Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism

Lawrence Auster writes more frankly and more cogently than almost anyone else on issues concerning Islam, immigration, and race. As he and almost anyone unlucky enough to be interested in reading this knows, the discussion of such subjects in "polite society" is heavily constrained by political correctness - a hypocritical and stealthily imposed code of conduct propagated by pundits in academia and the media, and unthinkingly adhered to by nearly everyone else. Auster violates PC daily, and he does so by appealing to reason and history. He points out the many threads that connect events to the liberal influences and responses of "polite society". This is why his opinions are valuable. And this is why I am disturbed that he doesn't write more frankly and cogently about another issue related to all these others: Jews.

Until recently I would not have even linked to Auster much less praised him. For most of my life I have been raceless - too busy with my work to notice race, and afraid that someone might call me a racist if I did notice. It took alot for this to change. The LA riots, the OJ trial, 9/11, Iraq, Jena, and insane levels of immigration finally gave me sufficient justification and courage to speak out. Toward the end Lawrence Auster helped. I read and think and write thoughts now that I never would have wanted to be associated with before.

During what in retrospect has been a lifelong awakening I criticized and ridiculed political correctness and the liberal illogic behind it without even understanding their origins, pervasiveness, or monstrous power. It was only in the last few years, and especially the last few months, that I have had the time and motivation to dig deeper.

As I tried to understand Islam I came to see that the prevalent ideas - "religion of peace", "jihad means inner struggle" - rang false, and so I spoke plainly against them and in favor of the truth, smears of Islamophobia or racism be damned.

As I tried to understand immigration I came to see that the prevalent ideas - "family values", "jobs Americans won't do" - rang even more false, and so once again I spoke out, smears of xenophobia or racism be damned.

Now most recently, in spite of my dim wit, the hours of autodidacticism have finally connected these realizations to a long line of related lies: civil rights, multiculturalism, diversity, and above all the smothering, dictatorial political correctness that promotes these false ideals and protects them from criticism. I now see all these things as individual ingredients of a single toxic philosophical cocktail. Auster calls this cocktail "liberalism". He helped me recognize it.

Where I estimate we part company is that I believe whatever else this cocktail is intended to accomplish it will in fact also accomplish White European extinction. I also plainly say that Jews have played and continue to play a major role in causing this to happen, smears of anti-semitism or racism be damned.

I explained how I came to these conclusions in Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction and Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. I do not jump to conclusions, nor will I abandon them simply because they violate PC.

Clearly Whites are threatened with extinction. Clearly PC is largely to blame. Clearly Jews are both a proximate cause of PC and one of the minorities PC favors over Whites. No matter how carefully you choose the words, no matter how politely or obliquely you broach the subject, if you are critical of Jews someone somewhere will howl anti-semitism, call you a Nazi, and derail the discussion. This has the curious and surely deliberate effect of creating a big, ugly warning light in everyone's mind. A light that everyone in "polite society" knows you must not even chance triggering for fear you might have all sorts of opprobrium heaped on you - just like the other "Nazis". You should not even speak of this light, or the dehumanizing opprobrium, lest you are prepared to suffer.

This is the same psychological control mechanism that is brought to bear when "racist", "Islamophobe", "xenophobe", and the other smear words of liberalism's "hate speech" crimethink are deployed. There is one difference with "anti-semite": it is the strongest and most hypocritical smear of all. Jews are the longest lasting, most powerful, most cohesive group in human history. Those facts are not unrelated. This historically paranoid group sees and encounters enemies everywhere, but they have in contemporary times convinced even non-Jews to spot and silence their critics. For them to be the only group that has a specially designated and almost religiously observed protection clause (anti-semitism) is perfectly understandable, but the particularity of the "crime" flies in the face of the spirit used to justify defining it as such. The most virulent form of this bigotry (anti-anti-semitism) is self-defeating, if not flatly anti-everybody-else.

My story is similar to a handful of other people who I've since encountered via the internet. I am an ordinary White man who has belatedly recognized extraordinary threats not only to my own existence and the future of my children, but also to my larger extended family, my kinsfolk, who I have until now taken for granted. I am well educated and have been successful professionally. I can think and write moderately well. I use these abilities to seek truth. I try to speak it. I do not seek fame or fortune.

I write under a pseudonym because I can, and because there are many bad people - especially of the kind exalted by PC - who would surely harm myself or my family if they could easily find us. I know enough about the internet and politics and history to realize that I will have no protection in the long term, even if I never write another word. I chose Tanstaafl because I believe what it stands for: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I value many such aphorisms, but I selected this one because it also has a name-like acronym.

I think that covers the background, from my point of view, for the critique of and exchange with Lawrence Auster that motivates this post. What follows in some places requires more detailed understanding of Auster's positions and terminology. Sorry about that. Most readers who have gotten this far probably know it anyway. I believe this issue is critical. If even those who oppose PC do not think we should be free to speak of any and all topics, from any and all sources, even when threatened with extinction, then what hope do we have?

- - -

A month or so ago with the thoughts described above in mind I commented on a post by John Savage concerning Lawrence Auster's Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society (MMRILS). I asserted that this Law, which I agreed with but had never seen Auster apply to Jews, did in fact apply to Jews. John disagreed and we went back and forth several times arguing the point.

