Anti-Discrimination as an Ideal above Loyalty to Civilization and Citizenry, While Mass Infiltration by Hostiles is Underway

If anti-discrimination can be a valid ideal, both for individuals and society,
and such that each further increment of it is an improvement, openness to infiltration by hostiles, in catastrophic degree, would follow or not? An unspeakable contradiction-in-terms follows from the above considerations: increasing anti-discriminatory openness to mass immigration of those who would do damage to civilization, and even to the furtherance of anti-discrimination itself, would still be rated an improvement of civilization, and a move towards the fulfillment of the anti-discrimination ideal. Therefore anti-discrimination as an ideal in the above sense, is contradictory, damaging, self-damaging, self-liquidating and worthless. Other values, such as loyalty to the continuity of civilization, and to the citizenry over others, such as those foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders of a nation, must be rated higher than anti-discrimination. When aggression is used by officials to get more anti-discrimination in society, that is clearly not a move towards any valid ideal, but downwards towards savagery.
Added 5-30-08
When one is told that race doesn't exist, or is not important, or should not be an object of consciousness, it is very much against the current rules of what may be published on high, to reply that racial disparities then wouldn't exist, or wouldn't matter, or would not need to be noted, even privately. No one to your left will allow that race disparities might be willed away by special blindness.
There are some on the right though, who get into a contradictory fuss, about how it is so important to believe race to be unimportant. If it so important that it be thought unimportant, and if disparities of race are to be stressedly left out of observation, there can't really be also nothing important there, at the same time as we would have so much riding on getting the majority to believe that there is really nothing there. From all this, one comes to know that it's really about how to smear opponents, as a last-ditch method for political moves which have no convincing arguments in their favor.

Colorblindness, Creed-Blindness & Nationality-Blindness are not known to be ideal in every way,
especially insofar as they would blind one to the cover, for increase of aggression, that they can provide. That increase of aggression is facilitated by contradictory policies, of one-sidedly regarding as illegitimate, the use of non-blindness by the majority towards minorities. The one-sidedness is found to be used to condemn populations insofar as they've been resistant to despotism for whatever reason. The point of the advocacy of such one-sided blindnesses, making them out to be ideal, regardless of war or peace, is then noted to be one of hostility to that which successfully resists total power.