Why opposing immigration is not about 'whiteness'



If the Ku Klux Klan’s continued existence in the United States is unsettling, its emergence in Ireland is almost surreal. Yet here we are in a time when reality is much stranger than fiction.

Frank L. Silva, a former KKK member, has been actively collaborating with anti-establishment groups in Ireland, sparking media outrage and widespread head-scratching. Silva’s history shows how the Klan has evolved from its post-Civil War roots to modern offshoots. The dark irony here is impossible to overlook.

Irish immigrants were depicted in political cartoons as brutish, animalistic figures, often described as 'negroes turned inside out.'

You see, the Klan’s ties to Irish identity and the very concept of “whiteness” go way back.

The fighting Irish

The 19th century saw waves of Irish immigrants fleeing the Great Famine only to find themselves vilified upon arrival in America. The Ku Klux Klan, with its roots deeply entwined with anti-Catholic sentiment, exploited this wave of Irish immigration to fuel fear and division. Irish Catholics were portrayed as a threat to Protestant values and, by extension, to the American people.

If there’s one thing the Irish love — beside drinking, dancing, cursing, joking, and singing — it’s a good fight. Recognizing the threat, they met it head-on, fists raised.

One striking example of Irish defiance was the Notre Dame student uprising of 1924. When a Klan rally was held near their campus, Irish Catholic students stood their ground, showing strength in the face of real danger.

"But weren’t the Irish 'white'?" some of today's crusading anti-racists may ask. "Wasn’t the Klan all about preserving and promoting “white supremacy”?

This is where a little history lesson is in order.

White privilege?

In 19th-century America, Irish immigrants were not considered “white” in the same sense as Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were perceived as racially inferior due to a mix of religious, cultural, and economic biases.

Arriving destitute and in droves, Irish immigrants were seen as competition for low-wage jobs in rapidly urbanizing cities. Their willingness to work for less fueled native workers' resentment and economic anxiety — sound familiar?

Religious tension deepened these divisions. In a country founded on Protestant ideals, Irish Catholics were viewed as agents of the Vatican, a foreign power. This suspicion, stoked by groups such as the Know-Nothing Party, painted Irish Catholics as potential saboteurs of American democracy — loyal not to the United States but to Rome. The notion that the Irish could undermine governance gained traction in certain circles, giving weight to the Klan’s anti-Irish campaigns.

The animosity, while harsh, had roots in primal instincts — tribalism. A group of newcomers with strange accents and unfamiliar customs seemed wholly different. From an evolutionary standpoint, the suspicion made complete sense. Welcoming a complete stranger into your home with open arms is, at best, unwise. At worst, it can be disastrous.

However, the backlash against the Irish was extreme and largely detached from reality. Cultural narratives and pseudoscientific theories added fuel to the fire. Irish immigrants were depicted in political cartoons as brutish, animalistic figures, often described as “negroes turned inside out.”

This comparison underscored their perceived moral and intellectual inferiority, supporting the belief that they threatened societal stability. Books like "Comparative Physiognomy" perpetuated these stereotypes, further entrenching the racialization of the Irish and positioning them below the dominant white Protestant identity.

Franklin’s foresight

Earlier this year, the brilliant Steve Sailer revisited Benjamin Franklin’s essay “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind,” a polemic opposing the influx of German immigrants into Pennsylvania. Franklin worried that these newcomers would resist assimilation into English-speaking society, potentially reshaping the colony with their own customs and language rather than blending in and strengthening a unified culture. Less melting pot, more splintered silos.

Franklin’s fear was entirely reasonable. Shared skin color was no assurance of shared values or a cohesive society. The threat, as he saw it, was not merely foreign influence but the fracturing of what he considered the cultural fabric of early America.

This notion holds a striking parallel to modern debates. The idea that “white privilege” is a uniform experience ignores the varied and often tumultuous paths of European-descended populations. The Irish’s suffering during the Great Famine, the persecution of Eastern European Jews, or the challenges faced by Southern and Eastern European immigrants all challenge the monolithic narrative of privilege.

The only thread connecting these people was their shared hope for a better life. That’s it. They faced prejudice, economic struggle, and cultural exclusion. “Whiteness” has never been, and will never be, a simple, unified identity. True racism lies in denying this reality.

Franklin’s fears resonate in today’s world. The genuine celebration of diversity — a blend of backgrounds and traditions — has been warped by ideologies that prioritize superficial traits over shared cultural values.

Not that long ago, before the hyper-progressive mind virus took hold, we sought to respect differences while finding stable common ground.

Now, it’s about men in skirts, pronouns, and 700 different genders.

Degeneracy has taken the place of diversity.

EU-inspired erosion

The assumption that shared skin color equates to cultural uniformity is as flawed now as it was in Franklin’s era. This brings us to the larger consequence of global immigration and cultural dilution.

Once unique, robust cultures such as those in Germany and Ireland are now grappling with the consequences of globalization’s unchecked march. Mass immigration, driven by open-border policies and economic interests, has accelerated cultural erosion at an alarming rate.

