Tag Archives: immigration

Blog

Something Unspeakable This Way Comes

76 Comments


Yes, you may be sick of Lawrence Auster. I know I am. I consider here some previous statements which I have only just become aware, and which I find relevant to the critique of his ideas I have already invested quite some effort in. This is also connected to and motivated by the realization I first made and began to explore in September: that it is not possible to forthrightly discuss political correctness, cultural marxism, liberalism, immigration, or White genocide without locking horns with jews. I am still only beginning to absorb the staggering disproportion of their involvement and aggressive and unapologetic pursuit of their own group interests over a very long period of time.

I can see that anyone who comes to such conclusions and speaks out honestly about them is smeared as a lunatic driven to irrational hate by a supposed congenital defect that makes them believe jews are to blame for everything. There is virtually nobody to cite in support who themselves has not already been similarly smeared, even though most do not fit the evil and demented caricature they are slandered with. Thus I continue to focus on and criticize Auster, who has long analyzed and argued against liberalism – an ideology he seems well aware jews helped construct, that most adhere to, and that has empirically served their interests – but when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own arguments would literally rather abandon them than see any responsibility fall on jews.

A few days ago Auster noted a post of his from 14 Nov 2003 where he comments on a quote from Nietzsche’s Human, All-Too-Human:

“… [T]he whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred.”

Now this is amazing as a very early, remarkably incisive expression of the Jewish problem. Think of it–this was written in the 1870s, 20 years before Theodore Hertzl’s blinding revelation that the Jews could never be safe as a minority in Europe and needed their own country. (In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions. This was a new and disturbing idea to me at the time. Little did I know that Nietzsche had said exactly the same thing 120 years earlier.)

But the passage is also amazing in the context of the Jack Wheeler article I posted yesterday. Wheeler argues that liberal guilt is aimed at neutralizing the envy being directed at the liberal from those at the bottom. Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal–and famous for its liberal guilt–of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

Auster then links to a post from 12 Nov 2003 where he writes:

Susie is correct about Nietzsche’s idea that the slave mentality or _ressentiment_ against the strong originated largely among the Jews, and about his view that this same mentality was expanded through its embodiment in Christianity to the detriment of the world. (However, it’s important to point out that Nietzsche’s hatred, especially in his almost insane late book The Anti-Christ, was directed against Christianity, not against the Jews; Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite.) She’s also correct to point out the connection between the slave mentality and modern liberalism; and also that Jewish neoconservatives differ from liberal Jews in being determinedly pro-American.

However, this doesn’t mean that the neoconservatives are free from all forms of that resentment. In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an “oppressive” majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority’s demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn’t mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. But it does mean that the minority, insofar as it is a minority, should not be able to speak authoritatively for the society as a whole. That indeed is the state we’re in now, with advanced liberalism and multiculturalism, in which the minorities express themselves as groups and are given importance as groups, while the members of the majority only express themselves as individuals. An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, and the minorities are minorities.

Wheeler link and emphasis added.

Let’s review. In Nov 2007 Auster summed up his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society like so: “the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated”. I noted a corollary: that jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous. Auster rejected this because jews are not “perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile”, except by anti-semites. I then pointed out that even his ad hoc qualifications are arguably satisfied, and that his anti-semitism trump card does nothing but lend credence to my point. Auster responded by making insinuations about my pseudonym, complaining about my blog’s color and typeface, and exploring the various ways in which I have sinned against jews – for instance by being indifferent to being labeled an anti-semite.

Far from being indifferent I recognize the hostility and hypocrisy behind that label and the distraction and intimidation it is intended to produce. I condemn and reject it all. I understand and accept Auster’s affinity for jews, and thus I understand his anti-anti-semitic bigotry. What I don’t understand, and can’t abide, is his inconsistency and hypocrisy.

