It’s an oft-heard complaint, even a canard, about white people in general and white conservatives in particular. The immigration issue is framed in terms of white dislike for other races. It’s misleading, even among most white right-wing types. While it’s true that some whites do harbor disdainful, contemptuous, hostile, and even hateful views in regards to nonwhite groups, sometimes grounded in facts(especially black criminality) and sometimes grounded in ignorance(of different peoples & cultures), the main issue regarding mass immigration isn’t about race/ethnicity but territoriality.
Now, it’s true that some individuals have a more distrusting, suspicious, and/or pugnacious personality. Among right-wing types, such personality traits tend to be directed against the Other, the outsider groups. Among left-wing types, such personality traits tend to be directed against ‘wrongthink’, i.e. leftists are more tolerant of other racial/ethnic groups, less tolerant of ideological differences.
Still, most white conservatives and right-wing types don’t have a particular dislike for most groups. They don’t mind dealing with other races and ethnic groups. For example, a white conservative may travel to a nonwhite country or do business abroad. In doing so, he has little or no problem in dealing with ‘brown’(meaning non-white) peoples. He realizes there’s good and bad in all societies and among all peoples. He may get along just fine with Mexicans, Peruvians, Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, and Polynesians. In other words, he has nothing like a ‘phobia’ about being around ‘brown’ people. He may also find much to admire in the histories and achievements of other peoples.
So, if he has no problem rubbing shoulders with nonwhites, what is the real issue surrounding mass immigration? It’s about territoriality. Whites, especially of conservative, rightist, or nationalist bent, have no problem being around ‘brown’ people. They just don’t want their own traditional white/European or white-established-and-developed lands taken over by nonwhites.
It’d be like a Japanese businessman-traveler who’s been all around the world. He got along just fine in Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Peru, Brazil, Russia, France, and etc., and he has no problem associating or doing business with non-Japanese peoples. He isn’t hostile to non-Japanese, but suppose he’s opposed to the idea of non-Japanese peoples arriving en masse and fundamentally altering the deeply rooted demographic character of Japan.
That wouldn’t make him ‘xenophobic’, meaning knee-jerk hostility toward foreigners, let alone ‘Japanese supremacist’. If anything, in believing that Japanese have a territorial-cultural right to their own country, he believes other peoples have similar rights over their own territories. So, even a Japanese who isn’t averse to mingling with non-Japanese people(and indeed has mingled with non-Japanese all over the world in business and travel) can oppose mass immigration as a threat to the ethnic and cultural integrity of Japan.
Jared Taylor says he grew up in Japan and socialized with many of them. He also traveled around the world and communicated with all sorts of people on a friendly basis. So, he has no problem being around ‘brown’ people. What he has a problem with is the prospect of his white or white-dominant country being overtaken by waves and waves of nonwhites who, good or bad, will fundamentally transform the character of the country that he cherishes.
Notice that virtually no white conservative or white rightist is opposed to travel and business. They aren’t opposed to whites traveling to nonwhite countries nor to nonwhites(or ‘browns’) traveling to white countries. No problem in whites visiting the Great Wall of China or the Taj Mahal. Or checking things out in Mecca or Istanbul. And they have no problem with non-white tourists visiting NY and taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty. Or going on a trip to Niagara Falls or Grand Canyon. Or having fun at Disneyland in California or Florida.
When such white conservative types travel abroad, they get along just fine with the locals. They don’t fear being around ‘brown’ people. And when such white conservative types encounter nonwhites as guests(businessmen, foreign students, visiting scientists, or tourists) in their midst, they are kind and welcoming.
So, the stuff about whites not wanting to be around ‘brown’ people is a canard. Tons of white conservatives annually visit Mexico and Latin America to see the sights and have no problem mingling with the ‘beaners’, Gomezers, and Tacoans. What they have a problem with is tons of ‘browns’ mass-migrating to white or white-majority countries and changing the very character of the long prevailing demographic and cultural norms.
It’s like a patriotic Hungarian has no ill will toward non-Europeans. If anything, such a person probably wishes the best for all peoples of all nations. And he would get along just fine with ‘brown’ people if he were to travel to non-European countries. But he would oppose tons of nonwhites barging into Hungary and turning it into Hungarstan or Hungambia.
