You do not have to belong to the White Race to understand the problems caused by movements of populations. You do not even have to believe in the existence of racial classifications to appreciate that mass migrations cause real problems. The racialist reasoning behind opposition to this phenomenon is superfluous and unproductive at best. Mass immigration is a modern phenomenon, while 140-year old racialism is so dated that it hurts.
Opposition to immigration does not require feelings of racial superiority or even racial identity. Readers of Milne probably remember that Winnie the Pooh, Piglet and Rabbit’s reaction to the newest animal – Kanga – in their forest was anything but welcoming: they kidnapped the immigrant baby. The story of course ended with everyone becoming fast friends, but even Milne could not pull off a happy ending if Kangas were to flood the forest by their thousands.
Humans and other animals have defensive mechanisms used to protect their territory and their access to resources. These mechanisms are now deliberately misrepresented as ‘racism’, or as the unleashing of brutal natural tendencies, but the protection of one’s territory is morally defensible.
In the Soviet Russia of my youth, a young man courting a girl from a different neighbourhood had a better than even chance of being beaten up by the local boys. There was no ethnic, racial, religious or even social difference between the two neighbourhoods; the boys from block A did not think they are inherently better than boys from block B; they were simply defending their access to “their own” girls. This protectionism was not extreme: a serious relationship or marriage across an arbitrary territorial border was possible, but the light flirt and easy sex (and sex was quite easy under the socialist regime) was limited to one’s own neighbourhood. Foreigners, that is boys of different ethnicity and origin, were no exception to the locals-only rule. A long-term settler of any stripe would be eventually accepted as a homeboy, but short-term visitors were always ‘foes’ and were treated accordingly. It is reasonable that today’s youngsters act protectively towards ‘their own’ females, or ‘their own’ jobs. They also have to make a living, and the idealistic groups who hand control over to transients die out quickly.
Mass immigration is neatly sandwiched between invasion and slave trade. If the immigrants prosper, it is invasion; if they are kept down, it is slavery. Either way a small slice of the local population will profit: they will be called “compradors” or “slave traders” as the situation develops. In general, wealthy people enjoy the fruits of immigration while poor ones bear the brunt of it. However, not all wealthy people take advantage of the situation to the same degree. Wealthy people, like the rest of us, have different attitudes toward the society that nurtured them: they might be divided into shepherds and predators. The shepherds fleece their sheep while predators will slaughter every last one if the price is right.
The shepherds might be represented by the great Swedish industrialist family of Wallenberg, unobtrusive owners of 30 major Swedish firms, including nine of the country’s 15 largest. Altogether, the Wallenberg family owns or controls well over half the Swedish economy. The great and unique achievements of Swedish society were obtained with this powerful bloc working in harmony with the trade unions and the government. The list of predators would start with Carl Icahn, the feared Jewish corporate raider and financier who ruined more companies and people than Wallenberg ever owned. The presence of unfettered predators makes it impossible for shepherds to do what they do best. Furthermore, predators do not shrink from driving their victims toward the slaughterhouse.
Predators use mass migration like a powerful tool. The immigrants have to live somewhere, so real estate and rents rise – benefiting the wealthy. In Israel, landlords divide their old flats into small units and sublet them to immigrants. In such a way, they double and triple their income, while ordinary local people can’t find a decent-sized flat for a reasonable price. The immigrants need credit, so moneylenders have a feast day on them, charging 20% per month. Immigration undermines workers’ security, creates surplus of labour.
Mobile labour is less expensive: the workers are here when you need them; and when you do not need them, they just go away. This was one of the reasons why Israel locked up its Palestinian workers and imported Thais and Chinese in their stead. Mass migration is a powerful weapon in the class war. By importing potential workers, the predators-owners undermine the working classes. It is import of labour, and as every import it reduces value of local product, i.e. of native labour.
Predators speak of “creative destruction”. The companies that fail under the new regime have no value to them. The companies that survive might be shifted to India with the click of a button. Immigration breaks unions. Even better for the owners, mass immigration opens the second front in the class war, that between the working classes and immigrants.
