Blog

White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism

159 Comments

I’ve spent some time lately at Unqualified Reservations. The blogger there, Mencius Moldbug, is a talented writer and consistent source of insightful analysis. Definitely a mapper, not a packer.

What originally caught my attention was his suggestion that a more or less clean reboot was possible, as opposed to say the violent anarchy, race riots, civil war, and genocide our elite’s mass immigration policies and anti-White political correctness seem to be propelling us toward. MM’s PC-violating essay accusing the government of spreading disinformation and pondering the real meaning of diversity further piqued my interest. This guy definitely thinks outside the box, and isn’t shy about constructing a new lexicon for his unboxed thoughts.

MM’s latest essay is entitled Why I am not a white nationalist. I’ve been pestering him with criticism for some weeks now, and I believe he was in part trying to answer me. I appreciate his effort. I had written a bit to flesh out that pestering here, but I never posted it. Now there’s really too much to say all at once. All along the response I’ve gotten from his commenters has been fairly hostile, and MM himself never really addressed my points, at least until now. I definitely haven’t felt welcome there, so I wasn’t very optimistic anything useful would come of an extended critique. Well now the gauntlet has been thrown down, as it were, and I feel compelled to make some response.

MM identifies Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse as white-nationalist blogs. I had never before thought of any of them that way, but I won’t quibble over his label. Technically I think it probably fits me, and I suppose it fits Auster, VA, and OAL. By coincidence John Savage just gathered some links and wrote a bit about this very topic. I admit I haven’t read them, even now. John’s heart doesn’t seem to be in White nationalism. But that’s just my guess. I followed New Sisyphus until he morphed into New Nationalist a few months ago. Then NN went dead and he reactivated NS without explanation. I don’t know what’s going on there.

Personally I don’t think AoT belongs in the list. I’ll bet MM only included it because I was goosing him. Relative to the other bloggers I write less, of lower quality, and I’m a newcomer to the idea of White anything, much less White nationalism. Before this summer I really preferred to think of myself as colorblind and wished everyone else could be that way as well. I spent most of my blogging efforts handwringing about the jihadis and immigration, and poking holes in leftist logic. I like what I’ve read of Sam Francis. But I haven’t written anything at all, unless you consider “deport every illegal today” White nationalism. I have however in recent months been forced to adapt my view of the world fairly radically. Among the things that died were my unthinking philo-semitism and my respect for neoconservativism. So I’ll talk a little about that and how that relates to MM’s critique of White nationalism and anti-semitism.

This past May the actions of President Bush and the US Senate forced me to conclude that the US government is not just “out of touch” with the electorate, they are consciously, deliberately at odds with us. Our system is not a constitutional republic. It is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy.

By June it was clear that open border policies don’t even make sense when judged by their proponent’s standards.

In July I began to fully appreciate the widespread and long-standing media bias, including how they pump up pro-invasion politicians, do their best to exalt even illegal immigrants, and vilify anyone who opposes immigration.

By late July the Senate’s treason had been rebuffed, temporarily at least, and my support for the war in Iraq had changed. How could anyone concerned with America’s security to the point they support sending our boys to die overseas think at the same time the immigration invasion is no big deal and that we should just leave our borders undefended? But that, I dimwittedly began to realize, is precisely the nonsensical position of neoconservatives. I had previously held their views in esteem. Once I realized they generally favor immigration I felt stupid and betrayed. I discovered Lawrence Auster, who on a daily basis dissects and connects neoconservatism and liberalism in ways I had never seen before. Eventually through him I discovered Vanishing American and an extended community who share a pride and spirit that for all I had known had already vanished.

By September the Senate had tried several times to force their shamnesty through in smaller, stealthier pieces. I had become thoroughly aware of the MSM’s ham-handed “shaping” of public opinion. The vast extent and poisonous influence of political correctness had become equally obvious to me, as was the MSM’s role in propagating and enforcing that PC. By this time I felt my understanding of and opposition to PC was firm enough to commit its most mortal sin. In response to VA’s discussion of PC’s roots I made the point that the Jews had as much to do with PC as White Christians did, perhaps more. And I recognized Jews as enemies.

Recently I made a more elementary point at John Savage’s. Those who have the patience to read it can decide for themselves whether my argument makes sense. It concerns how one of Auster’s ideas applies to Jews.

I realize very well that for Auster anti-semitism is a bugaboo. He does not like David Duke and scolds Jared Taylor for associating with him. I link and read them both now because as far as I can see they tell the truth. I suppose Auster would label me an anti-semite if he knew or cared who I was. I don’t think he does, though he did link me once. It’s a shame really, because I feel I owe him a debt for the information and analysis he provides. I’ve never met or corresponded with him, but respect makes me hesitate to disagree with him. It’s not that I’m afraid he’ll convince me I’m wrong. I really don’t think he could. I’m more afraid he’ll just ignore this, or simply dismiss what I say as irrational without explanation. Honestly though, there are people in my own family I have to face and explain my opinions to. I agonize far more over their misgivings than anyone elses. Perhaps he’ll answer MM directly, or one of the other bloggers will answer and he’ll remark on their comments. Perhaps he has bigger fish to fry.