I include that exchange here for archival purposes, as John has now moved to a new site and disabled commenting on the old one (links and italics are in the original):
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
List of Instances of Auster's Laws of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society

Since I love having Lawrence Auster's great discovery at hand -- his Laws (or is there just one stated many different ways?) of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society -- I'm gathering together all the instances here, so I can just cite this post whenever I want to appeal to these laws. I'm still not positive which is the original statement of the law -- this appears to be the oldest post on the topic at VFR, but it gives the impression that the idea was not new even at that time. So I'd appreciate Mr. Auster referring me to the original source in which he first laid out the concept, whether that source is online or not.

* "The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group." (source) A "restate[ment]" of the First Law.

* "The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior." (source) Stated as the "First Corollary" to the First Law.

* "Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority." (source) This may be the original statement of the First Law.

* "The more illegitimate and dangerous you are, the easier it is for you [to immigrate to the West], and the more legitimate and productive you are, the harder it is for you." (source) A "variation" on the First Law.

* "When a society, acting with the purpose of eliminating all historic forms of exclusion and discrimination, including, ultimately, its own historic and ethnocultural identity as a society, admits large numbers of people into it who do not fit into it, either because of lower abilities or incompatible cultural/religious adhesions, the fact that they do not fit, when it is finally recognized, can only be blamed on the society itself. To blame the lack of fit on the newcomers would be to revive the very discrimination that their admission was meant to overcome. As long as the host society accepts the principle of non-discriminatory inclusion as the very basis of its own moral legitimacy, it must keep admitting more and more unassimilables, whose lack of ability to function in or identify with the society becomes more and more troublesome, a problem that, in accord with Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, must be blamed more and more on the racism of the society. Thus the more the society undoes itself in the name of indiscriminately including and favoring unassimilably diverse peoples, the more racist and guilty it becomes in its own eyes, leading to more and more minority preferences, speech codes, anti-hate laws, official lies, and the multicultural dismantling of the majority culture." (source) An excellent example of applying the First Law.

* "The WORSE a designated minority group behaves, the MORE we must blame ourselves for it." (source) Perhaps the most succinct statement of the First Law.

* "The more racial problems are created by liberal race policies, the more racist whites are." (source)

* "Given the inverted standards introduced into race relations by the belief in equality, the less deserving a nonwhite actually is, the more deserving he thinks he is." (source) Another "variation" on the First Law.

* Here's the First Law expressed well in its three main variations:
"1. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up.
2. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more racist it becomes to speak the truth about their behavior.
3. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more their behavior must be blamed on white racism." (source)

In another post, I'll try to put together some of the instances in which I and others have had occasion to apply Auster's Law(s).

Posted by John Savage at 8:37 AM

Labels: Auster's Laws, Islam, political correctness, race, the Left


Terry Morris said...

John, good idea here.

You've mentioned Auster's law several times that I recall, but I've never had occasion (or, I've never taken the time) to read it. It's probably something that belongs under Select VFR Articles over at Webster's.

I've got to take the time to check out these articles.

November 14, 2007 9:40 AM

Lawrence Auster said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 14, 2007 12:57 PM

John Savage said...

Mr. Auster,

You’re most welcome, and thank you for stating your one Law in its simplest form. I agree that all the formulations here can be stated as special cases of the one general case you’ve suggested.
November 14, 2007 1:52 PM

John Savage said...

Here's Mr. Auster's revised comment:

Dear Mr. Savage:

Thanks very much for accumulating these quotes. This is helpful. I’ve sometimes wondered myself whether there were several versions of “Auster’s First Law of MMRILS,” or just one Law with many variations. As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

Lawrence Auster
November 14, 2007 2:32 PM

Tanstaafl said...

And the corollary: Jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous.

Or shall we just label such an observation anti-semitic and discard it?
November 14, 2007 11:13 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, I don't know where you got it in your mind that Jews are the most favorably treated of all. People are pretty much given a pass for their anti-Semitism if they're not white Christians.

I agree with your statement that most Jews seem to agree with the idea of making whites a minority, supposedly to prevent another Auschwitz that way. But I tend to agree with Auster that that's irrational for them because they're importing people who are more anti-Semitic than the original WASPs.
November 15, 2007 8:36 AM

Tanstaafl said...

Nobody gets a "free pass" for anti-semitism, it's the one PC no-no that strictly applies even to those who get a free pass for anything else. It is so potent that it is sometimes brought to bear against those who simply don't support Israel, don't like neocons, or question the Holocaust.

You cannot oppose mass immigration for very long before you are forced to notice the overwhelming support for it coming from some of our most powerful institutions: media, academia, business, and politics. It is more difficult to notice that Jews have a disproportionately large representation in each, and nearly impossible to discuss what that may mean, without being called an anti-semite.

Do Jews overwhelmingly support mass immigration? How is it rational for them to do so? Do they support Israel? Do they know what Israel's immigration policies are?

This is a line of questioning forbidden by PC. To see that it gives Jews an especially favored status all you have to do is substitute "Mexicans" and "Mexico" for "Jews" and "Israel" in the statement above. Both statements violate PC, but which statement is more forbidden that the other?
November 15, 2007 2:18 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, I fail to see how Jewish liberals are any different from any other liberal. Sure, "anti-Semite" is used against people who are not anti-Semites, but how is that any different from liberals falsely calling, say, Bush a hater of black people?