Immigration inevitably turns into a war for resources: for employment, for women, food and accommodation. The middle classes reap some benefits: they get cheaper housemaids, cheaper drivers, nannies, gardeners, cheaper sex. The middle-class Gay International (a term of Joseph Massad) is on the forefront of support for immigration: one can explain it by their compassion, but one can also explain it by their own interests of having a pool of cheap and available sexual partners. Immigrants do not compete with the middle classes; they do not live in the same areas; they are not likely to take their jobs. The workers are bearing the brunt of this war, and they have no time or strength left for the class war against the owning classes.
Immigration has an additional quality, as Robert Putnam http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Putnam.pdf discovered. This researcher, well known for his pro-immigration stance, was forced to conclude:
As ethnic diversity is increasing, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. In ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower; altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.
In the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust and lower investment in public goods.
Putnam considers two mechanisms behind the impact of immigration. The Conflict Theory supposes that “diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity. The more we are brought into physical proximity with people of another race or ethnic background, the more we stick to ‘our own’ and the less we trust the other.” The Contact Theory says that “diversity fosters interethnic tolerance and social solidarity. As we have more contact with people who are unlike us, we overcome our initial hesitation and ignorance and come to trust them more.”
In reality, the results of Putnam’s massive research were more pessimistic than either theory. Under immigration, people fear their old neighbours as much as they fear the newcomers: “Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
This is exactly what the predators want: a broken, atomised, insecure population in a state of perpetual cold civil war with itself. They do not gather and discuss. They do not organize and plan. They huddle unhappily in front of the television. And who are the Masters of Discourse who determine the content of the television programming? They are the servants of the predators, of course.
In order to defend their policy of destroying society by influx of strangers, they invented and propagated a new blood libel, that of ‘racism’. People who resist the imposition of mass immigration are deemed ‘racists’ and precluded from participation in the scripted television discourse. ‘Racism’ is a relatively new mortal sin invented by the Masters of Discourse to obscure predatory intentions. Racism as described by the dictionary (a mysterious, irrational hate towards ‘lower’ races) does not exist. I, a dark-skinned and moustachioed Mediterranean man, have never seen any sign of it throughout the sixty years of my well-travelled life. Admittedly, I never tried to annoy the native inhabitants by playing loud foreign music, practicing strange customs in public, or purposely behaving in offensive ways.
People certainly do try and guess stranger’s origin. If I were paid a dollar for each time I was asked where am I from, I’d make it to Fortune 500. Jews, the shy rulers of the waves of ether, consider this question “a racist attack”; though they do ask this question more often than anybody else outside India. Innocent human curiosity, not racism, is the reason: one wants to use the chance meeting to confirm one’s vision of the world: why do Italians eat pasta? Is it true that Muslims want to kill infidels after bombing NYC on 9/11? What makes the Blacks the best in sports? How come that the Jews are so rich? Only Jews are offended by the question because they are too arrogant and insecure to recognise that every stranger, not necessarily a Jew, is being asked from time to time who is he and what makes him tick. Contrary to the popular Jewish belief, vast majority of humans (“goyim”) do not think all that much, all that often about Jews and certainly do not invest the precious emotional capital of hate in Jews qua Jews.
People do stereotype people, but this is not bad old racism (= “irrational hatred”) either. Stereotypes and prejudice are a legitimate part of our life. They are here to make our life easier. If you walk the dark streets of an urban ghetto and notice a gang of male teenagers without a single woman among them, your prejudice tells you to make a prudent detour. If a tramp in rags proposes to sell you a gold watch, your prejudice advises you to avoid the deal. If a charming stranger is eager to get bedded, your prejudice calls you to use a condom – or run away. ADL correctly states that there is a stereotype of a “malicious cabal of Jews” who are “pushing for war,” as well as that of “Jewish media-lords” that “clinch the party line.”
A stereotype, or prejudice, usually is a result of many unpleasant experiences by persons who did not heed them. Ghetto teenagers may beat you up, the tramp is likely to unload hot goods, a brazen hussy may supply you with the clap. And organised Jewry did push for the Iraq War, and now they call to bomb Iran: Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz and others of that ilk. The chances that your average Jewish pundit will be violently anti-Arab, pro-war, against Iran and generally will stick to their party line are better than even. The stereotyping of Jews is quite justifiable, and only acting contrary to the stereotype will change it.
