Symptoms of Hostility

In "Greenspan to testify on immigration" Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn't even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, "Genocidal Immigrationists" comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn't make sense it's often because you're view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it's willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under "political correctness makes you stupid".

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

- - -

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation's validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don't care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two - another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there's an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It's called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn't see that as bad. No, it's a wonderful boon. We're so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist's holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat's essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

- - -

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen - and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn't important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here's one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. "Impossible to contain", "every country", "bring the world’s economy to a standstill". Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren't sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don't think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 "the old days" and claiming the SARS outbreak is "totally different" is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. "Who cares how many people die", seems to be the thinking.

- - -

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because "[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans":

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we're heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

- - -

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it's only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all "people of color" decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

- - -

In "Swine flu" Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn't bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It's the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that's the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

Genocidal Immigrationists

Or immigration genocidalists. Either phrase captures the meaning of the point I'm going to make here.

Several items in the news recently provide strong indications that our hostile, illegitimate rulers are preparing to once again foist amnesty and more aliens upon us. Whether they succeed or not hardly matters in the long term. The West is already brimming with aliens. Many are illegal and most are producing babies at a faster rate than the natives. Even so, legitimizing those aliens and inviting more is one of the highest priorities of our ruling class. After being rebuffed in their last treacherous attempt in the US in 2007 the housing bubble burst. Obviously then, at least to bubblists, a big part of getting the Holy Global Economy back on track is to jack up the already unprecedented migration of human herds to ever more unprecedented levels.

I wrote about one of the signs of this preparation in my last post, Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration. Below are several more.

- - -

In October 2008 the Sunday Express article titled Secret plot to let 50million African workers into EU revealed:

A controversial taxpayer-funded “job centre” opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”.

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. 

The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

It states: “Countries with low fertility rates could require a significant number of immigrants over the coming dec­ades if they want to maintain the existing number of people of working age. 

“Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.” 

The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. 

Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.”

No. We do not need immigration, we know this treachery is not new, and no we don't have to accept it. And by "we" I mean as in "We the People", as opposed to the royal "we" bureaucratic servants of the plutocrats are wont to use.

The proposals include the creation of a “blue card” system, based on the American green card, that provides full working and welfare rights.

Blue card holders would be entitled to move freely across the EU, setting up home in any of the 27 member states.

This is how a bait-and-switch works. First they create the EU, telling everyone what an advantage it will be for Europeans to visit each other. Then they make Africa part of the EU. Et voila, métissage EU-wide! Instead of co-opting the elected leaders of 27 countries all the immigrationists had to do was co-opt one. They may be genocidal, but they're not stupid.

The proposals – part of the Africa-EU Partnership signed in Portugal last December – also warns of the negative effects of mass immigration and calls for “better integration of African migrants”.

It calls too for a compassionate approach to the eight million illegal immigrants already living in the EU.

It states: “Irregular migrants must not be treated like criminals. Many risk their lives seeking freedom or the means of subsistence in Europe. As long as the EU has a higher standard of living than those countries to its south and east, the temptation to come will exist – especially if there are jobs to be had.”

Eight million invaders and umpteen million guest aliens isn't genocidal enough for the immigrationists.

If our leaders were not hostile toward us then this concern they constantly express for the well-being of "migrants", "irregular" and otherwise, would instead be directed at least once in a while toward the natives. In the past this "there are jobs to be had" line was a dishonest way of saying "there are wages to be lowered". Today, with jobs evaporating, it's a dishonest way of saying "jobs, schmobs, all we care about is getting more africans into Europe".

The declaration calls on the EU to assist African governments to set up migration information centres “to better manage labour mobility bet­ween Africa and the EU”.

One of the "negative effects of mass immigration" is that it lowers the quality of living of the natives and depresses their rate of reproduction. In consciously pursuing a policy that assists non-European "migration" and "labour mobility" the EU is perpetrating genocide on Europe's native people.