I would say that the argument about Israel's immigration policy is equally un-PC if you replace "Israel" with any other non-Western country. Liberals will dismiss your concern with Mexico's immigration policy just as readily.

So the only difference I see is that Jews are a powerful minority for their size, whereas other minorities are not as powerful. It isn't a reason to be anti-Semitic, in my view, rather than just anti-liberal.
November 15, 2007 2:54 PM

Tanstaafl said...

You accept MMRILS. You accept that Jews are a minority. Yet you do not accept that MMRILS applies to Jews. You appear to be treating them favorably even while denying that they are favorably treated.

I can make two related points in Auster's terms:

Those who accept MMRILS but deny the favoritism of anti-anti-semitism appear to be making an Unprincipled Exception. (Whose restriction to "liberals" must be loosened in order to apply here.)

Condemnation of anti-semites (by your definition anyone who takes their refinement of anti-liberalism too far and names its components) is an example of Criticizing Those To Your Right. (Which Auster has complained of many times but I cannot find a formal definition of.)
November 15, 2007 3:28 PM

John Savage said...

Tanstaafl, "Criticizing Those To Your Right" is a straw man. Everyone does it. Anyone who defines his position clearly is going to say, "These people are to the Left of me, and these people are to the Right of me. Here's where I am on the spectrum." I doubt you can prove to me that Auster has condemned "criticizing those to one's right". He too has criticized anti-Semites in much harsher terms than have I. For example, he criticized Jared Taylor for refusing to ban anti-Semites from the American Renaissance conferences. You are maintaining that somehow those to my right deserve immunity from criticism, and I maintain that no one deserves immunity from criticism.

Auster has complained of people excluding him from discussions or slandering him because in their minds, he's too far to the Right. I am not doing such a thing. I am not excluding you from the discussion, and I would have thought twice about calling you an anti-Semite had you not called yourself one already.

Regarding Jews, I admit they are treated favorably, though I maintain less favorably than other minorities. (See my post on the Hierarchy of Entitlement, for example.) I agree that this should not happen, and that there are many false accusations of anti-Semitism made (including against me). I agree that false accusations of anti-Semitism should stop. But you still claim I'm showing favoritism toward Jews, I suppose because you believe that Jews belong at the top of my Hierarchy of Entitlement. So in your mind, I'm denying that MMRILS applies to Jews, but I maintain that I'm not.
November 15, 2007 4:00 PM

Tanstaafl said...

Auster says:

However, the issue still comes down to white guilt, since, whether whites consider themselves guilty or consider other whites guilty, white guilt is still what it's all about.

Anti-anti-semitism is one manifestation of white guilt. I assert that it is in fact the most prominent.

To see this all you have to do is review the most notable things Whites are collectively blamed for - the Holocaust, slavery, Manifest Destiny. Of them all which source of guilt is most likely to be accepted even by White conservatives?

I agree with you that no person or group should be above criticism. That's exactly why I bristle at anti-anti-semitism. I see it as an attempt to shut down criticism rather than refute it.

There are several similar slurs - sexism, racism, nativism, fascism - intended to achieve similar purposes. However, the unique power of the very specific slur of anti-semitism is clear if you notice that even many of those who refuse to cower when tagged with any of those other labels will resort to tagging others with the anti-semitism slur.

Since you can say that MMRILS applies to Jews all we would seem to disagree on is how favorable their treatment is. I say it is greatest of all. You claim it is lesser than others.

Your HoE essay doesn't mention Jews. I would appreciate if you could further and more directly support your argument as I have mine. I'm curious to see how your metric of who rapes who works out when applied to a group for which it is not even politically correct to note membership. Or how the hierarchy might shape up if it were based on a metric of say proclivity for financial and political power while enjoying relative immunity from scrutiny.

November 15, 2007 5:28 PM
I cited this discussion in White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism which I wrote a week or so afterward. At that time I was disappointed Auster had not joined the discussion John and I had about his MMRILS, but he was obviously very busy maintaining his blog.

In the post on White Nationalism Auster came up again, both because Mencius Moldbug mentioned him and because by that time I had begun to see a blind spot, even a favoritism for Jews, in both of their writings. So I said so. I stand by my mini-critique of Auster's critique of Pat Buchanan. By that point in time I had not only come to realize just how irrational, unproductive, and thoroughly liberal the anti-anti-semite routine is. I had just noticed one icon of the anti-PC right using it on another. The inconsistency and unfairness of this made me angry.

Also on the White Nationalism post a commenter calling himself Colin Laney described Auster as a Jewish "safety valve for awakening gentiles". Leaving aside whether this is rude or it true? Does Auster help White conservatives partially understand and vent their frustrations with the insane consequences of liberalism, neoconservatism, and political correctness while actively discouraging them from assigning any blame to Jews? Nobody but Auster will ever know his intentions for sure, but by reading what Auster writes about Jews and anti-semitism any thinking person can decide for themselves.

I believe Auster is a philo-semite. He favors Jews. On his blog he openly speaks in favor of White interests and against the various forms of liberal insanity that threaten Whites, but to my knowledge (and I admit I have not read everything he has ever written) he has not (except see below) discussed Jewish influence over that insanity and their relative exemption from it. Even when obvious opportunities arise he passes them by. As illustrated by the examples cited below, when the subject comes up outside his tightly-controlled blog he quickly and needlessly resorts to innuendo, distortion, and insults. His logic on the subject is exceedingly thin.

