Duty Does Not Calculate the Chances of Success

In my previous post I admitted to not really having thought much about White nationalism. I've now read the debate between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor that John Savage linked. I'll link each part here for convenience:

• Taylor vs. Sailer—Survival v. "Citizenism"
• Sailer vs. Taylor, Round II —"Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism
• "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism: A Second Reply to Steve Sailer
• "Citizenism" vs. White Nationalism (II): Sailer Sums Up

As it turns out I had read this before, I don't remember exactly when but probably only a few months ago when I was still unnaturally repulsed by talk of White anything.

Upon reading it now with a clearer head I see both men make sense, but I'm definitely more in agreement with Taylor. Sailer, as brave and realistic as he is on race, pins his hopes on a worldview, Citizenism, which non-Whites have clearly demonstrated they have no interest in maintaining once they wield any measure of power. Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Detroit - this is what happens when non-Whites gain control - how many more glaring examples of this inconvenient truth do Whites need?

Responding to Sailer, Taylor makes the following statement, with which I find myself in complete agreement:

Although immigration is today the greatest threat to the survival of Western Civilization on this continent, it is hardly the only threat. Every social problem—poverty, crime, illegitimacy, school failure—has a clear racial dimension that Americans refuse to recognize. There will be no honesty and no solutions until whites clear their heads of cobwebs and start thinking straight again. This will be better for everyone.

At the same time, I apologize to no one for putting my group first, just as non-whites do. Whites have a duty to their ancestors and an obligation to their children. Duty does not calculate the chances of success, as Mr. Sailer would have us do. Duty calls us to what is right.

My children deserve a country in which they can be proud of their heritage, where their culture is taken for granted, where their history is not treated like a criminal record, where they can be confident their own children will walk in the ways of their ancestors.

Indeed, all children deserve this—not just mine. This is why multi-culturalism and multi-racialism are frauds. Racial interests, like family interests, sometimes cannot be reconciled. Every people should have the right to pursue its destiny, free from the unwanted embrace of others.

Decades of post-1965 immigration mean it will not be easy to arrange this on our continent. But unless whites awake from their 50-year trance, they will be pushed aside by groups that have never lost sight of their racial interests, and never will.

No one else cares whether whites or their civilization survive. If whites do not regain the capacity to defend their interests they condemn themselves to oblivion.

The part I've emphasized above is my answer to Mencius Moldbug's criticism that White nationalism is "a romantic and fictitious idealization of social reality" and that it has no hope of succeeding. I'm convinced that multiculturalism is the fictitious idealization. The cure is truth. The more, sooner, the better.

In Round II Sailer links a paper dated September 26, 2005 that I had not previously read. Written by Australian law professor Andrew Fraser it describes the unraveling of the White Australia Policy and its consequences. Fraser's conclusion applies equally well to the situation here in the US:

Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate elites. On the contrary, our still predominantly Anglo-Australian rulers are indifferent; some profit from, and others actually take pride in their active collaboration with the Third World colonization of Australia. None of the major parties, indeed, not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament, offers citizens the option of voting to defend and nurture Australia's Anglo-European identity. The problem, in short, is clear: The Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class. The solution is, in principle, no less obvious: namely, the restoration of a ruling class rooted in the reinvigorated folkways of an authentically Anglo-American civic patriotism, a ruling class re-attached to the history and destiny of its own people. Only time will tell whether and how any such constitutional reformation could take place.

Burned out husks of what were once beautiful homes and businesses are emblematic of our ruling class' treason. The dilapidation isn't random. The more urgently they import savages to "do the jobs Americans just won't do", the more quickly civilization dissolves.

Or haven't you noticed yet?

White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism

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.

Bill Richardson, Invader Baby

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.)