- - -

Today in Tom Friedman disses Mexicans Steve Sailer links Friedman's The Open-Door Bailout:

“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”

While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

How very slick of him to attribute the idea, and the backlash, to Gupta. Note however that Friedman quotes his own imagination in the second paragraph. The hooey about creative destruction and dead capital might smell less fragrant if it weren't being spouted in the wake of a trillion dollar save-the-financiers bailout, a trillion dollar printing frenzy by the Fed, and a multi-trillion dollar save-the-financiers stimulation. And that's in just the last six months. Imagine what kind of wage-slave-funded prizes the coming months hold for our wealthiest risk-takers.

In truth what fuels the "open economy", and what the financiers really want, is much closer to what Gupta describes. Billions of little worker bees, working their little hearts out for the profit of rootless cosmopolitan bankers who have no scruples whatsoever about saying whatever they have to to keep the whole rotten scheme rolling. Gupta isn't trying to sell his idea to the American public. He's selling it to our hostile rulers. Through propaganda like Friedman's (stir and repeat) nearly everyone is convinced that America is a big multicult corporation, and "wealth" is the only measure of what is good and right.

Friedman goes on to complain about restrictions on using bailout money to hire H-1B visa holders:

In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower — anywhere? That’s called “Old Europe.” That’s spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.

There's a part of "Old Europe" these immigrationists seem very eager to reproduce across the entire West. It's spelled: B-A-L-K-A-N-S.

The fantasy Friedman has for America already exists in San Diego. As recently as 25 years ago San Diego and it's suburbs were populated mostly by conservative Whites with small town values. The blacks and latinos lived in enclaves. Today it's one giant sprawl. The Whites who remain are mostly liberals who live in gated enclaves. The older communities have fractured and shrank faster than new ones could be built. Whites have been fleeing this dystopia for years but with the bubble bursting and a bankrupt government in denial the trend will accelerate. Replacing us is a tossed salad of aliens flowing in from every corner of the planet who want their piece of America.

The latinos dominate numerically, and once they're legalized they'll dominate politically too, as they already do in Lost Angeles. Lunch time at the food court in Sorrento Valley (home of Qualcomm and other high-tech employers) is a thoroughly multicult experience. A glimpse of what Friedman desires. It consists of predominantly latino food servers and custodians, supervised predominantly by middle easterners, serving a wide variety of foreign cuisine to a geeky clientele whose racial ratio is roughly 7-3-2-1 indians/pakis-"white"-chinese-other. By my inexpert eye a large fraction of the "whites" are related to Friedman.

“If you do this [H-1B hiring restriction], it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate at home,” said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. “We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know that for an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do business today with another Indian state?”

Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules. America should not be trying to copy that. “Your attitude,” said Dhar, should be “ ‘whoever can make us competitive and dominant, let’s bring them in.’ ”

This indian technocrat wants us to think he wants us to do something bad for his relatives. Hire them. Keep them from enriching india. Uh huh. Right. Remember this pitch isn't aimed at the typical American, it's aimed at our treacherous ruling class. "If you don't hire us we're going to compete with you!" That isn't a threat, it's a lame attempt to take American jobs without competing and to move into our nice society without having to create one of their own. They have the internet in india. They can do these "knowledge economy" jobs there. The cost of living is much cheaper. But who could blame them for not wanting to live in Mumbai? Of course they want to live in the kind of society Whites produce. Everyone does. They prove it every time they scream in our faces over the prospect that we might keep them out. The big problem for all of us is that wherever enough mexicans, indians, or chinese collect you get mexico, india, or china. Where they mix you get something like San Diego circa 2009. The weather is nice, but it's not America.

Message to Tom Friedman, the NYT, and all the rest of you genocidal freaks: It doesn't matter to me whether you think importing latinos, indians, chinese, or koreans is "profitable". It's destroying my society. I'd rather be poor, unemployed, and starving - and keep my society.