From Auster’s critique of Pat Buchanan I gather he thinks anti-semitism is not a matter of opinion. That, I say, is patent nonsense. Anti-semitism is a type of racism, and both words have been sufficiently abused as to make their meaning almost worthless without a paragraph or two specifying precisely what you mean. That’s about as subjective as you can get. If someone who uses those words goes to that kind of trouble then maybe, just maybe, they’re arguing in good faith. If they use either word alone they’re likely just trying to slur someone in an attempt to shut them up or get other people to stop listening.

For the record I will stipulate that I believe people who want to kill Jews just for being Jews do actually exist. I do not want that, and I have ever met anyone who has admitted to me that they wanted that, but I would agree to call anyone who did say they wanted that an anti-semite.

By the way, why don’t people who want to kill Whites get their own special label? Is it impertinent of me to interrupt this very grave discussion of anti-semitism and ask that question? In the US today murderous anti-White sentiment seems more common than murderous anti-semitism is. You can in fact openly call for the extermination of Whites as a race in public and people will applaud. Why won’t the MSM report such statements, much less give this kind of racist hate a special label? Why isn’t the SPLC on this guy like white on rice?

Anti-semitism has an answer for these questions. But I’m open to others. Are there any?

Is simple criticism of Jews anti-semitism? Most people who use the word seem to think so. Is my belief that Jews as a group are partly responsible for the predicament of Whites as a group anti-semitism? Probably. How about my statement “Jews are my enemy”? Literally. Because I made this blunt statement am I therefore an anti-semite for the rest of my life? Will I be forgiven if I recant and grovel for forgiveness? Well I’m not going to.

I strongly suspect I’m just wasting space even discussing anti-semitism. That’s the whole idea, isn’t it? Just as the person who cries racism hopes you’ll derail yourself with apologia so does the person who cries anti-semitism. In response to extended protestations a critic can even accuse you of protesting too much, just as Auster does to Buchanan.

Well however you want to define anti-semitism I’m no longer afraid of that or any other slur, at least not from strangers who don’t know me. First and foremost this is because I fear more for the future of my family and extended family. My race is not threatened by some past genocide, or some hypothetical future genocide. Due to PC and mass immigration my race is in the process of being genocided right now. So go ahead, call me or people I think are telling the truth whatever nasty names you want. It won’t change my opinion. If anything it makes me more than a little suspicious of your guilty heart. Which brings me to my other reason. I know my own heart and I know it’s true. If the interests of myself and my kin conflict with you and yours I’m willing to try and work it out in plain language out in the open. If you’re not willing to do that then there’s going to be a problem, because I’m not going to just slink off silently and die. You’re going to have to stick me in prison or come right out and kill me.

One of the annoying things about finally getting up the nerve to point out the elephant in the room is the odd responses you get from those who previously took no notice of it. “What’s the big deal?” “What are you obsessed with elephants?” No, I’m not obsessed with Jews, and I don’t think they are to blame for everything. But I no longer consider explanations of what’s going on in our world, or plans of how to deal with it, to be complete without talking about Jews. They’re too successful and powerful to simply ignore.

Until recently I was so thoroughly blinded by PC that I not only never mentioned Jews, I actually did ignore them. Then I read this paper by Kevin MacDonald and caught what John Derbyshire calls the Jew thing. For me the Jew thing works alot like Rowdy Roddy Piper’s glasses worked in They Live. It allows me to see things people like Derbyshire apparently cannot see. Derb, in professing his willful blindness, comes off sounding like Sergeant Schultz. I assume he considers that preferable to being branded an anti-semite.

You may be wondering what anti-semitism has to do with Mencius Moldbug, the fellow I started out talking about. As I alluded above what caught my eye at his blog was that he seems to see the same kind of rottenness in the government and media that I do. Unlike me he actually proposes solutions. MM thinks big. He seems to understand pretty well how the world works, and I’m not ashamed to admit his view is deeper and more comprehensive than mine.

Perhaps I’ll write in more detail about it later, but I’m out of juice for now. Go read my comments at MM’s blog if you really care. I’m pretty sure this essay is where I first got critical of his description of the workings of the world. Work forward in time from there.