Same goes for the Jews. In their diaspora, Jews have learned to co-exist with lots of different peoples. So, plenty of Jews have no problem dealing with goyim. Still, they insist on Jewish-Only immigration to Israel, not because they’re averse to dealing with goyim but because, on the basis of territoriality as the sound basis or foundation of any real nationhood, they know that a Jewish nation-state is impossible were Jews to be replaced by Jews via waves of mass immigration. Tragically however, Israel was founded by waves of Jewish immigrants replacing the native Palestinians. Worse, instead of acknowledging the Palestinian tragedy and trying to make amends towards some kind of compromise, Jews have gone from the national to the imperial mode and now seek Greater Israel, a kind of Naziesque form of Zionism.
In a way, accusing white conservatives/patriots of being hostile to nonwhites per se is like accusing Palestinians of being ‘anti-Semitic’. In either case, white or Palestinian, the objection to mass immigration is really about territoriality, not ethnicity. Palestinians would have zero problem with Jews if Jews hadn’t taken their land and continue to occupy the few remaining Palestinian territories. On an individual basis, a Palestinian could be good friends with a Jew, could do business with Jews around the world, and so on. Jewishness per se was never the problem for the Palestinians. The problem was the Zionist violation of Palestinian national territoriality.
Likewise, the Sino-Japanese hostility of the 20th Century wasn’t about nationality or ethnicity. While all groups harbor negative and funny stereotypes about other groups, most Chinese would have been happy to associate with, do business with, or socialize with the Japanese. The problem was, once again, territoriality. Japanese didn’t come to China merely to do business, see the sights, or teach & learn about cultures but to invade, colonize, and take over. Thus, Chinese antipathy wasn’t about ‘not wanting to be around Japanese people’ but not wanting their lands taken over by a foreign power.
And consider the Vietnamese. Given the horrible war, one would think most Vietnamese would hate the Americans. But plenty of American travelers say the Vietnamese have no problem getting along with Americans in terms of business, travel, and/or cultural exchange. What they hated in the past was American militarism, imperialism, and occupation of the southern half of Vietnam.
Unfortunately, because whiteness has been defamed and demonized, white people, even conservatives and rightists, are loath to oppose mass immigration on racial or ethnic grounds. They dare not say, “Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia are white or white-made countries, and we have the historical duty and ancestral pedigree to keep them that way.”
Because it’s deemed intolerable to defend or justify anything on the basis of ‘evil’ and ‘innately racist’ whiteness, white conservatives and rightists tend to cook up excuses and rationales premised on ‘values’ and ‘ideas’ to oppose mass immigration.
One of the worst abusers has been Ann Coulter whose ADIOS, AMERICA is a compendium of all the cultural, moral, and/or spiritual failings of nonwhite immigrants. The rhetorical result of such cartoonish caricatures of every immigrant group is hysterical and deranged. Sure, every group comes with its own baggage of issues, some more than others, but were white groups any different in the past? The drunken Papist Irish, the clannish criminal Italians, the radical anarchist Jews, the nasty & vicious Scotch, the Dumb Polacks, and so on. And all those religious nutters of various denominations. And speaking of criminality, who can beat the Negroes who, by the way, were forcibly brought to the New World by none other than whites.
Anyone can play the Ann Coulter game in reverse. A book can detail all the virtues and contributions of immigrant groups while pointing to all the vices and failings of the native white(and black) groups. Surely, the Arab Muslim community is a hell of a lot more productive than black American neighborhoods in Detroit or hillbilly towns in West Virginia.
Given the taboo against the (white) racial argument against mass immigration, white conservative and rightist types have opted for something far worse: Impugning the character, morality, culture, and values of entire populations, e.g. Ann Coulter’s characterization of Hindus as rat-worshipers because she once watched a Globe-Trekker travelogue that portrayed a peculiar community with a reverence for rats, which is NOT the national norm in India. True, India has tons of problems, but let’s not pretend an average Hindu is praying to rats(or that most Arabs have four wives or that most Mexicans are drug-dealing gangbangers).
Using Coulter’s own logic, the problem can be solved through a massive campaign of high-pressure assimilation. If she won’t mention race and instead raise objections based on morals and values, there is a solution as people can be ‘civilized’ or acculturated. Non-Americans can be taught the American way. Indeed, many Anglo-Americans long ago felt about Eastern and Southern European immigrants the way Coulter does about non-white immigrants. In time, all those groups became assimilated into Americanism and became Good Americans. Also true of Japanese-Americans, despite the unpleasant experience with the ‘internment’.
Even accepting Coulter’s premise, the problems of immigration can be solved by a determined effort to turn newcomers into Good Americans who understand ‘Western values’ and American norms(such as cheering for trannies in women’s sports and celebrating sodomy as the closest thing to godliness).