One last thing. Notice how Friedman appeals to "competitive advantage" and Dhar appeals to "competitive and dominant". It echoes the "competition" rhetoric Obama occasionally used on the campaign trail. The weird thing about these globalists is they never explain who "us" is or who "we" are competing against. In fact most of the time they're saying competition is a bad thing, "we" are all the same, and "we" don't need borders.

- - -

The last item is Progress by Pesach:

Progress by Pesach is endorsed nationally by American Jewish Committee (AJC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B’nai B’rith International, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF), National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and Uri l’Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement . Progress by Pesach is endorsed locally by Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center (Rockville/Beallsville, MD), Jewish Community Action (St. Paul, MN), Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern Arizona (Tucson, AZ), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (Rockville, MD), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (Chicago, IL), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (New York, NY), Jews United for Justice (Washington, DC), MIKLAT! A Jewish Response to Displacement (Milwaukee, WI), and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (Los Angeles, CA).

Progress by Pesach is the national Jewish campaign to encourage the new administration and congress to choose humanitarian immigration reform over the failed policy of exclusively relying on raids and enforcement tactics as a means of controlling immigration.

Passover is a time when we celebrate our freedom from bondage and remember when we were strangers in a strange land. Connecting our history to the struggles of immigrants today is the inspiration behind Progress by Pesach.

From Patrick Cleburne comes The Kvetcher: Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Kvetcher's post is titled Jewish Far-Leftist Boasts Goal of ‘Progress By Pesach’ is to Thwart the Will of the Majority Population! He writes:

I would love to declare that people like Rosenthal do not represent the mainstream Jewish organizations. But how can I reasonably claim that? Look at their "partners" list. These aren’t only radical and consistently shrill organizations…there are also mainstream Jewish organization that have signed on as well.

Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Cleburne writes:

The Kvetcher’s Blog is inwardly directed to the Jewish community. In that respect, it could be very valuable. I appeal to VDARE.com’s unjewish friends not to intervene. The Kvetcher has his hands more than full.

No intervention here. I'd just like to echo Kvetcher's question. I'll take it one step farther and say I'd really like to live in an ethnostate with a big concrete wall around it. And I'd like it by Easter. Got that Obama? Short of that I'd like to encourage these oh-so-self-righteous Pesachers to choose to progress themselves over to israel and take up their important humanitarian immigration reform work there. After all, israel is a nation of immigrants. They should be looking for whoever can make them competitive and dominant. Stir and repeat, stir and repeat.

- - -

The comment I left on Sailer's post regarding Friedman reads:

Being a world-class progressivist-globalist economist is simple. There's only one principle to remember. It holds under all circumstances - boom, crash, or in between.

"We need more immigrants."

Of course we need more immigrants like we need more gangs, more shortages, more diseases, more crowding, more deficits, more taxes, more slums, more distrust, and more violence.

We need immigrants like we need more houses and less farmland, woods, marsh, and wildlife. The rationale, such as it is, was described by Sailer in The circular logic of the bubble economy, 2002-2007:

Hire illegal aliens to build new houses in the exurbs for people wanting to get their kids out of school districts overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens.

Except the circular logic didn't stop in 2007 and it isn't restricted to illegals. It transcends bubbles. It transcends parties. It's hard to imagine anything that would stop it - unless enough people recognize it for what it is: a crime of monstrous proportions.

It's difficult for that to happen because the media aids and abets the crime by downplaying its importance and pathologizing the opposition.

The crime is a pyramid scheme motivated in part by greed and in part by malice. Those who believe in limitless growth, regardless of the costs, are frauds. Those who believe in limitless immigration, regardless of the consequences and over the objections of the natives it is displacing and dispossessing, are genocidal maniacs.

Two "Conservative" Jews, Same "Liberal" Dissembling

In The Myth of "Judeo-Christian Values", Paul Gottfried writes:

Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.

