RE: SHOULD WE STILL FIGHT FOR IMMIGRATION CONTROL? ...NOPE

by Matt Parrott

Over at American Renaissance, somebody has finally made an effort to rally White Nationalists to recommence fighting within the system for immigration control. Hubert Collins’ “Should We Still Fight for Immigration Control?” notes that the movement consensus has radically shifted on this subject within the last couple years, from being the one thing we all agree we should be doing to being the one thing we all agree we should stop doing. The shift is certainly abrupt, and the discussion about this shift in movement groupthink certainly deserves more debate than it’s had; but in attempting to articulate the seemingly straightforward case for our supporting immigration control, Mr. Collins ends up confirming just how weak the case for fighting for immigration control actually is.

Every single word in his question, “Should We Still Fight for Immigration Control?” is wrong.

SHOULD

‘Should’ implies agency and activity. The White Nationalist “movement” has none of that. To declare that a subject “should” do one thing or another requires the subject to be capable of doing things. There’s no evidence of this. After decades of grandiose thinking and grandiloquent speaking, nothing distinguishes those who insist that White Nationalism is alive from the pet shop clerk in the Monty Python sketch who insists that the parrot is alive.

White Nationalism neither should nor shouldn’t fight for immigration control because this monolithic movement is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s pushing up daisies, pining for the fjords...

WE

The implied “we” is “White Nationalists,” I presume. More broadly, anybody and everybody who believes that white folks in North America have a right and duty to carry on existing. “We” have very little in common, and we have less and less in common with each passing year as the shadow of dementia and death grows over yesteryear’s aging paleocon plurality. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Pat Buchanan is a mortal human who’s quite advanced in age, and nobody even comes close to his intellect, charm, and institutional access to promote the paleocon position.

I have more respect for Pat than I do for any other white advocate alive today. But I don’t think even Pat would claim that his political prerogative of righting the course of the American state toward a healthy future for its White Christian majority has succeeded or has much hope at this point. As far as I’m concerned, the moment he sets down his pen will be the exact moment when we can definitively declare that the American project is officially over. Paleocons who believe there’s utility in conventional struggle within the contemporary institutions will remain, but only as a sad cargo cult of crypt keepers who refuse to accept reality.

The paleocon plurality of White Nationalism is giving way to a diverse assortment of radically different factions with nothing in common except for the conviction that white interests are to be promoted. They don’t even have a general agreement on what “white interests” even are. There is no longer a coherent “we.” Our “Death to America” position over here at TradYouth is considered downright mundane and expected by the younger generation of white advocates who’ve grown up in an age where “America” has always been a globalist multicultural liberal machine, and it’s proof that we’re outright crazy and dangerous to those older white advocates who vaguely recall the distant memory from their youth when “America” was implicitly white.

The rift between the “Take America Back” faction and the “We Don’t Want it Back” faction has grown to the point that any kind of “we” can’t be much more than a thin superstrate over two very different movements. And within the latter faction of folks who are prepared to move beyond America, there are dozens of generally hostile and incompatible neo-tribalist factions with little in common. The mission of Traditionalist Youth Network is to get out in front of this and create a common space for a broad range of identitarian and traditionalist projects to promote our shared goals and present a united front to the enemies of identity and tradition, but chasing lizards and herding cats is easier than getting folk religionists and the varied denominations of Christian identitarians and traditionalists working together.

STILL

We never started, we stopped trying to start, and there’s no “we” to start. “Still” is a misleading misnomer falsely implying some sort of fight has been going on and could hypothetically continue going on.