In a nutshell I object to MM’s definition of Universalism, which is what he calls "the faith of our ruling caste". It’s an important observation, but I think he gets it only half right. He associates Universalism only with Progressivism, which he blames entirely on Christianity. He does not address the Globalist tendencies of our ruling caste, and he pretty much gives Jews a pass. To the extent they’re involved at all he thinks they were “assimilated”, tricked by wily Christians into being liberals. On anti-semitism he prefers Derbyshire over MacDonald. His position on Jewish involvement in world affairs is that he doesn’t see it. I found MM’s understanding and defense of White nationalism notably even-handed for someone who ultimately disavows the idea, but I think he dismisses it and anti-semitism too blithely.

MM makes no mention of Jew’s favor for and favoritism under PC. No connection of that to PC intolerance for White nationalism. He notes how Hilter evokes “red flags” but Stalin doesn’t. Perhaps if he could imagine for just a moment that he had the Jew thing he might see some link. The close alignment of PC with Jewish interests? The Jewish support for Marxism and Bolshevism and hatred of Nazism perhaps? Nope. He doesn’t recognize the MSM signals that encourage us all to see Jews as poor defenseless victims and White nationalists as evil wannabe thugs. He does however clearly see how White nationalism is connected to anti-semitism via Hitler. He even suspects it might be too clear. His examination of that link is fairly nuanced, but he examines only that link and it is an entirely one-way perspective. No mention of the historically lopsided Jewish support for open borders, or how it predates Hitler. Jews fear White nationalism because it produced a Hitler and it might produce another. MM doesn’t acknowledge much less express any sympathy for the fact that anti-semitism has arisen many times in many different places besides Nazi Germany and so perhaps anti-semitic White nationalists might have a legitimate reason to fear Jews or consider them enemies. Nope, MM concludes, anti-semites fear that which does not exist, therefore they are evil.

And here I thought anti-semites were supposed to make the demented arguments.

The cartoon is Pearls before Swine, dated November 9, 2007.

UPDATE 26 Nov 2007: Here is Old Atlantic’s take on what it means to be called a White nationalist. I agree with him. To your typical PC-drone the label is essentially a slur that is reflexively escalated into White supremacist. Such labels are intended to dehumanize us, to put it in the hallowed terms of the worshippers of tolerance and diversity. They do to us what they claim they deplore. As OA points out, our governments have officially slated us subhumans for extinction. So why should any of us go quietly?

UPDATE 30 Nov 2007: Mencius links here and mocks what he sees: The Jewish question and other links. He believes the true test for a sane worldview is to explain the “Altalena affair”. I have my own test. Explain the immigration invasion. Mencius, so far, fails.

Blog

Bill Richardson, Invader Baby

24 Comments

The December 2007 issue of Playboy includes an interview with Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson. In part the introduction says (sorry no link):

Richardson’s run for president began 60 years ago–on the day he was born. His parents lived in Mexico City, where his father was a branch manager for National City Bank of New York. But he sent his Mexican wife to Pasadena, California for the birth of their child. This gave Richardson U.S. citizenship and also ensured that he met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.

Clearly Playboy could have summed it up, and in language more in tune with the zeitgeist, by simply saying Bill Richardson is an anchor baby. Since his parents weren’t poor and didn’t use him as an anchor it would have been even more accurate to describe him as an invader baby.

The interviewer does not question Lopez on either his name or his citizenship, and asks him only one immigration-related question:

PLAYBOY: As governor of New Mexico, you have a close-up look at our border with Mexico. How would you control the borders? You have said you don’t want a fence. What would you do to stop the flow across the border?

RICHARDSON: I’ll first tell you what I did as governor. I proposed doubling the number of border-patrol agents, which is consistent with a 9/11 Commission recommendation. I can easily see 15,000 at the border. Right now it isn’t adequately protected. I would extend the tour of the National Guard. Many of us had reservations about using the Guard for this, but it seems to be working; they’re deterring the flow. I would also increase the detection equipment at the border. My worst nightmare is nuclear material–uranium, plutonium–being transported by a terrorist across the border. And two years ago I angered a lot of Hispanic and immigrant groups by being the first governor to declare a border emergency. At the time, the border patrol was almost non-existent in my quarter. There were drugs coming in, violence–the flow was huge. I declared a border emergency, which enabled me as governor to hire local law enforcement. I took state appropriations to pay for law enforcement at the border, which is essentially a federal function. Also, I vetoed legislation that said local law enforcement couldn’t cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies.

So. Nothing about what to do with the millions already here. Nothing about his proposed policies or where they might lead in the future.

Let’s review then the thin gruel we do get, shall we?