I am not suiciding myself and I don't know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as "suicide by repopulating their countries" is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don't want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as "us" or these countries as "ours". It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed "suicide" makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person - a "racist" or "nazi". You're a mortal threat to the interests of "minorities".

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That's why anyone who stands against this so-called "suicide" is called a "nazi" - whether or not they have any knowledge of "nazi" history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don't hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for "suiciding" ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.

Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don't. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.

This isn't about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of "nazism", which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn't anti-Christian, it's anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising "racist" motives.

I'm not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn't religion. It's "anti-semitism". If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn't matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.

There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I've never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.

Auster only poses as an anti-"liberal" "conservative". His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about "liberalism" and "judeo-Christian" heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a "conservative" against "liberalism". Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to "liberals" and leftist politics.

I'll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as "Protestants", then as "Christians", and finally as the "white gentile majority") are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster's emphasis):

LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks' backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you've been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group's extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group's extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you've been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You've summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I've been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.

Jews, including "conservatives" like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right's ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster's lame reply to "ignorant and off-base statements about me". He complains that:

Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer's website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer's long article, "Austercized" (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer's podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste's blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I've put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, "Larry"-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as "Larry") is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.

Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:

Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I've only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried's main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.

The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his "real" views do not demonstrate any "wild mischaracterizations" made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried's main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: The Myth of "Judeo-Christian Values". Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. "Judeo-Christian" rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, "liberal" view of "judeo-Christian" history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn't address the criticism that's actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about "personal attacks" and "reckless indifference to factual truth" and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried's blunt words concerning their dim views of "Christians", ie. Europeans.

I'm disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish "conservative" poseurs, but I'm happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren't fooled.

Ted Kennedy's Legacy: Genocidal Immigrationist

I wrote about Ted Kennedy's Legacy when his brain cancer was first announced in May of 2008. My opinion has only soured since. Please indulge me as I summarize his shameful legacy one more time, especially as our enemies at this moment are producing geysers of grief and love for their fallen hero.

From Wikipedia's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (AKA Hart-Celler Act):

During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1]

By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[3] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[1]

From George Borjas' The Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty):

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

What follows now are amongst Kennedy's final, and in my opinion most significant, words on the subject of immigration, offered just over two years ago in the wake of the failure of the comprehensive amnesty bill he had worked hard to enact. This intemperate and deeply cynical outburst has been all but memory-holed by the press. From BizzyBlog's Bias in Coverage of Immigration-Bill Failure Extends to Protecting Ted ‘Gestapo’ Kennedy:

We know what they’re against, we don’t know what they’re for. Time and time again they tell us “We don’t like this provision, we don’t like that provision, we don’t want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.

What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That’s their alternative?

HotAir provides video.

During the long arc of Kennedy's career as a rich, famous and increasingly powerful senator-for-life he dedicated a sizable portion of his fame and power to advocating nation-wrecking levels of legal immigration, though his good will extended even to tens of millions of illegal aliens who violated the liberal immigration laws he sponsored. A notable and consistent feature of his support for immigration was mendacity. It began with a denial of the negative impact immigration would likely have on us, the citizenry whose interests he was sworn to defend. His triumphant words in 1965 were in hindsight more prophesy than denial, for the future did unfold just as he promised it would not. The mendacity continued in 1986, two decades on, when he downplayed the horrible impact even though it was by then clear for all to see. It was in fact under the pretense of addressing this impact that he again made assertions later proven false. He again mouthed promises he made no effort to keep. The mendacity continued in 2007, another two decades on, the consequences of his handiwork now an order of magnitude larger than what he had promised would never happen again. His lies now concerned the impossibility of remedy and the negative impact any such remedy would have on the aliens. The interests of the citizenry no longer even rated lip service. He openly opposed us and cast aspersions on us.

For leaving a young woman to drown Kennedy appeared on nationwide television and apologized. For sinking our once orderly and prosperous nation, trapping 200 million Whites (and slipping) with 100 million non-Whites (and exploding), he never apologized. He went to the grave hating us.

