People who believe in reincarnation, whether of the Hindu or non-Hindu variety, tell us the following.

A human being is composed of two essential elements: body and spirit (or soul).  The two are intimately connected, the spirit controlling much of the behavior of the body, while the body shapes many of the feelings and attitudes of the spirit.  So intimate is the connection that you might think they are a single thing, not two things.  But you’d be wrong.  They are two.  The body is material, hence impermanent.  The spirit is immaterial, hence immortal. 

When the body dies, the spirit lives on.  But in time, the spirit becomes incarnate once again, this time in a new body.  The interval between liberation from the old body and reincarnation in a new may be a few minutes or a few years or many centuries.  It doesn’t really matter; the principle is the same.

Now, I don’t know if this theory is true or not.  But I do know that something very like reincarnation happens in the political world.

I am thinking of the “spirit” of world-revolution.  When I speak of this spirit I mean that it aims at a total revolution, probably bloody, that will so transform the world as to produce, at least in the long run, a kind of Heaven-on-Earth — a global society marked by personal freedom, social and economic equality, and limitless prosperity.  In short, Utopia.

The first incarnation of this spirit in modern times took place during the French Revolution.  This revolution failed to achieve its Utopian goal.  But its spirit, being immortal, lived on and awaited reincarnation.

The second incarnation took place in the Bolshevik Revolution in early 20th-century Russia — a more powerful, and far bloodier, revolution than the earlier one.  Again, the revolution failed to produce Utopia; if anything, it produced just the opposite.  But once again, the spirit lived on.

The third incarnation of this revolutionary spirit is taking place at this moment — an uprising of the world’s persons “of color” against the whites who have for centuries dominated the world.

There is a basic “script” followed by each of these revolutions, a melodramatic script.  According to this script, there is always a conflict between a powerful villain and the “good guy” victim of this villain, a victim who has hitherto been powerless but is now gathering strength.

In the French Revolution, the villain was the nobility, the aroused victim the people.  In the Communist Revolution, the villain was the class of capitalists, the aroused victim the workers of the world.  In the current revolution, the villain is the white people of the world, the victim the aroused non-whites of the world.

This “POC” category, it should be noted, includes many groups who are not, or at least not entirely, “of color” — for example, Arabs, Muslims, and Latinx (as the revolutionists would have us label everybody south of the Rio Grande).  We may perhaps call these un-colored groups “honorary POCs.”

The first two revolutions were not without impact in the United States.  The French Revolution had its American sympathizers, Thomas Jefferson (at least for a while) being the most notable of these.  The Russian Revolution had lots and lots of American sympathizers, many of them members of the Communist Party (CPUSA) along with many “fellow-travelers” outside the party.  More than a few of these sympathizers operated within the U.S. government.

The current revolution has far more American sympathizers than either of the first two.  This has recently been made clear by the sudden great upsurge of pro-Palestinian and anti-Jew feeling among many “progressive” young Americans on the campuses of some of our “best” colleges and universities.

What’s more, the ideological leaders of the Democrat party, who are typically professors of social science and humanities at (once again) our “best” colleges and universities, are strongly in sympathy with this third revolution.  They believe that white Americans are for the most part anti-POC racists — not because they are born with a racist gene, but because they are taught to be racist from the cradle.  Almost miraculously, though, a few (highly virtuous) whites are anti-racists — for example, most of the professors themselves.

Since the Democrat party now controls the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, and since the beliefs of these academic ideologues “trickle down” to non-academic Democrat politicians (including President Biden), can we be surprised that the Biden administration has adopted — in a de fact if not de jure way — an open-border policy with regard to the Third World (the Global South)?

After all, if whites make up the majority of the U.S. population, and if whites are generally racist, and if racism is the greatest of all sins, then it follows that the USA has a population that is mainly made up of wicked people.  If we can reduce the white percentage of the U.S. population — if (let’s say) we can bring it down to about 33 percent — then the country will have undergone a tremendous moral improvement. 

Open borders will bring about this improvement.  By 2050 non-whites will be a slight majority of the U.S. population.  By 2100, if we keep the borders open, they will be an overwhelming majority.

As a result, then, the USA will at long last be a morally good country — almost as good, perhaps, as Cuba or Venezuela or Haiti.

Image via Pxhere.