So, if all these nonwhite immigrants learned to be Good Americans, would that be okay with Coulter and her ilk? Following their logic, they would have to say yes because the essence of their argument is about the ‘bad’ values and ‘backward’ ways of these newcomers.
Indeed, there are ‘conservatives’ of libertarian leaning who make just this argument, i.e. it doesn’t matter what happens to the racial makeup of America(and the West in general) as long as the newcomers adopt and practice ‘Western’ norms.
But I suspect Coulter and her ilk would still oppose mass immigration of nonwhites EVEN IF most newcomers became Good Americans and contributed to society economically, scientifically, culturally, intellectually, and so on. So, what’s the real issue? Of course, it’s about race. Race matters because it’s the true foundation of any real nation.
Do a mind-experiment. Japanese are known to be an orderly, intelligent, and conscientious people. So, if ten million Japanese were to immigrate to Ireland, there’s a good chance that most of them will be nice people: Kind neighbors, good students, hard workers, and polite citizens. But even if every Japanese in Ireland committed no crimes and acted decently, Ireland would no longer be Ireland. It’d be something like New Japan. For Ireland to remain Irish, it has to be filled with Irish people.
Of course, naysayers invoke the Ink-over-blood argument, i.e. Irishness is a matter of legality, not ancestry and ethnicity. Thus, someone who is legally made ‘Irish’ through paperwork is just as Irish as someone who’s Irish by blood going back countless generations. A stamp and signature on a piece of document based on globalist conceits processed in less than an hour carries equal weight with the depth of history, heritage, and bloodlines going back many centuries, even millennia. Thus, a newly arrived Nigerian who attains citizenship is just as ‘Irish’ as a real Irishman.
If anything, according to globalist logic, he is even MORE IRISH than white Irishmen because Diversity is sacrosanct, and therefore, his contribution to the diversification of Ireland makes him even more precious than native Irishmen.
One would have to be retarded to fall for Jewish Logic such as this, but it seems plenty of whites are indeed retarded, not least because, even as they accept these loopy rules for themselves, they adamantly insist that Israel must only be for people who are Jewish by blood.
Contrary to the dominant discourse, the race-ist argument against mass immigration is the most sensible, most balanced, and most justified. Now, what is meant by ‘race-ism’? If -ism means belief, the proper definition of race + ism is the belief in the reality of race(as the subspecies product of evolution) and racial differences, as well as the need for racial consciousness.
The reason why people are so allergic to its official coinage as ‘racism’ is because the -ism in this case has been made synonymous with supremacism. The result is the misperception that one’s belief in racial reality must automatically mean that one is racially supremacist, someone who believes that his own race is the best at everything(and/or deserves to lord over all other races as inferior). Ironically, the group most responsible for promoting such misunderstanding is the Jews whose very identity, Judaism, is predicated on ethno-spiritual supremacism that looks upon non-Jews, or goyim, as inferior cattle whose cosmic purpose on Earth is to serve the Jews as the Chosen Master Race.
Anyway, a proper race-ist appreciation among white people simply means they know what they are, care about what they are, and want to preserve what they are on the very land from which the race originated or conquered, claimed, and settled as their own.
Now, there should be nothing controversial about whites(or Europeans) defending the lands of their origin, in which they were always the indigenous and native populations. It’s more problematic in lands that the Europeans conquered, especially the Americas and Australia(and New Zealand), perhaps Siberia as well. (Same logic goes for Anatolia, in which Turks constitute the majority population but were relative late-comers who conquered and displaced, raped, and/or absorbed existing populations.)
But if conqueror-settler whites have a moral-historical obligation to nonwhites, the latter should be limited to the peoples that the whites conquered/replaced or brought over by force, like the blacks who were traded for slave labor. For example, American Indians have legitimate grievances as they were replaced by whites in North America. And blacks, ‘crazy’ as they be, also have a claim because their ancestors were brought over by force and made to pick cotton.
But all other nonwhites around the world have no moral claim on white-conquered/settled lands. Asian Indians, contra American Indians and the Aborigines, have no claim on North America and Australia. When India was under British Imperialism, Asian-Indians had a legitimate claim against the English. But not outside India.