At the end of 19th century, Asians were stereotyped as weaklings and walkovers, doomed to submit to the White Man’s Destiny. The Japanese did not like the stereotype, pulled up their socks and sank the Russian Navy, before doing the same trick to the American one. In 1950s, Japanese goods were stereotyped as ‘shoddy’. They did not complain, but worked harder and by the 1980s, Japan-made cars became a byword of quality. The US blacks were stereotyped as intellectually challenged, but they produced Barack Obama and Cynthia McKinney and SIAM the poet, and now this prejudice is a thing of past.
The closest thing I ever observed to that unfounded dictionary word is that short-term pseudo-racism of wartime. It is neither mysterious nor irrational. A man being forced to kill or fiercely confront his fellow-human must protect his mental integrity by denying full humanity to his foe. During the French-Prussian and later French-German conflicts there was a lot of violent race talk of Huns and Frogs, but it disappeared without trace after the war. Race has been used occasionally to rationalise social gaps. Polish nobles imagined they were descendants of a Sarmatian warrior race, not Slavs. British nobles considered themselves Normans, not Saxons and Celts. These fantasies faded as the class differences proved transitory.
In Israel, relations of Jews and Palestinians are also marred by this pseudo-racism. Jews had invaded Palestine under the guise of “immigration” and locked the natives in ghetto. You can find a lot a lot of racist talk and deed between the twain, because they fight each other, not for some “irrational hate”. Deep in heart, Israeli Jews and Palestinians have a lot of respect of each other. Jews admire and willingly pay more for Arab houses, eat in Arab restaurants, prefer Arab olive oil, while Arabs do admire Israeli fighting abilities and efficiency. Hopefully they will come to their senses by giving full equality to all, immigrant and native alike. Racialist talk of “monstrous Jews” and “subhuman Arabs” is derived from the war, and will be gone with the war.
Immigration can generate this type of fuzzy thinking. As working class youths defend their right to carve out a life for themselves they can become victims of puerile race talk. It is an entirely natural, if ignorant reaction to something that is threatening their way of life. Their real enemy is the Predator who unleashed the torrent of immigrants, but the Predator is well outside of their reach. Frustration will unleash all kinds of vitriol, however this is not the cold pseudo-scientific ‘racism’ of Nazi Germany, Israel, and the Japanese American internment. There is no need to treat this short-term, transitory race talk as a serious discussion. When the cold war of mass immigration is over, the bad feelings disappear without a trace.
Racism does not exist; a single foreigner of any race is welcome in every country under heaven. A few foreigners add some colour and will certainly be tolerated and well entertained by the natives. In the seclusion of 18th century Russia an Ethiopian black became a lord and sired a great Russian poet. Another important Russian poet (and mentor to a crown prince) was a son of a captive Turk. An English sailor became a prince in Shogun Japan, while a baptized Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain. William Dalrymple in his riveting White Mughals describes how many English and French happily integrated into the Muslim society of Mughal India, and follows their racially-mixed offspring back to England where they met with much success. Small groups of immigrants did not cause massive displacement of natives, and accordingly, there was no need for a ‘racist’ defence.
In my well-travelled life I have enjoyed sojourns among the Japanese (who are supposed to be terrible racists), among the Palestinians (who have good reason to be wary of strangers), and many other peoples, from English to Thai, from Swedes to Malays. All of them were hospitable and welcoming.
When I left Russia and moved to Israel in the late 1960s, I was welcomed. However, within a few years of greater and greater waves of Russian immigration, I was transformed from a single somewhat exotic stranger, into just another drop from a huge flood of foreigners. Russian Jews were suddenly hated by yesterday’s immigrants as they began to compete for low-pay jobs and subsidized accommodation. One day I was a person; the next day I was being portrayed as a seeker of undeserved benefits. The Masters of Discourse set the tone of the debate, applying pressure here, releasing tension there. They control the contest for their own benefit.
I feel a lot of empathy for the immigrants. I was tossed about on the waves of mass immigration for a while, and it was miserable time. Mass immigration is a mistake, to be avoided if at all possible. It is better to stay in your own country with your own friends and your own language. If you have to go elsewhere, go to a place where foreigners are a rare novelty.
The solidarity-based societies of the USSR and Cuba did not allow immigration, incoming or outgoing. They were right. Incoming immigration destroys solidarity, while outgoing immigration leads to brain drain. These socialist societies had no racism of any sort, because their citizens were not threatened by mass immigration waves.
