creation of "identity politics for white people."
The first point is the usual PC distracter that intentionally
or unintentionally sets up those who accept it for a fall that will
come with the stroke of a pen if President Bush decides to make all
illegals, legal. If that happens, will those who argue that immigrants
are good or bad for America, based on whether the immigrants are legal
or illegal, be happy? If so, then such people don't understand the real
reason that present massive immigration is destroying America.
The third point should just be laughed at and dismissed without comment, by conscious white people who might want to consider the source.
The second point, though, is worth discussing at length,
because it is an argument that others also keep trying to make, and
it needs to be deconstructed. Saying that race should not be part of
the debate on our current massive Third World immigration is just more
of the silly attempt to make people think that the important characteristic
of immigrants is the term "immigrants," itself. It fallaciously
lumps all immigrants together as though they are all the same people:
That's a little like lumping all dogs together as dogs and thereafter
deciding that you're going to enter your poodle in a race against a
greyhound because poodles and greyhounds are both dogs and thus, in
your mind at least, the same. Unfortunately, versions of this argument
are made so often in post-American America that many otherwise intelligent
people calmly accept them as gospel, and respond with something like,
"We're a nation of immigrants." Actually, EVERY nation is
a nation of immigrants, but I've written about that in other columns,
so I'll leave it at that for now.
In an emotional attempt to convince people of the correctness of his positions, Goldberg fills his column with the usual dark innuendoes and nonsense that we've come to expect from liberals and certain PC conservatives. Thus, V-Dare, a website that takes immigration reform positions, is called "shrill," by Goldberg. And, some of those who write on immigration issues are, according to Goldberg, "hiding out in their bunkers."
It appears that Goldberg believes the major hijacker of the immigration debate is Pat Buchanan, whose book, "The Death of the West" says what many of us have been saying and writing for years about immigration and about the genocide of white people.
Goldberg also rails against whites finding their identity
in their race, and he writes "[M]any white folks have come to buy
into the tribal logic of Afrocentrists, feminists, La Raza fanatics
and the like." Interesting comment from a guy who leads into his
attacks on Buchanan (who in this instance is simply a stand-in for all
whites who may have similar thoughts) by making cute and telling readers
that he first met Buchanan when Buchanan attended Goldberg's bris when
the latter was eight days old.
As readers may know, the bris is a ritual circumcision performed on Jewish boys. Many people consider this genital mutilation of young boys a tribal ritual par excellence. One wonders, given Goldberg's whine against the tribalism of others, whether he simply put this information about his own tribalism in his column subconsciously or whether (and we jest) the Mohel had palsy and Goldberg is now something of a mental castrato incapable of understanding how hypocritical his comments seem to those who have some understanding of these things.
Goldberg writes that Buchanan's "The Death of the
West," "warns hysterically that the white race is becoming
an 'endangered species,' about to be swallowed up by the duskier Third
World (defined as all non-whites no matter how rich, educated or democratic)."
Such a sentence speaks volumes about Goldberg and his lack of understanding
of the issues involved in the present Third World immigration invasion.
The reality is that whites truly are becoming an 'endangered species.'
Whites are only about 10% of the world's human population and with their
declining birth rates, their increasingly high intermarriage rates,
the high birth rates of many Third World people, and mass transportation
that is bringing millions of Third Worlders to the First World, hysterics
are in order. Perhaps, if various American Indian tribes had gotten
hysterical they wouldn't have become extinct.
Also, what are we to make of Goldberg's lapse of logic when he writes that Buchanan refers to the Third World "as all non-whites no mater how rich, educated or democratic"? What does "rich," "educated" or "democratic" have to do with whether one is a Third Worlder or not? Perhaps Goldberg gets this all mixed up in his mind because he is prejudiced against considering that genes are important and thus he can't understand that the Third World, which is often identified as poor, uneducated and undemocratic is so, not because of these characteristics themselves, but because of the genes of the people in those Third World nations. What Goldberg doesn't want to say is that virtually all of the Third World has one more characteristic: it is non-white.
Goldberg also writes the following outrageous sentence, "[W]e need to respond to the fact that the president of Mexico is developing political constituencies on both sides of the border. This would be troubling if Mexico were as white as Canada."
Goldberg doesn't tell readers why, in his opinion, it
would be troubling if Mexico were as white as Canada, but when his column
is taken as a whole, one might be excused for getting the impression
that Goldberg is not a big fan of non-Jewish white people. There's a
further indication of this in Goldberg's comments about Russian Vladimir
V. Zhirinovsky who Goldberg indicates was "totally off his rocker
when he introduced a bill in the Duma denying Russian women the right
to leave the country and permitting ethnic Russian men to marry up to
five wives." The reality is that Russia has a low birthrate--the
nation is getting old and dying--and Zhirinovsky's bill would have helped
increase the birthrate. This is a good thing for dying nations and peoples.
It stops them from becoming extinct.
By rejecting the reality of genes and those combinations of genes that result in distinct races of humans, Goldberg banishes himself to the same "environment is everything" intellectual dead end inhabited by so many liberals. By not accepting the truth of nature of the importance of genes to the way every living thing IS, and in what every living thing DOES, one is thereafter left wandering in a PC wilderness wondering why people are as they are and why some nations are good places to live and others aren't. Such thinking is similar to what liberals do all the time with their nature vs. nurture arguments in which they attempt to show that race doesn't matter. All black basketball teams? To the liberals and certain aracial conservatives, the reason can't be because blacks have some genetically determined racial advantage in the sport, but because of environment. One liberal once told me that blacks did better in sports requiring foot speed because as kids they were chased by racist white cops. I'm serious.
Goldberg, then gives us this tough guy command (Whether
this is sung in soprano, or sneered like a member of the TV mob family
the Sopranos--isn't clear--but in either case it's laughable), "Race
isn't the point (about immigration), so drop it. Now." Sorry, Mr.
Goldberg, race is the point, and many of us are not going to drop it.
Ever. Let me tell you why we won't drop it.
A physical nation can be compared to a soup pot. The character of the soup in the pot doesn't depend on the pot, but on what you put in the pot, usually according to a recipe. Deviate from that recipe and you'll end up with a different soup, even though the pot is the same. It's about proportions of ingredients. Chicken soup requires a predominance of chicken. Change the proportions in the soup and you'll end up with something else. That's what's happening with America today. We're ending up with something else. And this something else can be seen in our violent crime rates, our declining quality of life, our growing homeless population and much more. America is being transformed into a Third World nation by the Third Worlders who made their old Third World nations the places that wanted to flee.
recipe that made America great, contained a far greater percentage of
white people in the pot than are in the pot today. That's not opinion.
It's a fact. Yet, many people don't want to face that fact. America
was a new Europe--it was peopled and built by some of the genetically
boldest Europeans who were unchained from centuries of European tradition
and whose genes sent them forth to a new land. Over the years, other
non-Europeans came to these shores, but their numbers were small enough
so that they constituted the spice in the recipe, not the dominant ingredients.
With massive Third World immigration that is changing. The spice is
now overwhelming the other ingredients.
Many of these aracial people who want to deny the reality of race and genes will talk about blood lines of race horses or pedigrees of dogs and cats or even of growing certain varieties of flowers, yet they seem oblivious that all of these things involve genes, and that these living things are as they are because of their genes. However, when some of these very same people talk about humans, they seem to believe that genes don't matter.All immigrants are not the same. We, as a nation, need to let in those we want to let in, and keep out those we want to keep out. Does this involve selecting people we want to let in based on genetic considerations? You bet it does. Genes are the most important element in all of life. It's time we started preserving the recipe for America that works.
# # #