The very essence of these nations’ identities is being submerged under the weight of Brussels-bred conformity. Franklin’s warning about cultural displacement, voiced over two centuries ago, feels prophetic today. The results of unfettered globalization can be seen in the loss of distinct identities and the rise of tensions that hark back to the very divisions that defined the Irish struggle in America.

The question is, how much will be lost before nations recognize the cost?

The re-election of Donald Trump offers the United States a glimmer of hope. But in Europe, hope is in short supply. In fact, one could argue it vanished years ago.

Don't miss Levin's new book, 'The Democrat Party Hates America'



What has Mark Levin been up to for the last 16 months?

Beside bringing Americans thoughtful takes on the doom and gloom news cycle, he’s been putting pen to paper for his new book, "The Democrat Party Hates America."

In the book, Levin reveals the sinister history of the Democrat Party — from the Confederate rebels to the Ku Klux Klan to modern-day American Marxism — and why we must all band together to bring it down.

“If we are going to save this country, and I truly mean it, the Democrat Party must not just be defeated, it must be obliterated,” Levin says.

Levin believes the Democrat Party hates America because “it’s never embraced Americanism.”

“Is it the pro-constitution part today? No. Bill of Rights? No. Private property rights? No. Individualism? No, they’re for groupism. Capitalism? No, they hate capitalism,” Levin continues.

Whatever the right believes, Democrats believe the opposite, Levin argues.

“They believe in critical race theory, promoting racism, enshrining racism.”

He adds that while the Democrat Party claims to be in favor of women's rights, it has strayed far from actually helping women.

“Now they hate women with transgenderism destroying women’s sports under Title IX, which was intended to support it,” he says.

However, it’s not just women that the left is after. Levin dedicates some of his new book to explaining how the left doesn’t care for any Americans.

“Joe Biden talks up foreigners even before they come into this country while he trashes at least half of the American citizens on a regular basis.”

“This book, ‘The Democrat Party Hates America,’” Levin explains, “is not intended to be provocative, but in the Democrat Party-centric parts of our society, it undoubtedly will be.”

But he didn’t write it for Democrats.

“It is not written for Democrat Party officials, politicians, media, sycophants, activists, and surrogates — it’s written for you: those patriotic Americans who fear for our country and its future.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before —subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden’s Complete Reversal On LGBT Issues Proves He’s In It For The Money

Throughout his career, Biden has been happy to mold his politics around whatever will earn him the most money and power.

Black Republican Uses AR-15 To Confront ‘Angry Democrats In Klan Hoods’ In Campaign Ad

'Democrats like to say that no one needs an AR-15 for self defense'

Squires: If Democrats peeked under the hood of ‘white supremacy,’ they’d find a mirror, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama



Democrats have accused white conservatives of being racist for decades, but now they have identified an even more dangerous group of advocates for white supremacy: black people.

That line of attack was used against Larry Elder during his recall election, Condoleezza Rice after she criticized critical race theory, and Winsome Sears after she became the first black lieutenant governor in Virginia's history.

Most people don't believe a black person running for public office would do anything to intentionally hurt himself, family, or community. Part of the problem is the extent to which the term "white supremacy" has been stretched to encompass things that no American associates with race.

White supremacy has historically meant the belief in the inherent superiority of white people (i.e., people of European descent) over non-whites. The use of that term was applied to the justification for American chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racial discrimination. White supremacy was also associated with intense racial violence, including lynchings, church bombings, and other racially motivated attacks carried out by white people against black citizens throughout American history.

No group epitomized the ideology of white supremacy in this country more than the Ku Klux Klan, and no image captured their moral deprivation and spiritual bankruptcy more than a burning cross. What makes the ideology of white supremacy so toxic is that it assumes some of God's created beings are better than others because of something as insignificant as skin color.

Using white supremacy to describe political opinions Democrats don't like is immoral. It trivializes real acts of racial terror in the past and minimizes the progress the country has made on race. It also incentivizes Americans to attack the very things (e.g., strong families, quality education) we need for the republic to survive.

That is why it is worth honestly assessing major positions on the Left and Right, expressed through culture and policy, to determine whether any of them advance notions of white superiority or black inferiority today.

Regarding the family, the 2020 Republican platform states, "Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values."

The 2020 Democratic platform only mentions marriage one time, in connection to the practice of forced marriages in other cultures.

Democrats do not see the nuclear family as a necessary ingredient for positive social and economic outcomes. Their platform and rhetoric reflect a worldview that believes the government can play the role of provider that has traditionally been the responsibility of husbands and fathers.

Another issue closely linked to the family is abortion. The differences between the two parties could not be clearer. Republicans are generally opposed to abortion and want to repeal Roe v. Wade. Democrats seek to codify the landmark Supreme Court decision to prevent state laws from restricting abortion. Several states, including New York and Illinois, have legalized abortion up until the point of birth.