If Kennedy had pursued medicine instead of politics we can imagine what might have happened. He might have shot his neighbor right after saying it was crazy for them to imagine he would do so. Then he might berate them for complaining about their pain while being wheeled into surgery, telling them not to worry, he'll fix it. Finally he might let them die on the operating table because, in his expert estimation, to remove the bullet would simply cause too much harm. No sorries and no worries. The next of kin will get the bill.

Then he'd go out and find another neighbor to "help". And another. And another. It would have been much better for most of us if Kennedy had gone this route. After only a few neighbors some cop or reporter would have started asking questions and his crime wave would have been stopped. What we got instead is far worse.

The next time you read about a crime committed by an alien, or the anchor baby of an alien, think about that. Remember Ted Kennedy. It's on his head. He did his best to open the door for them and keep them here.

Ted's brother Jack once called on America to put men on the moon, a quarter million miles away. Just because. And lo, with plenty of money and brainstorming and elbow grease men were there, less than a decade later. Playing golf. Ted in his turn, given an opportunity to right a wrong he helped create, argued instead that Americans should simply surrender and accept colonization by hostile, impoverished, uneducated aliens, because, we're to believe, he couldn't stomach the effort required to stop it.

In comparison to the trillions our corrupt politicians have since rushed to transfer from taxpayers to international financiers, Ted's scary $250B for deportation seems positively puny. Beside that, it would be spread broadly and domestically in pursuit of a goal the citizenry has actually expressed an interest in. It would be an investment which would pay large dividends in the form of savings on unemployment, healthcare, law enforcement, education, utilities and infrastructure, and much more. In contrast, the trillions dropped in financier laps have simply vanished. The credit that absolutely positively had to loosen? It didn't. Beyond preserving some undeserved bonuses it seems those trillions just got sucked right into the vacuum created by a decade or more of financial fraud and false profits. Plan B seems to be to give the country, and all of us, to China.

To hell with the money. It pales next to the genocide. Given the choice I would gladly put myself and my children on the hook for any amount to stop the immigration invasion, to send the ones already here home. As it happens I'm sure doing so would actually save money, which only makes the pain inflicted on us - the crowding, the crime, the violence, the political correctness - all the more senseless. Except it's not. It's genocide. We have what others want. We're in their way. That's the dynamic. You can see it in their furtive glare. At some point, as our numbers dwindle, order will break down. Look to Zimbabwe or South Africa to see where we're heading.

You may not think of immigration as genocide. I never used to. Even now I don't think it always was, or that it has to be. But recently I decided that the senseless flood being forced down our throats definitely is genocidal. It's obliterating who and what we are. Fast and forever.

Allow me to offer a few of the stepping stones that brought me to this conclusion.

"Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict" excerpts a report, published in December of 2007, less than six months after Kennedy's "gestapo" meltdown, on the hundreds of thousands of violent, criminal gangbangers fanning out across the US. Ted Kennedy was on their side. He wanted to make them citizens.

Pew Something Stinks describes how immigration has transformed the ethnic mix of this country. Anyone who knows anything about immigration knows this. Our corrupt politicians know we know it. In 1965 altering the mix was acknowledged, even by Kennedy, to be a bad idea. Today we're supposed to pretend it's a good thing, that we always wanted it to happen, otherwise we're evil "racists".

Genocidal Immigrationists is my first use of the phrase, prompted by the increasingly blatant sickening enthusiasm for nation-wrecking immigration in media and self-righteous jewish organizations, lobbying more zealously than ever for their immigrant friends. What seems insane is in truth only anti-White. It's time to wake up. Smell the genocide.

- - -

On Tuesday, 25 August 2009, Senator Edward Kennedy died, escaping the justice he so richly deserved. It is Kennedy's advocacy for genocidal immigration, especially after its ghastly impact was obvious, for which he should always be remembered. In ignominy. In infamy. Good riddance.