As the blockquotes above show, in 2003 Auster expressed thoughts similar to my own. Consider for example his analysis of the fears motivating jewish neoconservatives. He knows the root of those fears is not their neoconservatism, it is their self-discriminating jewish identity and their self-serving liberal values. The quotes above imply that this “self-conscious minority” helped put “the majority” “on the path to extinction”. So as I read it, Auster makes the argument that jews by their own volition have been both unassimilable and hostile to “the majority”.

The tact Auster has consistently taken, and the out he would probably take here, is to place all blame and responsibility on “the majority”. As he literally phrases it “the majority” weakened “itself”, put “itself” on the path to extinction, and the cure is to re-discover “itself”. This thinking is of course just as simplistic and one-sided as he imagines everyone he calls an anti-semite is guilty of, except in the opposite direction. His own standard, expressed for instance here, is that it is an error to make judgments about jews as jews. This for some reason does not keep him from asserting “that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top”, nor does it keep him from passing judgments on “the majority” as “the majority”.

Beside revealing a fallacious double standard, Auster’s advice for “the majority” is both dubious and disingenuous. When individuals in “the majority” notice that jews express collective interests, interests which are more cohesive and identifiable and monolithically pursued (eg. civil rights, open borders) than those of “the majority”, and point out that such interests harm “the majority”, Auster is just as quick as anyone to denounce and call for the offender to be excluded from any further discussion. His proscription of anyone who opposes jews (most of whom are liberal) undermines his prescription that “the majority” should oppose liberals (many of whom are jews). The assertiveness he recommends has already failed, and it was defeated by generations of the kind of divide-and-conquer ostracization he supports.

It’s easy to imagine the reverse – a world in which liberal jews or other minorities are denounced and excluded. Liberal jews and their comrades in “the majority” are for all practical purposes driven by just such an imaginative reversal. They constantly breathe life into this fear with their movies, reporting, scholarship, and politics, and insist that everyone else be animated by it too. Their fear of potential repression by “the majority” is used to justify pushing “the majority” toward extinction. If you reject their utopian vision because you can see that it is in fact producing chaos and dystopia, well then you are obviously a neo-nazi who validates all their fears. It is sheer tautological madness.

Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism. They are the key tools with which liberals have rendered “the majority” powerless and are actively reducing it to a minority. Not one in a hundred people know that this is happening or why. That is not an excuse Lawrence Auster can hide behind. He sees. He knows. And yet he dissimulates.

A quote left on my previous post by Desmond Jones:

‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own.”—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.

Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Auster:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I’ve proposed at FrontPage Magazine) that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: Auster replies:

Another person on the warpath against me today is the anti-Semite “Tanstaafl.” He has found and quotes at length various statements of mine about the Jews, including my 2004 FrontPage Magazine article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” and concludes that I’m an anti-Semite just like him, and therefore I’m a lousy hypocrite for condemning him and refusing to have anything to do with him. It is the case that anti-Semites, whose intellects are pathologically distorted, are unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews. By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he’s really coming from, consistently spells the word “Jews” as “jews,” lower case.

My real conclusion is that Auster is the opposite of an anti-semite – he is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a jewish bigot. He is indeed a hypocrite, which he illustrates here once again. His intellect is “pathologically distorted” and “unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews”. My point in this post, and the previous one concerning him, is that he has all the intellectual ability required to engage my arguments, which are after all based on his own words and lines of reasoning. Yet he refuses to do so, apparently because he reserves a higher pedestal for jews, a pedestal from which they can slander and dehumanize and ostracize anyone they choose to label “anti-Semite”.

To Auster’s credit, and despite his deliberate distortions of my thoughts and desires, he does provide links here. Thus his readers can judge for themselves who is rational. I have no hope or desire to change the anti-anti-semites (like Auster, or my commenter Adam, who corresponds with Auster as Paul T.), my hope is that his non-jewish readers, unaware they are being assimilated, will become more aware of the inversion and inherent bigotry contained in the anti-semite slur. I hope they think of this every time Auster uses it, and every time he quotes his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. A law from which he exempts the powerful jewish minority based on the circular (and self-nullifying) logic that to argue they have been unassimilable or hostile to “the majority” is forbidden.