Education is another area where distinctions are clear. Conservative support for school choice, including public charter schools and voucher programs, is based on the belief that parents know what education options are best for their children. Some liberals are in favor of school choice, but many others want to limit charter schools and oppose vouchers because both are seen as competition by the teachers' unions that overwhelmingly support Democrats.

The left also believes in injecting race essentialism and gender ideology into K-12 classrooms. Large urban school districts across the country are eliminating entrance exams for specialized schools, gifted programs, and grades in the name of equity.

Crime also provides an opportunity to see the differences between conservatives and leftists, both in rhetoric and policy. The conservative response to an increase in crime, including violent offenses, is typically a call for more police officers and law enforcement resources. The left's response in recent years has been defunding, decriminalization, and de-incarceration. Democrats see American policing as a leading cause of racial disparities in incarceration but ignore the fact that black people are disproportionately the victims of violent crime.

The differences in worldview extend to culture as well. The left completely supports public displays of sexuality in music, movies, television, or awards shows. Leftists even promote it to children through Drag Queen Story Hour and LGBTQ messaging in shows for toddlers. Conservatives typically support parents who see these things as inappropriate for young children.

Prominent liberal outlets like Teen Vogue also support prostitution, pornography, and other forms of sex work. Conservatives have been on the other side arguing that the body was made for more than performing degrading sex acts for money.

My question to any Democrat who cynically accuses conservatives of promoting white supremacy is simple: Whose worldview would a grand wizard endorse?

Would he applaud a pro-abortion agenda that leads to half of all black babies in New York City being aborted or support a pro-life platform that would lead to a larger black population in America?

Would he call for defunding the police in response to the murders of black people living in high-crime neighborhoods? Perhaps he would be like Democratic Rep. Cori Bush and call for defunding the police for the black citizens being killed at a rate seven times higher than white while paying $70,000 over two months for private security.

Given the link between family structure and social outcomes, would he want more children raised by single mothers or nuclear families? Would he see strong black men who love their wives and are dedicated to their families as a threat or an asset?

Would he endorse a hip-hop culture that uses black artists to promote murder, misogyny, and drug abuse to black teens enticed by money and fame? If he did, would he also volunteer his daughter to have her body groped on camera by artists?

Would he think being white is a "privilege"? Would he see anything that is all-black as segregated and inherently inferior?

Would he want black students subjected to lower standards in school by teachers eliminating high standards for the sake of equity? Would he be happy to learn that wealthy liberals like the Obamas and Bidens send their children to expensive private schools while blocking similar opportunities for low-income black students?

These are all questions Americans should ask themselves if one party is committed to using a term as loaded as "white supremacy" as a rhetorical cudgel. I bet many would be surprised to find out who's behind the sheets.

ANALYSIS: Democrats Are Promoting A Huge Lie About The Texas Anti-CRT Bill

Democrats 'just want to point their fingers at the Republicans'

Alan Dershowitz compares Maxine Waters rhetoric to that of the Ku Klux Klan’s toward juries in the ’50s and ’60s



Alan Dershowitz, legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney, said Tuesday that California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters' words encouraging demonstrators to rise up over the Derek Chauvin trial is no different than the Ku Klux Klan trying to intimidate juries in the mid-20th century.

Over the weekend, Waters said that if a jury does not find Chauvin guilty, protesters and demonstrators have to "stay in the street" and "fight for justice."

"We've got to get more active," she added. "You've got to get more confrontational. You've got to make sure that they know we mean business."

What are the details?

In a Tuesday morning appearance on Newsmax, Dershowitz said that Waters' tactics were no different than that of the Ku Klux Klan toward juries in the 1950s and 1960s.

"Her message was clearly intended to get to the jury. If you acquit, or if you find a charge less than murder, we will burn down your buildings. We will burn down your businesses. We will attack you," he said. "This was an attempt to intimidate the jury. It's borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan of the 1930s and 1920s when the Klan would march outside of courthouses and threaten all kinds of reprisals if the jury ever dare convict a white person or acquit a black person. And so efforts to intimidate a jury should result in a mistrial."

Dershowitz later insisted that the judge would never grant a mistrial in this case, because then he would be responsible for any ensuing riots, "even though it was Waters who was responsible."

"That's not the way the system of justice should operate," the Harvard professor added, according to Mediaite. "We're not under the rule of law in Minneapolis, we're under the rule of the crowd."

"The irony of what Congresswoman Waters did, she borrowed the playbook of the Ku Klux Klan from the 1920s, the 1930s," he added. "They would stand outside of courtrooms and they would threatened violence if any juror would ever acquit, a black person or convict a white person."

"Now we're seeing exactly the opposite was seeing mobs outside the courthouse and was seeing members of congress just like the Klan had governors and senators and very prominent public officials demanding verdicts in particular cases is and now we have a member of Congress demanding a verdict in the case," he insisted.

Waters' tactics similar to KKK | Alan Dershowitzwww.youtube.com