Replies

I really enjoy your posts.

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

Thank you for your book on immigration. I have about one third of the way through and find it quite interesting. I view unrestricted immigration as one more arrow in the leftists' quiver to be deployed in their war against Western civilization. Other weapons of the left we have defined is cultural Marxism, relativism, multiculturalism etc. they seek to break down the foundation stones of our society: family, Church, nation.

Below I offer two citations of two remarkable essays by Commander Atkinson United States Navy (retired)

> Dr. Atkinson's post military service crusade is breathtaking in its hypothesis: The cultural war being waged by the left is not a series of skirmishes spontaneous and diffuse in origin but the calculated campaign of a core conspiracy.

The core conspiracy was originally founded in 1923 by a Soros-like multimillionaire who funded a group of Jewish Communist intellectuals by creating the School for Social Research. Cultural Marxism metastasized to Spain, Great Britain, and the United States as these Jews were disbursed in a kind of Communist diaspora. Able, even gifted, these intellectuals insinuated themselves into America's important institutions including academia, journalism, and the OSS where they gained astonishing influence as they waged their war on the institutions of America. The original charter of the Frankfurt School was to undermine those institutions which in their view had succeeded in preventing the expected communist revolution from spreading to Germany from Russia. These institutions included, first, the family, which constitutes the nuclear building block of society. If one can destroy the family one has nearly succeeded in undermining the whole of traditional society. Hence the scorn heaped on the "leave it to beaver" family of the 1950s. Such a structure is anathema to the left.

The next institution which they seek to destroy is the church, both Catholic and evangelical, for this is the institution which consecrates the family and justifies it. Hence the relentless war waged by Hollywood against figures of these churches like preachers and priests.

Their eschatology is as breathtaking as the scope of the conspiracy, that is, they have sent out to change the way man sees his world. This is the "deconstructive" aspect of the conspiracy. It undertakes, first, to tear down and tear apart every value and every tradition upon which we rely. As both a tool and an end goal Freudianism has been wielded like a battle ax to bludgeon the modern psyche. It's evil twin, relativism, makes the seduction of the modern mind complete. With one foot in Freudianism and the other stuck in the relativism, modern man, without faith in God, is sinking in quicksand and is virtually defenseless to every new siren.

When one reads Atkinson's series of essays on this subject is clear that he believes that this state of affairs is the product of nothing less than a conspiracy. It is this part of his thesis which I find fascinating. Is there such a conspiracy? How big is it? Who are the generals and who are the foot soldiers, who share the conspiracy and who are merely willing dupes, the useful idiots of the Frankfurt School ?

I am quite aware that when one utters the "C" Word one practically begs at best to be blackguarded as a McCarthyite, or, at worst, crowned with a tinfoil hat. Nevertheless, I believe as a conservative that it is imperative that we understand the nature of the opposition. Are we fighting a virus whose DNA lurks somewhere deep in the spinal column, or are all the battles in the cultural war unrelated "whack a mole" eruptions which can be resisted ad hoc?

Whether conspiracy or not, it is clear that every tactic in the cultural war waged by the left at least coincidentally advances the strategy of Marxism and that point should be made plain to every American citizen who exercises his franchise.

Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html

WHO PLACED AMERICAN MEN IN A PSYCHIC "IRON CAGE"

The Thread of culture Marxism

By Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson

http://lesbianstudies.com/oldsite/frankfurt.htm