I have never blamed my misfortunes as a mass immigrant on local people’s ‘racism’. I became a part of invasion wave, and the local people had a real grievance for they certainly lost some of their positions with our arrival. Afterwards there were more and more waves of immigration, and now we have to pay even more for our apartments, and we have even less territory to roam.
In addition, mass immigration degrades the status of foreigners in general. Once foreigners were people who sought new understanding or preferred to stay away from home, like Joyce in Trieste, Ezra Pound in Italy, Fennolosa in Japan, Byron in Greece and Nabokov in Switzerland. Take it a notch down, and you could still find Our Man in Havana and a Russian Grand Duke. Now, because of mass immigrants, it is not fun anymore to be a foreigner. So the problem is not “immigration”, but “mass immigration”.
Ethnicity is not a decisive factor, despite the racialist mantra. Immigration – even of the same ethnicity – is trouble. The Japanese allowed for the immigration of the descendents of last century’s Japanese immigrants to Latin America, and were severely disappointed. Now they pay a decent sum of money to these immigrants who agree to leave Japan. Yes, they are of “the same race”, but culturally they became too different for the solidarity-based Japanese society. In Palestine, the returnees – children of 1948 refugees – complain that the local people, practically their second cousins, do not welcome them back. In Germany, the ethnically German returnees (“volksdeutsch” from Russia and Kazakhstan) remain foreign to the local people.
Racism in the USA is an old myth, but while the children of ex-slaves fled northwards from the despoiled South, the colour coding was too persuasive to deny. Later the Americans bombed Somalia, and Somalis flooded into Sweden and South Africa. In Sweden the colour differences were undeniable, while the Somalis and Zulus could not tell each other apart until they spoke; however since South Africa is a poorer country than Sweden the Africans resisted their black brothers from Somalia far beyond anything the most xenophobic Swede envisioned. After that real-life lesson, the myth of ‘racism’ should be finally laid to rest. Objection to immigration is not due to “belief in racial superiority” or to “racial hate”, it is a perfectly normal defensive reaction of the working classes (and of those members of upper strata who feel compassion and empathy for them).
Now we can better understand the nature of the self-styled ‘anti-racist’ groups: Antifa, Searchlight, Expo and similar bodies. They are storm troopers for the Predator. They crush local solidarity groups. They act as a solvent, disintegrating traditional society. They are ardent Zionists; they fervently listen to Foxman’s ADL; they are supported by Jewish financiers.
Usually, the Jews do support immigration (but in Israel), but the Jewish prominence in antiracist movement has deeper roots. “Erect fence around the Torah”, teaches Talmud. It means: establish additional prohibitions to protect the important commandment. For instance, a commandment forbids gathering fruits on Sabbath; the “first fence” forbids climbing on an apple tree on Sabbath, for otherwise one who climbs on a tree is likely to pick an apple. The “second fence” forbids climbing on any tree, so one would not get used to it. Jews do not like to be referred to in unfavourable context, so they promoted a fence: do not refer to any ethnic group in unfavourable context. They are worried that those who find faults with blacks today are likely to find faults with Jews tomorrow. The whole discourse of ‘racism’ and of capitalized Other is just a fence meant to defend Jews from critique.
The Jews remember that, and do not take this prohibition seriously when they have to attack their enemies. It is just a fence around prohibition to say nasty things about Jews, not a real thing. That is why a Jewish leader, Israeli Minister of Defence Ehud Barak does not hesitate to call Palestinians “virus”, and not a single important antiracist objects to that. So for Jews, antiracism is just a figure of speech, a rhetoric device to be used against non-Jewish critics, but not a rule they are obliged to follow themselves.
Antiracist activists also know it full well, and they are mainly preoccupied with defence of Jews who pay them after all. If they attack a person for offending a non-Jewish group you may be sure that this person ran afoul of Jews as well. If David Duke would limit himself to blacks and refrain from mentioning Jews, he probably would not experience opprobrium. If Horst Mahler would stick to Turks, he would not be in jail. Indeed the outspoken enemy of olive-skinned immigrants, the Dutch MP Geert Wilders tours the US and the UK with Jewish support, and antiracists do not do much about it.