Ultimately my criticism of Auster, and any other pundit, is this: How can you honestly comprehend or describe the structure of power in the liberal dominated West while neglecting to consider and account for, out loud and at length, the disproportionate involvement and influence of Jews? There are many related issues. Why are they taboo? The answer is PC. Why does a thinker who so often decries PC and its defamatory tactics use such tactics himself? I'd like to know.

- - -

On Friday morning I visited Auster's site and among other posts read this one. Then I clicked over to Vanishing American, where I made the following comment on a post titled Tancredo supporters, what now?:
There is something more behind the odd behavior of Gilchrist, Simcox, and Tancredo.

And now Auster is making odd anti-Paul statements. What does he stand for? The only non-liberal, non-neocon left to vote for is Paul. But Auster says Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer are "anti-American", therefore don't vote for Paul. Is this about anti-semitism? Is Auster using the same "guilt by association" and "criticism of those to your right" he chafes at so often?
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.21.07 - 9:38 am | #
At the time I referred to it Auster's post was much more terse than it is now. It described Lew Rockwell and Michael Scheuer as "anti-American" without saying why, and by association with them was pretty clearly knocking Ron Paul. For the record I don't remember Auster writing "don't vote for Paul" or even that he wouldn't vote for Paul, so I regret and apologize that I distorted it that way.

In reading my comment now I can see it comes across as cynical and accusatory. I suppose it is. Some of the most prominent anti-immigration leaders have suddenly abandoned or shifted their position and weakened the cause. Concurrent with that Lawrence Auster, who saw the immigration problem clearly 17 years ago, snipes at Ron Paul, the one remaining candidate that our rotten rabidly open border media really truly hates. For that fact alone Ron Paul deserves the benefit of the doubt from anyone, like Auster, who supports US sovereignty.

If you're familiar with the idea of Schadenfreude then know that all this - the anti-semitism, the anti-anti-semitism, Auster's criticism of Paul, my criticism of Auster - gives me the opposite feeling.

Ernest and Vanishing American curtly agreed with my comment about Auster, after which Auster posted the following:
There are some dumb, thoughtless comments in this exchange about my statements and intentions. Re Romney, I've been all over the place and have entertained a variety of views. I've also said clearly and repeatedly that I don't think I could vote for anyone who appeared in the Spanish language debate. That would include ALL the GOP candidates except for Tancredo.

Re Paul, I explained why I have not been interested in him, why I personally have tended to tune him out and thus don't know that much about him. That's not the same as an attack or a smear. In fact shortly after that post I posted something by Paul.

As for the accusation by "Tanstaafl" (a moniker I strongly advise he get rid if he wants people to take him seriously), far from accusing Paul of anti-Semitism, I very forcefully defended him from that charge a few months ago and harshly condemned Ramesh Ponnuru and Ryan Sager for making it based on almost non-existent evidence: 007852.html
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 6:20 am | #
To which I responded:
Dumb, thoughtless, I should change my moniker? If I weren't so dumb and thoughtless I might be silenced by such empty ad hominem.

The fact is Larry that some of what you say doesn't make sense. You rail day in and day out about "liberalism" and decry the leftist tactics of guilt by association and criticizing those to your right. And then, not only do you occasionally use those tactics yourself, you use the cases where you've previously decried those tactics to defend yourself!

One of these days I'm hoping you'll explain why you think anyone who isn't a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you've already written that addresses such concerns.

On a related note I'd like to see you square your so-called "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society" with your exemption of Jews from criticism. But I see now you've answered on the John Savage post where I first raised this question, so I'll make further comments there.
Tanstaafl | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 12:29 pm | #
Auster then responded:
Tanstaafl writes:

"One of these days I'm hoping you'll explain why you think anyone who isn't a philo-semite is perforce an anti-semite who should be shunned. Or perhaps you could cite an essay you've already written that addresses such concerns."

Tanstaafl's comments are so off-base to anyone familiar with my writings that he discredits himself. I've dealt with people like him many times before and they're absolutely predictable. They start off complaining about the terrible unfairness of the anti-semitism charge, an argument that sounds sort-of, kind-of rational, so you can't immediately dismiss them. But if you stay in the discussion with them, they quickly reveal where they're really coming from.

Happily, since T. is not posting at my site, I don't have to deal with him any further. He's all yours, VA.
Lawrence Auster | Homepage | 12.22.07 - 2:52 pm | #
I went to John Savage's MMRILS post and discovered that the discussion had briefly continued weeks ago, weeks after I had given it up for dead:
Lawrence Auster said...

I just came upon this exchange and want to reply to the points made by Tanstaafl (which frankly sounds like a neo-Nazi moniker).

Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I'm covering that up. The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone's fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I've said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority's standards.

It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late '30 and early '40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it's hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is "Saving Private Ryan," in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That's the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards than what we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made.

In short, the Jewish problem can be solved, and Jews can function, as they have in the past, as a minority that has a certain distinctiveness and yet conforms itself to the standards of the majority culture.

It is not the same with, say, Muslims. Muslims cannot be conformed to our culture. The relationship between Muslims and our culture is of an entirely different order from the relationship between Jews and our culture. Jews are assimilable. Muslims are not. The fact that that a major non-Western group is unassimilable to our culture is not acceptable to the liberal consciousness, which must cover it up. And thus we arrive at the First Law. The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl's treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.
November 30, 2007 8:25 PM

W.LindsayWheeler said...