UPDATE 6 Mar 2008: Added missing link to Auster’s 12 Nov 2003 comment above.

Blog

Unmigration Manifesto

25 Comments

Principles

The citizens of any nation have the right and duty to create laws to suit their own collective needs and desires. Among the most fundamental laws are those that control immigration and naturalization.

When a nation’s laws are violated there are incalculable costs to the health, wealth, and security of its citizens. The larger or more frequent the transgression, the larger the costs.

If and when a civil government proves itself incapable of enforcing its own laws, for example by failing to police its borders and defend its citizens from invasion, then the citizens have every right to replace that civil government and its laws.

Laws

No legal immigration. Set all quotas and limits to zero.

No naturalization. When your visa expires it’s time to go home.

No birthright citizenship. If neither of your parents is a citizen then you are not a citizen.

No dual citizenship. Choose your country. If it isn’t this one then go home.

No chain migration. Your relatives are not welcome.

No refugee relocation. They’ll have to go some place else.

Enforcement

No sanctuary. Secure the interior. Otherwise enforcement is toothless.

No holes. Secure all points of entry. Otherwise securing the interior is more difficult.

No doubt. It is the government’s responsibility to maintain citizenship and visitor records; and to provide cheap, efficient, and error-free verification of these records to any citizen upon demand.

No forgery. Record the biometric information of all visitors. ID cards are inherently insecure.

No amnesty. Deport and ban from future entry any alien who violates any law. This includes those who are already here illegally or attempt to enter illegally, regardless of origin or length of residence.

No abetting. Deport and ban from future entry the parents, children, spouses, and living partners of any alien who violates any law.

No profit. Severely punish businesses caught employing illegal aliens. This will include fines, revocation of licenses, cancellation of government contracts, and personal liability for its officers and owners.

No treason. Government officers found guilty of subverting immigration laws or derelict in their duty to uphold them will be tried for treason. The penalty is death.

Criticism

The tone of these policies is too negative.

This is unavoidable. Criminal law primarily concerns forbidding behavior society deems undesirable. Ignoring the behavior will not make it go away.

These policies would produce a police state.

Massive and flagrant violation of our laws and the tremendous social and economic burdens brought by those lawbreakers threaten the exact opposite: anarchy. The status quo and our current course seem in fact to promise the worst of both: what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny.

These policies would produce riots.

This is an argument against immigration. Why should any society accept aliens with a predilection to riot?

These policies are xenophobic, racist, or bigoted.

This argument is hypocritical. It presumes that citizens are irrational, inhumane, or otherwise inferior to immigrants.

These policies would ruin the economy.

Poppycock. First, “the economy” is only a subset of citizen interests, and their concerns for it are thus already incorporated into their laws. Second, there is another, more honest name for a money-making idea that requires a constant influx of ever more resources to work. It’s called a “pyramid scheme”. Such schemes inevitably collapse and the only people who ever get wealthy are those at the top.

My family/friend/worker needs to immigrate.

No, they don’t. Any citizen is free to leave at any time for any reason. For example, you may leave to meet or stay with your family/friend/worker somewhere where the immigration laws are more permissive.

You’re living in a fantasy world.

I’m reacting perfectly rationally to the awful reality I see. Those who believe that nationhood is a proposition, that everyone is an immigrant, that there are jobs citizens won’t do, or that we make our country better by admitting poor, uneducated, hostile people – they are the ones living in a fantasy world.

You just don’t like brown people.

The fact is there are plenty of nations where brown people are the majority and can expect to remain so for the forseeable future. The same cannot be said for white people. So it makes more sense to turn the accusation around: Those who advocate open borders for majority white countries do so because they just don’t like white people, or because they just like brown people more.

You’re a coward/xenophobe/anti-semite. You don’t understand history/government/power/people.

This is ad hominem, as are the previous two criticisms. Please criticize the ideas, not the admittedly ignorant and flawed nobody who puts them forth.

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.