Richardson, to his credit, at least accepts the reality that the flow across our border is huge. Or at least it was huge until, against his wishes, a small and unarmed contingent of Guard was put in place. So he’s seen the light now, and he’s willing to build a wall. Unfortunately, he favors building it out of people. This I think betrays a disingenuous but typically liberal intent. You see I give him credit for being smart enough to realize that people, unlike concrete and steel, can be bribed. We hear all the time how an X foot wall can be defeated by an X+1 foot ladder. We almost never hear how all that “flow” across the border is lubricated by money. Money that can much more easily make a government official look the other way than it can make steel and concrete obstacles disappear and then reappear.

We’re also constantly told by invasion-supporting wall-opposers that any wall whatsoever would be too expensive, which they can only say of course because they always neglect to factor in how much it would save. As anybody who works for a living realizes, a wall made out of people would only be more expensive. And as anybody who understands politics realizes, when politicians create jobs the last thing on their mind is getting work done. If for whatever reason we couldn’t build a chainlink and concrete wall then I would favor a human wall, in spite of the extra expense, because of my confidence in the aforementioned net savings. But this is all moot, because we can build a real wall, and the politicians will just have to make due with the lesser opportunities for featherbedding, payola, and other forms of corruption.

At the American Chronicle Mark Lowry noted another wrinkle to Richardson’s illegitimacy back in May, in an article titled Mexican Citizen May Be America’s Next President

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

“. . .
As Richardson explained in an article in the Washington Post, “My father had a complex about not having been born in the United States.” After the death of Richardson’s father in 1972, his mother was remarried, to Mexican nutritionist Salvador Zubiran Anchondo in 1986. …Bill Richardson was raised in Mexico City, but his parents sent him to Massachusetts at age 13 to attend a Boston-area preparatory school.”

The constitution doesn’t permit foreign citizens born and raised in a foreign country for their first 13 years of life to become president. How can anyone interpret the constitution in such a manner to permit an anchor baby who was not raised in the United States to become president? It is outrageous to permit the ruse of bringing pregnant women into the country for the expressed purpose of creating dual citizenship for United States benefits. Does it constitute 14 years of residency if they live in a territory of the United States and not the United States?

Hands up, how many people knew Bill Richardson was born to Mexican parents and spent the first 13 years of his life in Mexico?

Thanks watchdog media! At least you’ve done a bang up job informing everybody Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Tom Tancredo can’t possibly get elected.

One last point.

In order to become president Arnold Schwarzenegger, a putative conservative, would need a whole new constitutional amendment. Good luck with that Arnold. Bill Richardson and all the other invader babies, in contrast, needed only a handful of dictators in black robes to wave their magic liberal wands and subvert an existing amendment.

If Arnold wants an easier road to the presidency he should change parties. He’d be more at home on that side anyway.

(Be sure to click the image and read a self-described Latino political whore gloss over Richardson’s background.)

Blog

Politician, Politician, Pants on Fire

11 Comments

Several random first hand observations on the San Diego wildfires.

There was a time not too long ago when the word holocaust might have been among the handful of useful words in a context such as this. Today however that word has been usurped in such a way that to even try to use it in any of its older meanings is considered politically incorrect. Which is of course why I use it now. Who nitpicks PC language diktat when their family is under evacuation orders? A flaming (har har) anti-semite of course!

Being evacuated and sleeping on someone else’s floor certainly can make you punchy. That’s about the only excuse I can think of for spending hours atitter over the lame impression of Abbot and Costello with which we kept ourselves amused: "Which fire? The Witch Fire. Yes, which one? No, they’re calling it the Witch Fire. Stop playing games, my house might be gone!" Well OK, it might also have had something to do with the alcohol.

Anyone in San Diego who would like to know what it smelled like in NYC up until the late 1970s, step outside right now and take a deep breath. That’s what public housing projects running trash incinerators smell like. Likewise the ash. For extra credit now go about your life without a filter mask. We didn’t have sissy crap like that back then. Mom said go out and play in the ash. And we liked it that way.

Parallels with Katrina are already being made. "Our Katrina" some blubber in a pathetic appeal for sympathy. I wasn’t there and don’t know anyone who was but it is easy to imagine that deluge being more terrible for more people all at once and for a longer duration than the gradual and near deathless hit-or-mostly-miss holocaust has been, so far, for San Diegans – but perhaps that’s only because I haven’t lost my home. If I had I know I’d sure be pissed off at the CDF and military twits who kept some great firefighting hardware grounded yesterday with their intra-governmental bureaucratic pissing contests.

At any rate it’s a bit premature to be making unripened apple to moldy orange comparisons. The full glory of the Katrina debacle took more than a week to unfold. The fires here aren’t under control yet and whatever hasn’t burned is still dry as a bone. The Santa Ana winds could whip up again as easily as they died away, and that would give us a bitter taste of what the Gulf Coasters felt as Rita bore down on them before they had even dried out from Katrina.