In Germany, the anti-racists cover themselves with the Israeli flag: “What we all share is support for Israel and coming out against any form of anti-Semitism, fascism and sexism,” says the Conne Island center’s director, Christian Schneider, 26. A good example of the antiracists’ pro-Israel activity in Leipzig is the public campaign against wearing kaffiyehs, once an essential accessory in the European left-wing activist’s wardrobe. “Do you have a problem with Jews or is it only that your neck is cold?” was the slogan for the campaign organized by the center in recent years. The campaign aimed to prevent young people from wearing what the center perceived as a symbol of identification with the Palestinians and with anti-Semitism, reported Haaretz.
French anti-racist groups took over the discourse in their country and brought the Israeli-American supporter Sarkozy to power. French MP Georges Freche was thrown out of his party because he said that the national football team of France should not be all black. Yes, this sentence appears slightly afoul of the strict reading of political correctness; but it is certainly common sense. Indeed, the French national football team should not be all (or predominantly) of foreign origin; just as the leading journalists and talking heads of French TV should not be all (or even predominantly) Jewish.
A short time before the last French elections I wrote: “If the French socialists continue to be that strict with their members, they will frogmarch into oblivion with the dinosaurs; and Segolene Royal will be just the name of a politician who stopped le Pen to advance Sarkozy.” This grim prophecy became true: Sarkozy won the elections and made France a tool of NATO, undoing the great freedoms achieved by de Gaulle. This was the great achievement of the loud antiracists, the Predator’s fifth column.
The French antiracists pretend to be antizionist; however their main job is defence of Jews from any sort of criticism. They ended supporting Sarkozy despite their “socialist” leanings. As for the UK, Gilad Atzmon wrote about the British Jewish antiracists and crypto-zionists extensively. Their defence of immigrants is subservient to their defence of Jews, but they certainly support mass immigration.
Mass immigration is ruinous because it squeezes the local population, and life becomes worse for everybody but the wealthiest strata. It is a simple matter of less territory per person, and that is bad. This observation calls for no racial explanations. Why then do some anti-immigration groups regurgitate racialist slogans?
It is a triumph of the Masters of Discourse. They have succeeded convincing nearly everyone that anti-immigration is racism. The anti-immigration policy makers simply accepted this silly notion. Perhaps it is easier to go along with such a subjective argument than to fight it. The most committed groups integrated the racialists, not willing to abandon their primary mission for artificial divisions. The rest scattered, waiting for a saviour who would act against immigration with the permission of the Masters.
People accept the notion of racism for two reasons. For one, because they are repeatedly told to believe it. In the same manner they have accepted that smoking is deadly and revolting habit, that only evil communists want to have national health service, and that the rich should not be taxed. People are impressionable, and they can’t withstand a massive attack of mass media.
There is a second reason. Many people maintain a general pride of their ancestry, a simple sort of vanity. For upper classes it is Debrett’s; for middle classes, the general form it takes is the Family Tree. It is a quiet vanity; we paw through forgotten histories looking for the noble, priestly and powerful roots of our family. The belief in a superior white race is just a simplified version of the family tree, suitable for people who can’t discover a noble lineage. If and when these family vanities are given their proper place as idle curiosity and nothing more, when our betters renounce their honorary titles, close down their Daughters of the Revolution clubs and make a bonfire of the Threat of Assimilation by Lipstadt, only then may they attend to the mote in their commoner neighbour’s eye.
Those accused of being racists might learn from Jews, who expel immigrants by the planeload, fight miscegenation and assimilation, forbid Palestinians to bring a spouse, while always adding “this is not racism”. Since they are the experts, we accept their verdict. A Jewish joke: A Rabbi was delayed on a trip. The Sabbath was approaching so he prayed and a miracle occurred: it was the Sabbath everywhere, but still Friday in the Rabbi’s Cadillac. Likewise, opposing (or even mouthing the word) miscegenation is racist; but miraculously, not for a Jew.
Another common form of alleged ‘racism’ is preference given between natives at the expense of a stranger. This is a perfectly normal and normative behaviour. This attitude is ordered by the Bible; this attitude safeguards the intimate relationship between a man and his soil. In a Jewish prayer, God is asked to give rain and to disregard the prayers of a stranger who asks for a dry weather. A moderate nationalism is the best guard of the land; and you have no reason to worry: cosi fan tutti, they all do it.