The ONLY reason why whites, not only in the US-Canada-Australia but even in Europe itself, feel obligated to welcome tons of nonwhite immigrants, migrants, and/or refugees is because of the Jewish mind-trick that Diversity is an essential component for all societies(except in Israel where greater Jewish homogeneity is the ideal) and that whites who reject massive inflows of nonwhites are somehow ‘racist’(meaning racial supremacist or racially hateful), xenophobic(or irrationally fearful of foreigners), or just plain uncool.
Granted, there is a patronizing, even paternalistic, element in the Diversity argument: Nonwhites must come to the West to work for whites in lowly jobs that whites will not do, usually the perception associated with browns from Latin America. Or, the view is patronizing toward certain segments of the white population: Too many whites are fat, lazy, and stupid, and therefore, the white elites need to import higher IQ and more industrious & diligent types from abroad as fellow globalist elites and intermarriage prospects, like when white elites marry rich Hindus, Chinese, or African immigrants with Ph.ds, a variation of the WASP fetish for marrying wealthy, accomplished, high IQ Jews.
White elite types would rather hang with the smart set from around the world than be burdened with association with hoi polloi of whites, most of whom are mediocre and lacking in fancy credentials. This is why HBD ideology is ultimately useless for the white race. Given its obsession with intelligence, intelligence, and intelligence, the logical end-result is smart whites preferring genius Jews and bright nonwhites over the masses of ‘dumb’ whites.
A proper race-ist worldview isn’t supremacist, hostile, or antagonistic toward other peoples, ethnic groups, or races. Rather, it simply says “We constitute a race and culture, we have a duty to our racial brethren, and we have a deep bond to this land as ours.” Any group or people have much to gain with such a worldview. Germans for Germany, Japanese for Japan, Italians for Italy, Nigerians for Nigeria, Greeks for Greece, and etc. Jews certainly believe in Jewry as one big extended family.
Such a humanist race-ist worldview need not impugn the character, values, and customs of other peoples in order to argue for self-preservation on the basis of blood and soil. It’s precisely because Ann Coulter isn’t allowed to have a pro-white race-ist view that she feels compelled to oppose non-white immigration by caricaturing the supposed moral failings of other groups, e.g. Mexicans shouldn’t come here because they’re lazy druglords, Laotians shouldn’t come here because they’re jungle bumpkin gangbangers, Koreans shouldn’t come here because a nutter among them shot up Virginia Tech, and etc. True, every group comes with problems(and some serious nutters), but the fact is most immigrants are not criminals or thugs, and their children do assimilate rather fast.
In contrast, a race-ist argument against mass-immigration is far simpler, cleaner, and fairer. It doesn’t need to smear or defame other peoples as moral cretins or cultural retards. If anything, a race-ist can be full of respect and admiration for other races, ethnicities, and groups on the basis of “Just as my race, culture, and land deserves respect and preservation, so do other races, cultures, and lands.” No need to bash the Hindus. Instead, insist that, just as Hindus have a right to defend their own people, land, and culture, white folks in their own nations have the same rights(and indeed responsibilities).
Besides, the ethno-national argument is the most organic and sensible. Those who define the West in terms of Christianity, ideology, or a set of abstract principles will soon find themselves in trouble. Take Hungary. There are Hungarians who take Christianity seriously. Some may attend church now and then but aren’t particularly religious. Some are secular and atheist. Some are downright hostile to religion or favor paganism. But they are all Ethno-Hungarians. A secular Hungarian by blood is no less Hungarian than a Christian Hungarian. But if one places Christianity at the center of Hungarian identity, one ends up like that Catholic clown E. Michael Jones who insists on Catholicism as the core of Western Identity. Using Jones’ logic, black African Catholics have more claim on Italy and Ireland than white neo-pagans who seek to reconnect with their indigenous heritage.
And then you have the libertarian types who oppose mass non-white immigration on the basis that nonwhites tend to be less invested in individualism, free speech, and personal liberty than white people generally are. But if such principles or values are what defines a nation, the most logical policy would be to welcome those nonwhites who share such values while rejecting those whites, leftist or rightist, who do not. Suppose 60% of whites are for free speech while the remaining 40% reject it(on grounds that it might foster ‘hate speech’), whereas 40% of nonwhites are for free speech while 60% reject it. Then, the ideal solution would be to unite the 60% of whites who are for free speech with the 40% of nonwhites who are also for free speech. Of course, for most of Western History the great majority on both the right and left did NOT support free speech as it later came to be defined in the Sixties and Seventies.