Nevertheless, interesting comparisons are already being made between the general tone of civility at Qualcomm stadium today versus the distinctly uncivilized environment at the Superdome back then. If not then allow me to be the first to make one. I’m sure we can believe our politicians when they say, amid their endless and eminently ignorable mutual admiration and backpatting, that race has absolutely positively nothing to do with the different outcomes. Racism, on the other hand, definitely does. Not that I’ve actually heard any of them do anything but admire themselves for their hard work (do they think they’re mexicans?) and superior bureaucratic skills (as if that’s a good thing) but I’m sure someone somewhere (google it, I just got back from evacuation) has pointed out that the only imaginable reason a black majority would harass and terrorize a White minority at the Superdome while a White majority coexists quite peacefully with black and latino minorities at the Q is, of course, racism. What other reason can you think of racist? As Descartes might say if he were alive in these times of mass delusion: I think therefore I am a racist.

Last but not least, and I’m sure my long-suffering cricket-readers will be very surprised, this holocaust got me thinking about the immigration invasion. As with 9/11, when the entire commercial air fleet was grounded for days, we see that much of what is considered unthinkable or undoable according to conventional wisdom is in fact quite thinkable and doable. The speed with which our government was able to get hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas to "migrate" elsewhere, even though it inconvenienced and terrified many more who were not directly involved, certainly puts the lie to all the ninnies who claim we are incapable of deporting the millions of invaders, have no right to even make them fearful, and darn sure better not inconvenience the Holy Economy with any such attempt.

In evacuated areas police and guardsmen are stopping people and asking for ID! Oh my. Civil libertarians around the world must be wetting themselves. Can you imagine the sheer INJUSTICE, the TERROR this must instill?

I can’t. All I can think is: see, it’s easy. And how safe we all are with only people who live in our own neighborhoods being allowed in. All we have to do to catch and evict 80% of the invaders is have everyone pin on their driver’s license for a few weeks and arrest anyone who isn’t wearing one. The other 20% are even easier – they’re already in jail. It is, I must humbly point out, only to thwart this simple but brilliant plan that Spitzer does what he does. By the way, did you know he’s a Jew?

We see at times like this that law enforcers don’t abide looters and they certainly can do something about them. Too bad the traditional orders to shoot on sight have fallen out of favor. We can be sure the many side effects of our new anything-goes scofflaw norm is that whenever disaster strikes sociopaths nearly chuckle themselves to death with glee. "Rest assured," we are told, "the authorities will come down on them with the full force of the law." Translation to invaderese: "fill your truck homey."

Even limp-wristed promises of enforcement are however enough to cause cognitive dissonance, which is why the authorities are so uncomfortable talking about looting. They, even more so than any of the rest of us, must be thinking to themselves: why is it ok to crackdown on lawlessness now, to forbid people from moving freely, shut down massive interstate freeways, to even keep people out of their homes, but when things are calm and "normal" we must endure invaders looting our social services and preying on us as if we are stupid defenseless sheep? Why pretend there is no way we can tell who anybody is or where they belong when we so obviously can and do, at least some of the time? If the bureaucrats think too hard they might actually realize they swore an oath to uphold the law and protect their constituents at all times, not just during the occasional natural crisis.

Yesterday Chertoff provided a good example of what I’m talking about. I wish someone had posted it online but I can’t find it. Anyway, imagine the minefield of contradictions he had to tiptoe through to describe how pulling guardsmen off the border wasn’t going to impact our security because he had talked to Mexican authorities and advised them it wouldn’t be a good idea to send people across the border for the next few days. What with all the fires down there and stuff. Por favor?

Mass deportation is unthinkable? Undoable? Yes, if you’re used to pretending there’s no way we can do anything about the millions of invaders then you certainly aren’t thinking. Or perhaps you’re just spending all your time thinking about sneaky ways to serve the invaders rather than We the People.

Update 24 Oct 2007: Well it isn’t all roses at the Q. Here’s a story from Immigration Watchdog about invaders doing what they do best. Taking. "Take what you need" translated to invaderese means "take it by the truckload and sell it until the police stop you". But of course the problems didn’t start until ICE was forced to do their job because the invaders were too brazen (or stupid) to lie about their status. Really, you should see these pathetic invader baby makers tell their sob story. They were caught, they returned the last truckload, no problemo!

Update 25 Oct 2007: Two online stories related to those linked above. The comments sections reflect the absolutely fed-up mood of Americans, whether toward our treasonous Senate’s undying NIGHTMARE Acts, or toward the invader parasites and our PC-addled ICE agents. It really is encouraging to see so many people have rejected the media’s brainwashing. Next step, wipe the viral infection and reboot.

Update 6 Nov 2007: Jared Taylor’s Africa in our Midst: Lessons from Katrina.