I want to support the thesis of tansfaafl and rebute Mr. Austers' assessment that "the Jews are not seen as a minority".

Mr. Auster is right in one aspect, that in PROTESTANT countries, Jews are not seen as a minority or a disruptive minority BUT in CATHOLIC countries, Jews are a disruptive minority. There is a whale of a difference. Protestantism is akin to Judiasm. Protestants, in their 'sola scriptura' mirror Judiastic thinking. So, Protestants view Jews as fellow brothers and not a disruptive minority. Christian Zionism is overwhelmingly, like the British-Israelitism heresy, is purely Protestant.

In Old Catholic Countries, Jews are a disruptive minority and are to be segregated and be restricted in their rights.

In "Auster’s First Law of MMRILS", the practice would be different under what religion.
December 1, 2007 9:40 AM
Only after writing the following did I discover that the original thread was closed. In the end it was the desire to make this response that prompted me to gather all the things above and string them together. I apolgize for any repetition, this is by now getting very long and tiresome, I realize:
Tanstaafl is just wrong to say that the First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society is about Jews and that I'm covering that up.

You misrepresent my position. I did not claim that MMRILS is about Jews, or that you are covering this up. I made the assertion that I believe your MMRILS should apply also to Jews.

The First Law is about conspicuously different minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile. Since Jews are not generally seen these ways, except by anti-Semites, the First Law does not apply to Jews, though some aspects of it may apply some of the time.

By this logic, since any minorities who are perceived as minorities, and who are perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile are not generally seen these ways, except by racists, one could say that your First Law doesn't apply at all.

It's your Law. You can define it however you like. I find it a valuable insight that reveals an unpleasant truth. The problem is to assert this truth one must accept that those in denial or who knowingly benefit from ignorance will smear you as a racist. Your original definition:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

didn't hinge at all on "dysfunctional and unassimilable". The variations you've made since show that the idea is somewhat flexible.

As with the "racism" smear, likewise "anti-semitism". Even if perceiving Jews as a dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile minority earns you the label "anti-semite", so what? That doesn't explain why Jews require special exception from criticism. Is it not an Unprincipled Exception to say that they do? Is it not criticizing someone to your right to insult and dismiss someone as an anti-semite for even making these arguments?

When I say this, I am not covering up the fact that there is a Jewish problem because that is something I often talk about. But I believe in the need to talk about it rationally. The Jewish problem—not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem—consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority.

You state the Jewish Question forthrightly here. Thank you. I have been reading your blog on a daily basis for months, and have read many of your older writings there and at other sites. I'm afraid I cannot agree that you talk about this problem much. Not in such frank terms, and certainly not often.

For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy, as Kevin McDonald would have it, rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents.

Kevin MacDonald does openly talk and theorize about Jewish influence, its causes and effects. Do you agree that he talks about it rationally? Do you acknowledge that he has been irrationally demonized, especially by Jews and Jewish organizations, as is virtually anyone who criticizes Jews, rationally or not?

The First Law applies to dysfunctional and unassimilable groups, it does not apply to functional and assimilable groups.

To try to make the First Law be about Jews—and especially, in Tanstaafl's treatment, be primarily about the Jews—hopelessly confuses the issue. It is but another illustration of how anti-Semites, because they see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue, cannot see any issue truly. Their lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil makes them intellectual cripples who are incapable of defending the civilization they supposedly want to defend.

I have not proposed that your First Law is "primarily about Jews" and I do not "see all issues through the filter of the Jewish issue". I understand and agree with your Law, and have argued that it applies to Jews just as well as any other minority. Best of all in fact. I provided simple, rational reasons why.

It is your rationale that is confusing. You exclude Jews based on words not present in fact or spirit in many variations of your definition. Your labeling me an "intellectual cripple" is unjustified, as is the assumption that I have a "lunatic obsesssion with Jews as the source of all evil".

Jews played an enormous role in creating the liberalism that poisons our society with its PC lies. They play an ongoing role in perpetuating it. Would you agree that non-Jewish Whites have legitimate reasons to see this as "bad behavior"? Jews have benefited greatly from the protection afforded them and all the other "minorities" by PC. Would you agree that it is reasonable to propose that these observations together conform to the spirit of the two halves of your MMRILS law?

I value the opinions of those, like yourself, who challenge PC. I'm curious why some, like yourself, go to a certain point and stop. You seem intelligent and forthright on so many other issues. Why do you stoop to PC ad hominem when an otherwise rational discussion turns to criticism of Jews? Why do you distort and extremify the positions of those who, like myself, don't give any special dispensation to Jews?

Perhaps you'll write about this. We need more open discussion of this problem that goes beyond calling people names.
Perhaps Auster actually will respond. I invited him to do so on VA's thread.

To clearly see the Jewish problem (also called the Jewish Question) requires that you realize and accept that Whites and Jews are not the same group and their group interests do not entirely coincide. But this is yet another truism that is difficult to calmly discuss in the face of hysterical anti-anti-semitism and totalitarian PC. I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.

What I do say is that a person cannot be both Jew and White at the same time. It appears to me that where the interests of Whites and Jews diverge Auster prefers Jewish interests. That's fine. Being an ostensibly White opinion shaper I'd just like him to be more clear on this point. From his swift and negative dismissal of my comments so far it seems in a way that he has.

