If this is not your first visit to MR, you are doubtless already aware that we are here to express concerns about the unfortunate and reflexive tendency of modern Masons to bend to common leftist narratives, mostly revolving around abstractions such as tolerance and equality.
Regrettably, equality does not exist, unless we are equal before the law. But everyone equally capable? Rubbish. Tolerance does exist, but we do not think it means what you think it means.
The Founders of my country were quite explicit that they established their government to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, not for the poor and wretched the world over. That was a Gallic trick, from which we have yet to fully recover. But the good news is we are finally beginning to recover, and Masonic Reaction is here to spread the news to our brethren of the new, Alternative Right. The Neoreactionary Right. The purpose is not to exclude, but to appreciate the subtleties that differentiate the classical understanding of tolerance within an English, Christian nation, and the modern, Progressive notion that being tolerant denies the existence of a common stock, a shared language, and shared traditions or that the preceding exist only inasmuch as they are enforced through racism and oppression.
We are here to remind our brothers that this land is more than an idea; it is a nation, forged and tempered from the nations of Europe, but in the English mold. While we have allowed others to join us in the past, we owe no debt payable by allowing further immigration, which would further divide us. It is enough to note that immigration in the last 50 years has given us 50 million foreigners. The next time someone says to you we must allow more foreigners to live here, ask them why? Do we owe someone? Do they have a right to live here?
Allowing such large scale immigration is not particularly American.
Allowing it is not particularly Masonic.
It is suicide. Germany is experiencing this now. Watch as the Saxon begins to hate.
Being tolerant is not the same thing as allowing vast hordes into your neighborhood, city, county or state.
My duty to my country guides my thinking here. I am a steward of this nation. It is not mine to give away. Nor is it American to do so. It is my duty to preserve the blessings of liberty for myself, my countrymen, and our posterity. Not for Russians, Mexicans or Syrians. How do we square this patriotic duty with our Masonic teachings?
If I meet a Syrian man in Lodge, I greet him as a friend and brother. I do not, however, work to settle thousands (or even hundreds) of refugees from Syria in America, my home country. Neither do I passively watch as these things are done. This is an important distinction. We can simultaneously be accepting of a brother, while politely declining his extended family and friends residency in our nation. But how? Isn’t America a “nation of immigrants”? Sure it is.
Even if true, does that mean that we must always, at all times, continue to bring in more and more people? In a word, no. How to keep them out though?
Let’s discuss property rights for a moment. This concept is well established in our law. Any person may morally and legally bar anyone from entering his home, at any time and for any reason. This is an individual right. Similarly, a group of individuals who own adjacent properties or homes may do the same, restricting entry to any and all. Admittedly, this sort of explicit covenant agreement is less recognized today. But the theory holds up; a group of individual landowners come together and decide that only certain persons are welcome on that land.
The people in power, whether Democrat or Republican (except Trump) disagree. If you disagree with them, or their agenda of Third World Uber Alles, you are a hater, a bigot, and they will destroy you if they can.
Why then cannot a larger group of people decide the same for their town, state or (distinct from state) nation? Where is the line drawn? Most Americans are solid on the concept of private property, but where do we draw the line between an individual’s right to his property and the community’s rights to the same? Do Americans have a collective right (ownership, in other words) to these United States? Your answer to that question is very important, and it likely informs your worldview.
Examine this belief. Where does it come from? Whether you admit it or not, you would not want to live in a neighborhood full of Somalis or Syrians. Ponder this, my brother. Where does it lead you?