Blog

Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin

52 Comments

Vanishing American wrote a very long and informative post entitled On political correctness, multiculturalism, and their effects. If you have the time I encourage you to read it as a whole and then skip to my comments near the end of this post.

Here I will pull out what I believe to be the most salient bits. For instance, what is it:

Of course we all have a general idea of how and where these poisonous ideas started. Political correctness is also known as ‘cultural Marxism’, and it is an attempt to apply Marxist ideas to the social sphere. Economic or political Marxism focus on the means of production and the economic connection between human beings, or more accurately, between classes of people. In fact, the economic nexus is the explanation for everything in the Marxist world view. Cultural Marxism tends to focus, again, on groups of people, and on the power relationships between them. And of course those with power, or apparent power, are cast in the role of villains in the same way that the rich or the bourgeoisie are the villains in the economic view according to Marx. The downtrodden, the ‘wretched of the earth’, the workers, the exploited classes, are the heroes in that scheme of things. In cultural Marxism, socially ‘exploited’ or oppressed groups, those who are weak in some way, those who are less successful, those who are outsiders or outlaws are the heroes by virtue of their weakness and ascribed victim status. And the system of speech codes and social hierarchies which we call political correctness is just a way of codifying the social order as seen by the cultural Marxists, with minorities, women, gays, and Third Worlders (not necessarily in that order) as the apex of the pyramid. Members of those groups are to be treated with kid gloves, spoken of in exaggeratedly respectful terms, exempted from criticism and from accountability for their actions, and above all, must not be offended in any way, whether by failing to display proper deference or by using a taboo name to designate these groups.

Who originated it and why:

Much of the ferment in leftist thinking occurred in Europe, with the so-called Frankfurt School (link added) and Critical Theory, which attempted to bring down Western culture simply by relentlessly criticizing every aspect of the culture from the angle of every ‘oppressed’ or aggrieved group. It was an attempt to discredit the existing order of things and to foment more dissatisfaction and anger to be channeled into revolt. And of course by this time, the ideas of Gramsci, who advocated infiltrating all the existing institutions to bring them down from within, had mostly supplanted the old-fashioned idea of armed revolt.

How it ate capitalism:

There was a kind of collusion of interests: Hollywood and the entertainment industry wanted to sell titillating movies and music to a ‘repressed’ public, especially to the baby-boom generation, who represented a very lucrative new market. So good old capitalism was happy to collude, wittingly or unwittingly, with the left’s desire to alienate and radicalize the young, and thus bring down Western culture.

How it coincided with (and I would say invited) the Turd World invasion:

At around this same time in the United States, we began to see mass immigration, on a scale unknown previously, and almost exclusively from non-Western, non-white countries. Slowly at first, and then more quickly, our cities began to be transformed, as more and more exotic peoples and their enclaves became an accepted part of the American landscape. However, during the early phase, most of the immigration was limited to big cities, while small-town and rural America remained as it had always been.

How under its rules everybody is special – except the white Christians who founded and built the West:

In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Americans of European ancestry had become accustomed to learning to use appropriate terms for black people . . . Women declared that ‘women’s libber’ was a slur, and ‘feminist’ was the accepted term. Asians demanded not to be called ‘Oriental’ . . . Homosexuals were soon demanding special rights, including re-labeling as ‘gay’ rather than homosexual . . .
And, thanks to the agitation by home-grown black Moslems, the term ‘Moslem’ was out, and the preferred term ‘Muslim’ was established . . . But this was the beginning in earnest of politically correct language in this country. One of the things which some people quickly objected to was the arbitrary nature of some of the terminology. The frequent changes of names.

All this analysis is spot on. One of the most identifying traits of PC is the use of constantly shifting meaning and euphemism. In support of which I would cite their obsession with framing, proclivity for deconstruction, and enthusiasm for demented postmodernism.

Vanishing American moves on to address the point that:

the West is being defeated by its own values, its own softheartedness and basically humane sensibilites. The Moslems, in Iraq and everywhere they confront us, are doing the same thing: they are turning our virtues into weaknesses by exploiting them. The Mexicans and other illegals who are invading and colonizing our country have our number, too; they know that for every tough gringo, there are half a dozen soft-hearted ones who want to help them, take care of them, treat them as dependent children. Thus we aid in our own destruction.

I’ve heard it said on numerous occasions that Christianity is to blame for this apparent weakness of Western culture. And I’ve heard it said on equally numerous occasions that Anglo-Saxons are the most liberal of all ethnic groups in this country. Look at Britain, they say; Britain is farther down the road of national suicide than other European countries. And here in America, they say, it’s the WASP elites who sell out their country and advocate multiculturalism and ‘diversity’. WASPs invented multiculturalism, I have heard from various people.

. . .