FIGHT

It’s been demonstrated beyond reputable dispute that the current system is too rigged against immigration control for any “fight” within the system to pay political dividends. Despite the majority of Americans wishing for more immigration restrictions, it’s very difficult to find a candidate willing to stake out a restrictionist position in the elections. If you find one willing, he’s unlikely to win once the agribusiness lobbyists, minority advocacy networks, and Organized Jewish community throw their weight behind his opponent. And if he wins, he’s unlikely to actually stand by his campaign promises once he’s actually in office. If he does do so, he’s likely to be thwarted by parliamentary procedures and party intrigue. And if he overcomes that and gets his immigration restriction signed into law, the leftist activist judiciary will shred it. Even if it overcomes the judicial blockade, it simply won’t be enforced at the executive level.

There are things which can be accomplished through the political process, but immigration restriction strikes too closely at the heart of the interests of Organized Jewry and neo-colonial corporate interests to be tolerated by the system. We’ve seen this process play out too many times to deny that it’s the case. To pretend that there’s “hope” in fighting in this manner is strategically irresponsible. There’s hope in fighting and a good fight must be fought whether it’s winnable or not. But we fighters have an obligation to adapt our tactics to the strategic realities of our situation, a situation in which fighting for immigration control within conventional American politics is a futile waste of precious energy, resources, and morale.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL

For those who have given up on America as a potential vehicle for promoting White interests, the Rio Grande proves as shallow and dried up of a geopolitical reality as the river itself. In fact, Jan Stadler recently wrote a compelling article over at the kinist Faith and Heritage website entitled, “Latin America: The Refuge for White Survival?” The “Death to America” epiphany opens a vista of neo-tribalist answers to the question of white survival, answers which often invert the assumption that immigration and emigration are antithetical to white interests. If we can develop communities which are truly fertile and functional, then those communities can potentially survive in America’s chocolate future, or migrate to regions outside of the United States which have yet to become magnets for non-white migration.

Ultimately, “immigration” is a secondary problem. Just as a man with AIDS is more likely to complain of sores on his back and fungal infections in his mouth than he is of the root cause, Americans are more likely to complain about the opportunistic invasion of third world migrants than they are of the failure of vitality and will to survive which has created the opportunity in the first place. After all, merely a century ago, the Mexican border was Mexico’s problem, because we were healthier and more vital than that country. With a resolution of our spiritual crisis and a reawakening of our vitality, we can once again become a people who favor “open borders” because we’re the ones crowding ourselves out of our homeland and ambitiously expanding.

CONCLUSION

I fully agree with Hubert Collins that “Worse is Better” is a dangerous and defeatist mantra. I also agree with him that we can’t just assume that shock waves of third world migrants will reliably awaken white identity and provoke an effective response. Oftentimes worse is indeed just worse, and oftentimes people are invaded, displaced, and replaced without an effective response. After all, shock waves of white migrants into the American continent didn’t rally the Amerindians together for an effective response, despite the valiant efforts of Chiefs Pontiac, Tecumseh, and others. Sitting around patiently awaiting some sort of Hegelian meta-historical antithesis of the current trends is the worst sort of paralyzing sophistry that our movement should indeed reject.

Unlike Mr. Collins, I believe in a political future here in America which aligns with the changes in technology, social networks, and politics already rapidly taking hold both here and abroad; a future in which power is dramatically decentralized as political technology succumbs to the massive distribution which is steadily transforming every other aspect of economics, sociology, and daily life in the world today. “America” is proving too cumbersome, bulky, and monolithic to succeed in the agile, open source, and neo-tribal world that’s taking shape. The fight for immigration control belongs to yesterday’s white dissidents. Tomorrow’s white dissidents share a common struggle to develop and advance their diverse array of distinct neo-tribal white communities.


Colin Liddell Note (2023): Reading this article today, it essentially reads like a Kremlin-op screed. Basically it's saying decentralize America because its "cumbersome, bulky, and monolithic" while neglecting to advocate the same thing for the even more "cumbersome, bulky, and monolithic"  Russia, which the writer implicitly thinks isn't centralised enough.
Essentially some degree of immigration restriction is a stabilising force for America, as are attempts to integrate non-White groups into the nation by altering the national culture (removal of Confederate symbols, etc.) and should be viewed in Geopolitical terms.