David French is my reverse moral compass.



What Would French Do or Say is a good way of recognizing what is utterly fake, stupid, and harmful.



What Would French *Not* Do Or Say is a good way of opening up space for serious thinking. https://t.co/7429MmZjy5 — Richard ?? Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) June 6, 2019

Honestly, this might be my favorite tweet, ever. I welcome your enmity, racist. https://t.co/4Q3hhLkAI1 — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 7, 2019

Now watch:

Amy Wax thinks that a immigration policy should privilege Europeans as culturally compatible with the U.S.



I disagree. European civilization is different from American civilization. Many immigrants from other regions are more compatible than Europeans: https://t.co/CQ8FJ8ua0Y — David French (@DavidAFrench) July 22, 2019

This is a True Con take on immigration that is so awful that you don’t even have to be told that it was David French who wrote it. The only people in America who are stupid enough to find this a compelling argument and to publish an article about it are conservative pundits.

National Review:

“Last week at the National Conservatism Conference, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax stirred up controversy with a comment about immigration that, yanked out of context, seemed clearly racist. In context, it’s not racist. It’s just wrong. And the reason it’s wrong should help us understand a vital truth: American civilization is now quite clearly distinct from European civilization, and that’s a good thing indeed. … My own views are simple: American culture is so distinct that no single world region mimics it. American culture is so powerful that assimilation is the natural (but not immediate) immigrant process. It’s not the “dirt” that’s magical, but the ideas and opportunity that exist on this dirt are extraordinarily potent. They’ve been potent for more than two centuries, and they remain potent still. … Since skilled immigrants do well regardless of their race or country of origin, we should bias our system in their favor while continuing the American tradition of compassion for refugees fleeing oppression abroad. But Europe is not our cultural match. In many ways it’s our cultural rival, and any immigration system biased in its favor will socially engineer increased secularism into our national DNA.”

I’m not going to even respond to French’s arguments.

I’m just going to point and laugh. If this is the “conservative liberal” position on immigration, then it is worthless and unworthy of our support. The “conservative base” doesn’t want Frenchism either. It wants a nationalist immigration policy to slow changing racial demographics.

Europe has a lot of problems. It has those problems because it has the same system that we do in the United States: liberal capitalist democracy. Similarly, Europe has nationalist movements which are reacting to the same problems because the system produces the same grievances everywhere.

Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism destroys the social fabric and the racial, religious, cultural and ethnic foundations of society over time in the pursuit of unlimited greed and bending organic cultures to abstract principles. “Conservative liberalism” is an oxymoron.

French wants to conserve liberalism. We want to preserve the aspects of our civilization that existed before liberalism. This is the heart of the divide.