It hardly matters what I think, but I side with Whites. I do not oppose other groups discussing their interests. I am against Whites being prevented from discussing their interests, for any reason, including when it contradicts Jewish interests. That's my view from the right of Lawrence Auster.

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007: Auster has responded. Rather than answering my arguments and clarifying the positions of his which I have questioned he continues to focus instead on smearing me personally. Beyond that his response illustrates very clearly the inconsistencies I think most relevant here, and I encourage anyone concerned with White interests to read what he writes.

Auster claims to be concerned with White interests when he in fact pursues Jewish interests. That is now clear to me. To the extent those interests overlap his pretense works, it is where those interests conflict that he is revealed. I've never seen him get so worked up about anti-Whitism. I've never seen him attack with such venom someone he thought was being anti-White. To so self-righteously and summarily dismiss my arguments as anti-semitic, on that basis alone, he must strongly identify as a semite and consider those interests superior to all others. QED.

Speaking of me he says:
He's someone who thinks that if I fail to join him in his anti-Semitism, that shows a troubling inconsistency in my thought.
This is an interesting and by its repeated occurrence I daresay deliberate distortion. I have just reiterated one troubling inconsistency above. It is not about him not being an anti-semite, it has to do with not being open about being a philo-semite.

There is another inconsistency, the contrast in his attitudes about racism and anti-semitism, that a comment from his correspondent Tom M. triggers him to highlight:
Regarding the "I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite" thread, hasn't the term "anti-Semite" become an all-inclusive, imprecisely defined word, used for effect the way "racist" is being used? Whether one has good reasons for making racial distinctions or not, the label "racist" is used to undercut any rational discussion of race. Likewise hasn't the label "anti-Semite" become a description to stop at any cost a rational consideration of the effects of influential Jewish persons and their thought processes on society?
Auster's answer to this is that the only proper path is to very carefully separate what is rational and legitimate criticism from that which is not. He then calls Tom M. an anti-semite for not professing philo-semitism. This is rational? This is legitimate?

I prefer my way. I openly state my loyalties and interests. I openly state who I think operates against my interests. I am not concerned whether people smear me as a racist or an anti-semite. I am not going to waste my time writing "some of my best friends are..." apologia to try and convince anyone that I am neither. I hold no ill will toward anyone due simply to the color of their skin or the genes in their cells. I will however hold them responsible for the thoughts they express, and especially for their actions. I possess the faculties to recognize who operates against me and my kin, for whatever reasons they choose to do so. I will openly call them out, and I will act in self defense. If you consider that a crime then you are certainly an enemy.

You can question whether this position is rational, especially since it may not make good tactical sense. You can question whether it is legitimate, especially since I speak for only one person, myself. You can question anything else about me you dislike. What I suspect Mr Auster dislikes most is that his calling me an anti-semite is not enough to shut me up. My response is: I know what I am, the question is what are you?

UPDATE, 24 Dec 2007 #2: Auster has written some more. No answer to my points. He is more interested in speculating about my pseudonym. Really. He says my thinking works like an anti-semitic computer program.
At the core of the program is the false epiphany: "Now I see it! The Jews are responsible for everything that has gone wrong with the West, the Jews are the enemy, and everyone is covering this up, and I alone have the courage to reveal this truth and call the Jews to account."
So he thinks I'm an automaton. An inferior whose arguments he must exaggerate in order to make them sound unserious. I think this means I will not be getting any substantive answer.

This automaton has read and comprehended enough of Auster's own logic to find what it thinks are some real problems. It has expressed opinions using Auster's own terminology and asked him for clarification. Surely such a lowly automaton could be easily corrected.

Instead Auster supplies yet another lesson in how anti-anti-semitism works. Cry anti-semitism! Treat the person criticizing Jews as if they are insane. A reasonable alternative - that many Jews have acted against White interests, that they have covered it up, and that others have said the same things because those things are objectively true - is apparently too far-fetched to accept.

Here's the program for anti-anti-semitism:
while (detect(criticism_of_jews))
In Auster's case it seems to be stuck in what programmers call an infinite loop.

Merry Christmas!

UPDATE, 25 Dec 2007: Auster continues to confirm not only a pro-Jewish bias, but an unwillingness to be forthright about it. He jumps from one conclusion to the next without any self-awareness just how unserious (to use one of his favorite put-downs) he is revealing himself to be. I'm especially touched by the pile-on-the-ignorant-anti-semite comments from his peanut gallery. Honestly I expected either no response, or a terse reasoned response. I did not expect an ongoing babbling meltdown.

A correspondent tried to help him understand where "TANSTAAFL" comes from, something he could have easily discovered if he had googled tanstaafl or followed the link I provided in my original post. Auster knows it now, but in spite of this he says I really selected the name because it "sounds warlike and Germanic". Those weren't my thoughts (I said what I was thinking above) but this does at least explain why he's so obsessed with my pseudonym. If only he would use the energy he spends projecting and speculating futilely about what motivates me, and use it instead to respond to what I've actually written.

He brings up my MMRILS criticism, only to once again dismiss it on the basis that it is anti-semitic. He continues to ignore the rebuttal in this post. He will not admit that Jews are the minority that liberal political correctness protects most of all. Even while his own PC-based anti-anti-semitism demonstrates it. Amazing.