Mind you, a “racist” talk is usually a sort of evil gossip, and it is a bad habit. It is a sin, and it is a tempting sin to speak ill of others. It is nice to abuse the frog-eater cowardly French, like all the American papers did in 2003. It is refreshing to speak of Americans’ poor English as a British poet did. It’s fun to dislike oh-too-blond-and-clean Swedes, as a Jerusalem Post writer did. It is pleasant to pour scorn on smug Jews as Seline or TS Eliot did. It is human once in a blue moon to be annoyed by men (brutes), to hate women (frail), to wish children away (noisy), to dread old age (wrinkles). One can also express annoyance by immigrants (shabby dealings with second-hand cars). This is as nice as a glass of cold sour punchy white Riesling after the nauseatingly sweet lukewarm fudge of Political Correctness. It is also a perfectly harmless occupation, yes, rather bitchy and enjoyable as a frank exchange between Sara Jessica Parker’s confidants. One just should not get excited. There is a fine but clear difference between the light witty bitchiness of Oscar Wilde and spit-dropping drivel.
To speak badly of people is a sin. But so are greed, gluttony, lust, envy and pride. Still we do not see a politician being expelled from, say, a Socialist party for running a gourmet column, or for giving an advice on the stock market, or for marching in a gay-pride parade, or for buying a car to equal his neighbour. There are “anti-hate” laws, but no “anti-pride” laws.
The name of ‘racist’ is given nowadays to anyone who cherishes the attachment of a man to his soil and community. Simone Weil is an ultimate racist according to this view, for she was an enemy of uprooting. Note that whoever supports immigration, supports uprooting. If you are told ‘you are racist’ because you object to mass immigration, respond with ‘you are uprooting poison’, as did Simone Weil. You can respond with “you are the Predators’ tool”, or “you are on the side of landlords and moneylenders”, and it will be true.
Opposition to mass immigration does not mean enmity to immigrants. In France, England and Austria I met with well-integrated immigrants who fully share our view of stopping immigration. While they already had found their new home and new family in the new land, they do not want to act as the bridgehead of an invasion. Every European country has a lot of descendants of immigrants: even Francs, who gave their name to Gallia, were immigrants of sort. Alexandre Dumas was the grandson of a black slave. It is impossible to seek some pure stock by removing impurities, for we are not Siamese cats. But enough is enough: mass immigration should be slowed down to a trickle for reasons that have nothing to do with imaginary ‘racism’.
In order to achieve that, border controls are not enough. Economic aggression against Africa and Latin America should cease. The aggressive wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine should cease. The safety of Iran should be assured unless Europe wants to get another ten million refugees. Real feeling of friendship to an Iraqi should be expressed not by an “antiracist” march in Paris, not by hugging an immigrant, but by helping Iraqis to restore their sovereignty and prosperity ruined by American occupation, by removing foreign troops, by helping the refugees to return home. “Antiracists” can be likened to people who kiss a hungry man instead of offering him bread, who embrace a sick man instead of curing him.
In short, ‘racism’ is an invention, a mindless blood libel created by the Masters of Discourse. The racialist echoes we hear each day as we huddle around our televisions are derivative of the hegemonic discourse. The Masters of Discourse have declared that opposition to immigration is racism. Even the ostensible opposition has integrated this claim into their plans and strategies. Without seeing through this subterfuge we remain in thrall to a crippling subjective philosophy that is offensive to common sense. Unless we begin to inject into the discourse the true dangers inherent in mass immigration, until we can successfully ignore or deflect the empty slogans of the uprooters, we will continue to lose every battle, and the Sarkozys of this world will have a field day.
The central and constructive point of this essay is this: “In order to achieve that, border controls are not enough. Economic aggression against Africa and Latin America should cease. The aggressive wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine should cease. Safety of Iran should be assured unless Europe wants to get another ten million refugees. Real feeling of friendship to an Iraqi should be expressed not by an “antiracist” march in Paris, not by hugging an immigrant, but by helping Iraqis to restore their sovereignty and prosperity ruined by American occupation, by removing foreign troops, by helping the refugees to return home.”
I would put these words as the starting point, not just as a consequence; what you say about a war against Iran (it will bring 10 million more hungry and angry people to Europe) may be a good argument to object to the war. At least, we are going to use it widely, indeed.