If principles should be the main guide for demographic policy, then whites should reject Jews who are currently the group most hostile to the free flow of ideas and information. And yet, right-leaning libertarian types who oppose Muslim immigration(on grounds that Muslims don’t share in the secular values of liberty and free speech) dare not call for keeping Jews out on the very same grounds, especially given that the current Jewish Identity Politics is premised on Zionist imperialism, ethnic supremacism, genocidal urges, warmongering, and mass censorship of voices deemed ‘Anti-Semitic’ for the crime of NOTICING the true nature of power and control in the current West.
The West must reclaim or properly define the meaning of race-ism. And it is on that basis that the West must be defended. As for nonwhites who insist on moving to white countries, they are the ones who need to answer for their demographic and/or racial preferences. Why do ‘brown’ people not want to be around ‘brown’ people? Why do they prefer to be with white people? The very thing that white people are accused of is what animates so much of the nonwhite world. Non-whites don’t want to live with their own kind. Many can’t even stand their own kind. They want to move to white countries to live with whites because they believe whites are better than their own kind. But they can’t admit it; they cannot acknowledge their own self-loathing, and so, they project onto whites their low regard for their own kind, even for themselves.
Whites must call this out. Whites must mock and ridicule this desire among nonwhites to reject their own kind and permanently resettle in white or white-made countries. Nonwhites who prefer whites to their own kind have no right blaming whites for preferring their own kind. Indeed, why shouldn’t whites prefer whites over nonwhites when nonwhites themselves prefer whites over their own kind?
And if nonwhites have a problem with white ‘racism’, why not just stay in their own ‘brown’ countries and remain safely distanced from those nasty whites? And of course, it must be asked of Jews why they are so utterly hostile toward whites, indeed so hard at work engineering the total destruction of the West. If Jews feel this way about whites, why did they emigrate to white countries? Who’s keeping them from emigrating to nonwhite countries, especially black African ones given that the Jewish-run media and academia have idolized and even sacralized blacks as most magical and wonderful. If so, Jews in the West should pack up all their wealth and move to Nigeria, Tanzania, and Bongoland. Live in Wakanda and be dazzled by Black Girl Magic. That way, Jews will never have to worry about those sicko whites infected with ‘antisemitism’ and ‘crypto-Nazi’ urges.
Now, there is an outlier when it comes to migration. Certain nonwhites have a compelling argument for migrating to the West that did so much to ruin their countries. Consider Libya, once the jewel of Africa. But the West, at the behest of the Jews, wrecked the whole place. The West also wrecked Syria by arming and funding the Jihadis, again at the behest of Jews, and then by occupying the most fertile and oil-rich areas. When an entire country is destroyed and torn apart by war instigated by the West, it’s rather rich for Westerners to whine about ‘mass migration’. Granted, the vast majority of people in the West had no say in the wars in Libya and Syria, both cooked up by the white elites who grovel at the feet of Zion. Still, given that Western countries pride themselves as ‘democratic’, the people as voters must bear some blame.
A compelling argument against mass migration must address the issue of Western Imperialism, more precisely the global hegemony of Jewish Power controls the West. As long as this empire invades, subverts, sanctions, impoverishes, undermines, and/or intervenes in other societies, the negatively affected nonwhites in certain countries do have a compelling argument to move to the West.
Consider: If I stay on my side of the fence and mind my own business, I have no obligation to my neighbor. But if I lob burning coals into my neighbor’s house and burn it down, I’m responsible to him and his property.
The current West doesn’t exist as a collective of sovereign countries but as an Empire dominated by World Jewry. As such, the West intrudes into the affairs of other countries, sometimes turning them into rubble, all to appease Jewish Supremacy. As long as white people in the West support their governments that reject national sovereignty in favor of Jewish supremacist domination, their fates will be embroiled in Western destabilization of the world, leading to mass migration of refugees to the West. Jews very well understand this dynamic, except that, instead of steering those refugees into Israel, they steer them to Western countries. Zionists will destroy Syria & Libya and then set up ‘welcome refugee’ organizations in Europe.
Granted, MOST immigrants aren’t refugees, nor from countries wrecked by the West(like Syria and Libya). Still, white people had less of a moral case when desperate people from Syria barged into Europe. Or when Jewish-driven US sanctions and subversion led to the impoverishment of Venezuela that set off waves of migrants northward.
So, before nonwhites are slated for REMIGRATION back to their homelands, white people must make sure that their own governments choose ‘republic, not an empire’. As long as the West is in empire mode, it reserves the right to invade and intervene in other countries; but then, if the West can invade or intervene elsewhere, why shouldn’t the people in those places come to the West for compensation?