Then he takes my separatist notions and extrapolates what they mean, for Jews. This fellow who presents himself as a White Christian pundit is oddly capable of scanning my posts and focusing like a laser on any statement that contradicts Jewish interests, while missing the things I've said that contradict Latino and Muslim interests and the pro-White basis from which I argue. Frankly I don't need his lectures about why Whites are fleeing California.

I freely admit that in retrospect it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that Jews lobbied long and hard for non-White immigration, and that it isn't Latinos or Muslims who are wildly overrepresented in the rabidly open borders media, it is Jews. To me this is evidence that these facts are not discussed openly enough. That Auster finds these observations antithetical to Jews means that for him the truth matters less than what he thinks is good for Jews.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: The conversation continues here.

Labels: ,


Tuesday, December 18, 2007

"Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict"

The following was excerpted from an 8-page story titled L.A. Gangs: Nine Miles and Spreading posted on December 12th at

I took the liberty of eliding large sections of "human interest" narrative to focus more closely on the statistics and statements of public officials. I also bolded certain sections I find particularly insightful or alarming.

The meat begins on page 2:
Nationwide, juvenile gang homicides have spiked 23 percent since 2000. There are six times as many gangs in L.A. as there were a quarter century ago, and twice as many gang members. But as important as the gang activity itself is what’s different about the violence. In America’s urban ganglands, and in L.A. in particular, the ferocity of the thuggery has surged; gang members, their victims and police long on the gang beat tell me the fighting has become more codeless, more arbitrary and more brutal than ever.

And it is everywhere. According to the Department of Justice, today America has at least 30,000 gangs, with 800,000 members, in 2,500 communities across the United States. (Gang experts at the University of Southern California claim the number of American jurisdictions with gang problems has reached 4,000.) Federal, state and local law enforcement across the country agree that street gangs connected to or mimicking the L.A. model have become a national epidemic.

Last January, a report on gang violence commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council found that the gang epidemic is largely immune to general declines in crime nationwide. In other words, gang crime is surging just as other violent crime is decreasing. And unlike other categories of crime, gangs and gang-related crime are spreading to formerly safe middle-class communities, or, “to a neighborhood near you,” says the report’s author, civil rights attorney Constance Rice.

What this means is that the communities gangs come from are pulling away from mainstream society more than ever, and the gangs that plague them, like storm systems, are growing and feeding on themselves, gathering destructive strength. In Los Angeles, law enforcement officials now warn that they have arrived at the end of their ability to contain gangs to poor minority and immigrant hot zones.
From page 3:
Last January, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa cried uncle, saying that it was time for government and law enforcement to admit they have failed to stop gangs or even understand what they are. He appealed for federal help to make a Marshall Plan–style push to tackle what’s been an intractable problem.

Los Angeles is the epicenter of the nation’s gang crisis, and an effective assault on gang crime will require increased suppression, intervention and prevention measures,” Villaraigosa said after Rice’s report was released. “Street gangs are responsible for the majority of all the murders in Los Angeles and nearly 70 percent of all the shootings. We must work to address gang violence in a truly comprehensive way.”

The problem is that for the most part traditional (and failed) models of gangs and gang suppression do not apply, because not only are gangs better armed and more ferocious, but they look different. The accelerating current of gang violence is colliding with a growing wave of Hispanic migration from Mexico and Central America into the United States. Hispanic gangs now dominate the hardcore narcotics business nationwide, and they are physically pushing historically entrenched black gangs out of their territories.

Squeezed by a shrinking share of the drug market, desperate for new business, gang members and their families are retreating out of the city, establishing new street gangs where they land. According to the FBI, gangs are showing up and spreading in suburban and rural America, in counties like Westchester and Suffolk in New York, and rural parts of North Carolina and Virginia, places that have no experience with street gangs and organized crime, and police who don’t know how to fight it.
From page 4:
“Most of what we’re seeing in the east are L.A. street gangs,” says Special Agent Alec J. Turner, the director of the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center, a joint effort with the U.S. Marshals, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. “We are seeing influence from MS-13 [Mara Salvatrucha] cliques getting some direction from higher-level MS-13 people in L.A.”

The migration of gang members out of L.A. is an even spray pattern, the FBI says. Gangs have coalesced most heavily in the Northeast, the country’s most lucrative narcotics market, but they are also moving to the Northwest (San Francisco and Seattle) and across the Midwest and South (Little Rock and Charlotte). “And it’s not just national migration,” Turner says, “but also from urban settings to rural settings, based on gangs’ knowledge that law enforcement in rural and suburban areas has less scrutiny. The police are softer.”

Once migrant gang members claim virgin drug territory for themselves, L.A.-style gang chaos and murder is inevitable. “It’s a power struggle between new gangs,” Andre told me. “Who’s running what? Who has more money? Who’s got more squad? That’s what it all comes down to, whose squad is willing to kill. And that is when the young kids come in, because they don’t give a fuck. They come in, and they kill other kids.”

