859 words

People on the real right are correct to be skeptical of the phony right. The leaders of the phony right are suffered or promoted by the establishment because they do not threaten it.

The phony right are obsessed with maintaining their status as a “respectable” opposition, a status awarded by their enemies. But the only respectable opposition is an ineffectual opposition.

The phony right send mixed and misleading messages. They get people asking the wrong questions and fighting the wrong enemies. They channel genuine discontent into fake causes. They take idealism, activism, and resources that could threaten the system . . . and waste them.

The current controversy about building a mosque near “Ground Zero”—the site of the World Trade Center buildings destroyed on September 11, 2001—has all the marks of a phony right campaign: orchestrated by Jews and propagated by Fox News to stir up hatred against Muslims and grease the way for more war in the Middle East.

Even using the term “Ground Zero” is grotesque. It was originally coined to describe the centers of the atomic blasts that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At these “Grounds Zero,” more than 150,000 people were immediately killed, and as many as 250,000 additional victims died in the following years: more people in two cities than the entire US military lost in the Second World War.

Yet in the baffling arithmetic of moral imbecility, when 3,000 odd Americans die in Manhattan, that is “Ground Zero” too. I remember the stampede to cash in on America’s newfound collective victimhood, which is the coin of entitlement in our morally inverted realm. No doubt “Ground Zero” would have been called America’s “Holocaust” if Jews were not so zealous in maintaining their trademark and their status as the world’s supreme victims, which entitles them to be the world’s supreme bullies.

The events of 9/11 have been used to justify nearly a decade of US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars have killed, wounded, displaced, and aggrieved millions of Muslims. Thus playing the 9/11 victim card to stop the construction of a mosque can only be seen a moral obscenity, and not just in the eyes of the Muslim world.

But it is worse than an obscenity, it is a mistake. It is evil to be a dealer of death and destruction the world over. Yet such a bully is at least feared, and from fear comes a grudging respect. But a global bully who wallows in self pity over a comparative hangnail is contemptible. And it is not wise to make oneself contemptible as well as hated.

That said, the “Ground Zero” mosque controversy has some unintended good consequences for White America.

1. The “Ground Zero” mosque controversy exposes the moral imbecility of liberalism, classical and contemporary.

On August 13, 2010, Barack Obama endorsed the mosque in front of a Muslim audience at “the annual White House Iftar dinner” (WTF?) celebrating the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The next day, Obama retreated from his endorsement by claiming that he was merely commenting on the rights of Muslims to religious freedom and to build the mosque on private property. Obama expressly denied that he had commented on the wisdom—i.e., the rightness—of building the mosque and claimed that he would not comment on it.

From that point on, the liberal tactic was to dodge the issue with pious harrumphing about rights, while conservatives consistently held that the issue was not “rights” but “right or wrong.” (To show that moral imbecility is not a monopoly of the left, Ron Paul also tried to reduce the whole issue to a matter of rights.)

The hardest thing to teach in today’s relativistic culture is that there is more to morality than just rights. “Rights talk” makes Americans morally stupid. But suddenly the momentous distinction between “rights” and “right or wrong” was being made loud and clear by conservative politicians and pundits.

That’s a good thing for White people, because when we stop talking about the “rights” of non-Whites and immigrants and start talking about whether multiculturalism, racial integration, and non-White immigration are “right or wrong” for this country, the political landscape will look very different, and new things will suddenly become politically possible.

2. White Americans are now demanding reciprocal “sensitivity” from outsiders.

Multiculturalism is just a euphemism for White dispossession, because only Whites are asked to tolerate other cultures, accommodate other cultures, efface and adulterate our own cultures in the name of “enrichment.” Thus the first stirrings of protest against the mosque were predictably met with a scolding about “sensitivity.” Amazingly, though, White Americans did not retreat. Instead, they demanded that Muslims be sensitive to us for a change.

Once White Americans start “taking our own side” in cultural clashes, White dispossession will be halted and reversed. Once we start demanding that other cultures tolerate us, accommodate us, enrich themselves by becoming more like us, we will see that multiculturalism is not a two way street, but a one way street leading to the dead end of racial and cultural extinction.

Will White historians 200 years from now look back and say that here, with the resistance to the “Ground Zero” mosque, the tide began to turn?