Lionel Shriver, DJT, et al. on Mass, Unregulated Immigration and the Death of Europe

link

To repeat myself, IMO there's basically a two-tiered organization on the left, which can be roughly (though without bright clear dividing lines) divided into [1] the radical, nihilistic/communist vanguard, and [2] more ordinary, less-radical progressive majority (that is: majority among progressives, not among the entire population). The radical vanguard seeks the destruction of the West via propagating ideas like the Cloward-Piven strategy. Note that they are quite up-front about this. This radical vanguard recognizes mass, unregulated immigration as a method of destroying the liberal democracies and, especially, the roughly European world and, especially the USA. The trailing edge of progressivism doesn't seek destruction of the West, and wouldn't go along with it...so the leading edge translates Death to America into emotional appeals to kindness: Oh, those poor people...

   But the trailing edge has been brainwashed into accepting political correctness, the subordination of truth and reason to leftist politics. The left has adopted the Oh, those poor people view, as well as multiculturalism. Having adopted such views, the left [a] suppresses evidence of the destructive consequences of these views, and [b] refuses to acknowledge the evidence that does happen to slip through. Non-Westerners are good, and mass immigration is good, and multiculturalism is good, and any evidence to the contrary is racist--and you are racist if you do acknowledge that evidence. Mass, unregulated, Third-World immigration by feral young men simply doesn't exist. The left doesn't want to hear about it--and even if they do, they have been trained to simply not allow it to show up on their radar. If they did see what is before their eyes, they would regard themselves as racists--the very worst thing one can be.

   What the left has decided to value is good. It must be good. No amount of evidence can ever refute that. It is better to burn down the West and bring back a world of barbaric religion and unrestrained totalitarian government than to risk any suggestion that you might be racist--no matter how insane and unjustified. Hey, mass 

   Me, I'd like a world in which we can all live together in harmony despite cultural and racial/ethnic differences. But I'm not capable of simply ignoring the evidence that this isn't the way things are. And I'm not willing to risk the destruction of the West, science, and liberalism. And the solution is basically just to follow the damn law. We have immigration laws--but the left insists that we not stick to them. They insist that their crackpot, radically counterfactual view of humanity be affirmed now matter how obviously insane it is.

   What we need is to leave people to cluster into their ordinary, more-or-less natural clusters--to allow them to live in their own nations, with some degree of interpenetration. That's about as liberal as things can get. We can either have this kind rational, evidence-based, limited cohabitation...or we can have the destruction of the West and liberalism.

   If the U.S. is going to survive, it has to eschew open borders and go back to limited, regulated immigration with vetting. But, as the conservatives say: Import the Third World, become the Third World. Moderate, regulated immigration with vetting--and time for assimilation--strengthens the nation, liberalism, humanity and the world. Mass, unregulated, progressive-style immigration will lead to catastrophe.

   Even if you don't believe this--and I'd be willing to change my mind in the face of actual evidence--conservatism is the rational strategy here: we must not suddenly adopt a radical deviation from the status quo because a bunch of radicals with orange hair take to the streets shrieking RACIST at us. We could begin to study the problem and evaluate the radical leftist open-borders alternative...but only adopt it in the face of basically ironclad evidence and experimentation in its favor. That is: if we concluded that it would not destroy the world. Which evidence, of course, will never actually show up, because the view is nuts. But aside from that: the left does not want to actually submit its almost-uniformly-insane views to inquiry. That would queer the whole deal in their eyes. Half the point is radical, sudden change as a leap of faith. To require actual inquiry into the costs and benefits of their dogmas is to already have lost the faith. Evidence is racist, bigot.

   To repeat myself again: the slogan of the contemporary left is or ought to be Credo quia absurdum est.