The cycle is hard-wired into the gang dynamic. And because it’s not geography specific, and is spreading through an expanding population of potential recruits, the federal government is making a paradigm shift toward thinking of street gangs under the rubric of domestic terrorism. “There’s an analogy to modern terror organizations,” says the Rand Corporation’s Jack Riley. “The members are not persuadable in any regular sense.”
Some Los Angeles gangs are strictly robbery crews, others jack cars, Vietnamese gangs specialize in identity theft, Russian and Armenian gangs do mostly extortion and human trafficking. At last count, Los Angeles County had more than 714 gangs and 80,000 gang members. That makes one of every hundred county residents either a hardcore soldier in a gang or an “associate” — the getaway drivers, lookouts, “cookers” (people who know how to turn cocaine into crack) and “hooks” (people who direct customers to drug houses) — or an “affiliate,” a gang member with no specific duties. But no section of L.A. is more defined by gangs than the nine square miles of Watts terrorized by the Bounty Hunter Bloods and Grape Street Crips: the Nickerson Gardens and Jordan Downs housing projects, along with Imperial Courts and Gonzaque Village, and the streets that connect them.

Every yard, doorway, shop and parking lot is the fiefdom of one of Watts’ 65 gangs and their roughly 15,000 hardcore gang members. In that area alone, gang members shoot 500 people a year, and kill 90. Nearly every citizen living there is enjoined by membership or affiliation; those who try to stay out of the life incur their local gang’s wrath, sometimes with fatal consequences. The average American has a 1-in-18,000 chance of being murdered. In this area of Los Angeles, the chances are 1 in 250.

On New Year’s Eve so much automatic weapons fire pours into Watts’ airspace that LAX air traffic control must divert the flight path of incoming planes. The U.S. military sends its medics to train at local trauma hospitals because the conditions in their trauma units so resemble live warfare. At a community meeting I attended in March 2006, LAPD Chief William Bratton declared the Jordan Downs–Nickerson Gardens area “the most violent community in the country. This is now the most dangerous place in America,” he said.
From page 5:
It wasn’t always this way.

Originally, L.A.’s street gangs were social and support organizations for immigrants and packs of neighborhood pals. Mostly their crimes were petty, and scores were settled with fists. Latinos and blacks generally stayed out of each other’s way.

All that changed forever in the late 1980s, when crack cocaine hit Los Angeles and neighborhood affiliation became secondary to what all the gangs now really wanted: a piece of the drug business. By then, Colombian cartels, looking to reduce the risk of American prosecution, had transferred the bulk of the trafficking part of the drug business to Mexican and Hispanic-American gangs. Now in control of the cocaine supply, and suddenly flush, many of them squared up into efficient, vertically integrated, multilevel organizations.

“They quickly understood the benefits of economic diversification, and that the real money is in wholesaling drugs coming over the border to other gangs,” Luis Li, a former assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Department of Justice’s L.A. organized-crime division, told me.

Mexican gang leaders from Los Angeles jailed in Tracy State Prison banded together to retain control of their narcotics business on the street. The Mexican Mafia — or Eme — was born, and has replaced the Cosa Nostra as the most powerful single criminal entity in the country.
The truth is that gangs are merely reflections of their communities. America’s huge pool of poorly educated urban black men was being pushed farther than ever to the fringes of mainstream society. New studies by experts at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and other institutions show how the numbers of young black American men without jobs climbed relentlessly during that period. By 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20s were jobless — unable to find work, not seeking it or in jail. By 2004, the number had climbed to 72 percent (compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts). Today, 75 percent of Watts’ adult black male population will at some point go to jail or prison.
The differences between black and Latino gangs are stark. And the black gang members I spoke with readily admit that the difference is fatal. Damien Hartfield, the former Bounty Hunter, explained, “Blacks do what they want. When Latinos go gangbanging they have a solid plan. Blacks don’t go to war like that. It’s spontaneous. Something just happens. Latinos make a call, make a plan. They have a structure.”

LAPD Chief Bratton admits he is bewildered by how anarchic L.A.’s black gangs have become.

“African-American violence is totally out of proportion to their numbers,” he said. “With Latinos, there is so much more family structure, while it’s not as if blacks rally around the African-American community just because they are black. They associate more with their gang colors than they do with their own color as African-Americans. It’s almost as if they lost identities as African-Americans.”
From page 7:
Gangbangers call the innocents among them “mushrooms” because they pop up in the way of their bullets.
From page 8:
Lieutenant Sullivan, the intelligence analyst for the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, has started to track a demoralizing parallel between the way street gangs are changing in the United States and the inception of home-grown terror cells in Pakistan and the United Kingdom, as well as child soldiers in Africa. “There is debate as to whether gang members are child soldiers because they are not in a declared war. But I think functionally it is the same thing. Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict.”
I asked De’Andre Perry what he’d do if someone gave him a one-way ticket out of Watts and enough money to start a new life. He paused and looked around at the desolate buildings. “I am not going to die for these bricks,” he said. But the gang was more state-of-mind than geography. “Wherever you put me I am still going to be me. I am still going to have Bounty Hunters on my arm, embedded in my brain. Wherever you put me I am going to be hood. Wherever I am at, I am going to make it my hood.
The next time someone tries to tell you how much we need immigrants, how wonderful and hard working they all are, that our economy would collapse without them, that we are a nation of immigrants, or that we should celebrate diversity because it is our great strength, please point them here.

It's not that I expect anyone dishonest or deluded enough to spout such nonsense would actually face the facts at this late hour and change their tune. I'd just like to take this opportunity to sincerely and emphatically invite them to go fuck themselves.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Unmigration Manifesto


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.


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.


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.


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.

Labels: ,