There may be a grain of truth, too, in the charge that Britain and America were more prone to liberalism, given that Britain seems to have more serious problems than say, France or Germany with immigration and multiculturalism. But did the British, or Anglo-Saxons, invent multiculturalism? I see no evidence of that.

All quite right I thought, but there is something to add. Something that is important I restate here for the record because it is something I’ve been grappling with for some time. It took great effort to think it through, and takes even greater effort say it. To do so requires commission of the most mortal sin there is against political correctness.

I started blogging a little over two years ago with only a vague awareness and revulsion at politically correct dogma and a mild curiousity about its origins and rationale. What I have discovered, slowly, is shocking, and it only gets more shocking with each day’s news.

It began with the recognition that the West’s education and mainstream media are biased and has progressed to the understanding that they are in fact engaged in mass brainwashing, an indoctrination with PC dogma under the cover of deliberately inverted language such as "free thought" and "fairness". It began with the recognition that this PC dogma interferes with the West’s ability to recognize and properly defend itself from the threat of Islamic jihad and has progressed to the understanding that it denies the even larger threat posed by the immigration invasion, which is flooding the West with impoverished, uneducated, dangerous people, including Muslims. It began with the recognition that PC dogma is something believed and propagated by moonbats and progressed to the sad realization that elements of the Right, supposed conservatives, specifically the neocons, are working in concert with the Left in an unholy union called either Globalism or Universalism. It began with an assumption that Jews are white, civilized, and on my side, and has progressed to the tragic and most un-PC of all conclusions that they are indeed my enemy, because their collective words and deeds are destroying my past, present, and future.

As I said, this conclusion has been brewing for a while. Lawrence Auster, a former Jew who often calls out anti-Semitism, helped me recognize the false face of the neocons; and Steve Sailer gave their insane foreign policy a name: Invade the World, Invite the World.

The globalist agenda to erase the world’s borders in the name of increasing trade is supported only by promises written on so much toilet paper. The "economy", we are told, requires immigration, because it helps the "economy". Well whatever this "economy" thing is it doesn’t seem so important as to negate the obviously horrible effects of the immigration it supposedly requires. What good will any "economy" be when the only people left in the West are Turd Worlders squabbling over its remains? Likewise the Left’s pipe dreams of "Civil Rights" and "Universal Healthcare".

Just yesterday I encountered the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. It was a long, dry, scholarly paper by Kevin MacDonald titled Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. You may not want read the whole thing, but at least you should skim and understand it before dismissing me or the sentiments I’m expressing here as anti-Semitic.

A reader named Emerson left a comment for Vanishing American that connected the dots:

I’ve read sources that attributed the origin of Multiculturalism to a Jewish female sociology professor in Canada. I don’t know if that’s true but it seems plausible, as I see the same alien presence running throughout your essay:
Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt School, Marcuse, Fromm, historical culprits behind the Immigration Act of 1965 (Sabath, Dickstein, Celler, Javits, Jocobstein, Perlman, Lehman), Feminist movement (Stein, Freidan, Abzug), the sexual revolution (Freud), 1960s radicals (Hoffman, Horowitz, Elsberg) the Civil Rights movement (SPLC and the Reds), the militant homosexual movement (ACLU, ADL, SPLC), the Universal Nation (Wattenberg, Podhoretz, Kristol, Jacoby, and Shylock), Aztecs marching in our streets (funding by Soros), culminating with the neoconservative movement to initiate genocide on all those nasty Arabs, Persians, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians and Kurds, using the American gentile military.
They do have a history: Jebusites, Hittites, Ammorites, Philistines…
It almost makes one paranoid, or wise.

I’ve also read that multiculturalism was invented to mask the failure of blacks to rise to white standards, after it was obvious that Zangwill’s melting pot didn’t work for blacks or Emma’s refuse, but only worked for Christian Europeans.

Also, your observation is true that the West is being defeated by it’s own values and humane sensibilities. American Christians just don’t grasp the fact that white altruism (Do unto others…) is not a trait of the other races, not even the race that passes itself off as white.

The comment I then left sums up my reasoning and makes the point I wished to reiterate and record here:

I agree with Emerson. And I’d also point out that to criticize Jews is to break the most fundamental of all PC strictures.

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews. Why is that? Is it factually incorrect to note that the West’s entertainment, mass media, and banking systems are disproportionately controlled, even dominated, by Jews? Am I imagining their inordinate sway in academia? Is it pure speculation to note that these institutions overwhelmingly favor everything PC – they are the very tools by which PC is spread?

If we are going to break the chains of PC then we must not be afraid to speak such truths. The very idea to blame WASPs and Christianity, while ignoring the role of Jews, is an indication just how powerful PC is. But it can and must be broken if we are to fix what is wrong with Western civilization.

Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I’m not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that.

