On the old blog I was frequently told by various somebodies (probably trying to sound a moderate note versus my ''immoderate'' one) that ''of course, immigrants aren't to blame; they are just pawns, being used by the Elites against us'', or some variation thereof. But by that reasoning, suppose someone is hired to break into someone else's house. Is only the person who recruits and hires him to blame, or is the one doing the actual crime not to blame at all, as he is just doing a job, or 'just a pawn'? No, both are culpable. Presumably the one who allows himself to be used (for money or for personal gain in other ways) has dishonest habits and low character, or he would not be doing the dirty work for any reason. The man being used as a pawn is also gaining by the act, in some way, so he has his own motives.
It's no different with immigrants, especially the illegal ones who jump borders, or the frauds who claim to be in danger of death when they are not, or falsely claim to be from a war-torn country. They may be ''pawns'' of the elites because the elites want Third-World warm bodies of any sort here, as many as they can possibly cram into our country. But the frauds and the illegal trespassers are willing to do illegal and immoral and hostile acts to gain entry. So all are to blame.
So why are people trying to absolve these people from any culpability, and to make it "naughty" to have a dislike for dishonest and immoral people?
Example: a comment at Vox Day's blog by someone called Irene W, referring to the ugliness of being "anti-immigrANT" vs. being "anti-immiGRATION."
It seems to me this is some kind of Republican political correctness. It's all right to be opposed to immigration, particularly the illegal kind, but not OK to be opposed to immigration per se, much less to be (horrors!) angry at the immigrants themselves.
According to this school of politically correct thought, all immigration is good, regardless of who the immigrants are, where they are from, why they are coming here, or what they do once they arrive -- as long as they ''play by the rules'' and 'wait their turn'' like ''our immigrant forefathers did."
But even those immigrants who may be here ''according to the rules'' as the Republicans always emphasize are not without their selfish and sometimes unethical motives. They are often economic migrants who think they are entitled to the gold that paves the streets in filthy-rich America, or they are revanchists like many Latinos who think this is ''their'' land that was stolen from them by our greedy ancestors, and they want to even the score. Or they are in some (too many) cases criminals fleeing to our country from their own people. Some, as we've seen, are jihadists, though they too may be here ''according to the rules'', legally.
Whether these people are moved by greed, covetousness, envy, a desire for 'revenge' against us, or the need to escape from the law in their own countries, it's clear that they are not all the halo-wearing immigrants of old movie cliche, just here to 'breathe free air' and 'make a better life for their children.'
And even if there it sounds good to limit ourselves to opposing immigration without having naughty 'negative feelings' towards those immigrating against our wishes, is it even possible to divide the actors from the undesirable act?
To my mind, this all can be traced back to the line from Mohandas Gandhi, the ''hate the sin, love the sinner'' phrase, so often used by Christians who actually think it is a line spoken by Christ himself. But search your Bible and you will not find that phrase, or anything like it.
After all, if thievery is a bad thing, why not then think the thief himself is bad? In that case don't we have cause to be angry at him, and even hate him for his actions? Likewise, if rape is bad, is it wrong to despise a rapist, especially one who has raped one of your family? This is a natural and normal reaction in that situation. Some will say we mustn't hate; we must forgive, but that's not Biblically defensible, especially when we are talking of unconditional forgiveness of an unrepentant wrongdoer.
Further, if lying and cheating are bad, why is it not logical or rational to despise or at least disdain the liar and cheat, especially if they victimize you or yours? Lying and cheating are despicable character traits. And if you can't bring yourself to experience the natural emotion of hate towards 'that which is evil' then at least would you not say that anger can be righteous towards people who do immoral and illegal and harmful things?
So how do we rationalize being 'anti-immigration' while being 'pro-immigrant' or even neutral towards immigrants? Immigrants are the doers and the actors; if immigration is something we may reasonably oppose, and which can be shown to be doing harm to us and our people, why should we not have equal indignation toward the ones who are doing the acts we oppose?
So do we overlook the role played by the Elites, the powers-that-be? Can we not blame all those responsible, the so-called 'pawns' as well as the Masterminds behind the scenes? It is not an either/or situation. It's misguided to say let's give the immigrants a pass just because they are being 'used'. We the ones being used and conned.
Labels: anti-morality, Christianity, cultural Marxism, diversity, Mass immigration