Blog

New York to License Invaders

8 Comments

The mind reels:

They were celebrating outside the governor’s office Friday as Eliot Spitzer handed a landmark victory to a half-million illegal immigrants.

The state will no longer require proof of citizenship for driver’s licenses.

“We’re changing our policy with respect to getting more people out of shadows and into the system so people don’t hide they’re here,” Spitzer said.

He said the current restrictions on non-citizens have filled the roads with unlicensed drivers five times more likely to get into accidents.

But the also called it a matter of justice.

“As long as I’m governor we won’t pretend they don’t exist, cut them off from society,” Spitzer said.

A matter of justice? In what way is this just, and to who? Who besides Spitzer is trying to pretend these invaders don’t exist? We the People know very well they exist. We want them deported. Sending the invaders home is the only true solution to all the problems they cause, and is the only thing that would be just to the tax-paying law-abiding citizens of this country. We the People are the ones whose welfare and interests Spitzer should be primarily concerned about. And We the People does not include illegal alien invaders.

It is hard to believe there are any states that issue driver’s licenses to invaders, but there are. In the past few years several states have stopped, and for good reason:

The recommendation of the 9/11 Commission led to the adoption of the REAL ID Act in early 2005. It is a measure designed to encourage the states to change their lax driver’s license standards over the next few years. The REAL ID Act provisions established national standards for the issuance of driver’s licenses that will effectively bar people who are in the country illegally from obtaining them, barred people who have ties to terrorist organizations from taking advantage of our political asylum process, and provided for completion of the border security fence along the Mexican border.

New York is ignoring this good sense and has decided instead to aid and abet the invaders. Invaders that even the mainstream media reporter quoted above points out are far more likely to get into accidents. Is giving them licenses going to significantly reduce their accident rate? Of course not. Is it going to reduce road congestion? No. Is is going to reduce gas prices? No. New York can expect all of these problems to get worse. This is the price tag for Eliot Spitzer’s ignoble efforts to bring the invaders “out of the shadows”.

More importantly, what it will do is make it more difficult to identify invader-drivers in New York, and thus it will mask their deadly driving habits from public scrutiny. The effect is very much like the LAPD’s recent decision to stop impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers. Contrary to Spitzer’s claim that he wants to stop pretending the invaders don’t exist, that is exactly what giving them licenses allows him and the police to do. Ignore them.

Except issuing them a license is even worse than simply ignoring them. A valid drivers license is the most valued form of identification in this country – having one makes it much easier for invaders to pretend they are here legally and live normally. Giving them a license is much worse than looking the other way. It gives them something they deperately want. That’s why the invaders and their supporters are celebrating in New York.

I wonder. Is Spitzer’s next bright idea to “solve” the illegal handgun problem by giving out permits, no questions asked?

A message board poster points out that this proposal is not just ill-conceived, it is illegal:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Rather than recognizing the clear threat the invaders pose to his countrymen and doing everything in his power to protect them, Spitzer has instead chosen to accept the invaders and permit them, with his blessing, to continue killing his countrymen. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is a traitor.

It is not sufficient that this proposal be withdrawn. Spitzer must be removed from office and prosecuted. If this does not happen then I sincerely hope some good vigilante takes the law into his own hands and sends a clear message to all of our traitorous leaders. Enough is enough. Stop the invasion. Defend our country. Treason will not be tolerated.

Update: Use this email form to contact Spitzer. Tell him you see through his bullshit excuses and call out his betrayal.

Update, 24 Sept 2007: Here is a link to the US Code section cited above, though it hardly matters what it says. The root of all our problems controlling immigration are precisely that our leaders will not enforce our laws. The law doesn’t matter to them. Which is why it’s absurd to call for new laws. We don’t need new laws, we need new leaders. Leaders who will enforce the laws we already have, fill our treasonous courts with loyal Americans, tell the Latino bigots to shut up, and eject the invaders rather than comforting them.

Read Heather Mac Donald’s The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave. Since she wrote that three years ago the number of invaders has only increased, the crime and violence they bring has only worsened, and our enforcement has only weakened. Lots of talk, no action. Kabuki theater while the invasion continues unabated. How much longer can this go on before party-line Republicans and Democrats realize their precious economy and Civil Rights will evaporate as our society disintegrates in the face of the lawlessness and balkanization the immigration invasion brings?

Update, 25 Sept 2007: In North Carolina invaders aren’t supposed to get licenses, but according to a loyal American whistleblower they do anyway, and he got fired for having a problem with it:

Brown said in the lawsuit that he repeatedly told supervisors he was issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants or suspected illegal immigrants. He also told them he was issuing standard eight-year driver’s licenses to people with visas that expired in as little as six months. State law allows neither.

Via American Renaissance.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light