Another thing: you miss the point if you only remind that antiracism just means support for immigration; no, it has another meaning far more important: it means anti-anti-jewish leadership. In that sense, leftist antiracists and more rightwing ones are the same, they consider that immigration should just be a bit more controlled, some ask for a 9% rate, others for 7%, but nothing radically different; antiracism is so much accepted by the right and the left with complete hypocrisy that it is impossible to debunk it, in my opinion; antiracism is an empty curtain, it will disappear some day, just as “scientific” racism did, because it is just the other face of the same evil sin against truth, reality and nature, as you say.
In France, unlike in Germany, officially antiracist movements claim to support Palestine against Zionism, but reject us, the radical anti-zionists, saying we are antisemites, i.e. racists. The emptiness and opportunism of the word “antiracism” explains how easily many socialists have turned to be ministers in Sarkozy’s government. You see, Sarkozy is considered a normal son of well integrated immigrants, the kind you mention, who don’t want to be the bridgehead for an invasion; and he is now speaking loudly about roots, national flag, the need of throwing back illegal immigrants etc. He assumes almost completely the Le Pen’s rhetoric, but he will never be anti-Israel, as you know. So his mild antiracism just means: political correctness, which is subservience to Jews, + any kind of lies and nationalist discourse, just to mask that single path.
In my opinion the real problem is that no country is able to stop immigration, because hungry people are ready to fight in order to survive, while the well fed ones are weak because they know that morally they cannot just kill the poor to send them back far away. Even Iran has to accept refugees from Afghanistan, un-wishing them. A supporter of Obama would tell you that the US have moved fast to help Haiti because they don’t want more hungry Haitians in their country.
And US nationalists (really racist ones, sorry) may feel proud that their government took opportunity from the earthquake to take over that weak and impoverished country, at the same time, if not provoked the earthquake as a test for further military aggressions …
Shias in France are nice because they care for France, and say France must revive its Christianity, its major traditional culture; they are different from other Muslims who just worry about their chador and provoke irritation between natives; they created the French anti-zionist party, and we went to the European elections with Dieudonné and them. Maybe you can tell about that nice example of initiative from some of immigrants’ sons, mostly formerly Arabs from Algeria.
I never forget something else that you already wrote down: sometimes the only way to end civil anger between those who feel natives and those who are seen as invaders is marriage. Marriage is the opposite of cheap sex, probably the most expensive trap of sex!
The evolution of Finkielkraut is typical: he defends paedophilic Polanski as a poor H survivor, but at the same time he defends “French identity”, Marseillaise and so on; it means that Zionists now fear Muslim immigration, and want to appear as the protectors of our national identity. On the other side, Bernard Henri Levy and Claude Lanzmann support Pope Benedict AND beatification of pope Pius XII; there are also many signs that they are allowing some revisionism about H; some examples of it: Faurisson has NOT been condemned in his last trial (for participating in Dieudonné’s show). A new article in the French constitution has been voted last December 2009, without any mediatic debate, almost secretly, which allows to refuse the application of a law if unconstitutional ” Le remaniement de l¹article 61-1 de la constitution prévu par la loi organique n° 2009-1523 du 10 décembre 2009″
Other sign, my revisionist book “Proche des Neg (meaning Close to H Deniers and to Black Rebels at the same time, published by BookSurge) is not attacked by anyone. All of it means that our Masters of Discourse are trying to appear again as the center and the liberal rulers of our French thought, not as The special and external Caste anymore. So, if the same thing happens in other western countries, immigration will not be encouraged anymore by these people; probably civil wars and class struggle in every country will be the new openly encouraged troubles. For me, antiracism is just the necessary hypocrisy, since the anti-colonial wars of liberation in the 1960′s makes impossible to defend racism anymore; but racism remains, shameful as masturbation play (as a matter of fact, the wished result is the same: to feel one exists, one is great, one is powerful and delightful); maybe you are right, it is not a mortal sin; but it makes it easier to abuse weak people. Our western countries must adapt their self conscience to the reality of the black presence, and the black rebellion against the white despise.
My late friend and author Bernard Livingston who passed away about 10 years ago, who was/is the uncle of the two brothers (in real life 2 of the actors are brothers) from the show My Three Sons, was a devout communist and a member of the party until about 1990, when he resigned over party issues.
He told me he was in psychoanalysis for 15 years, and the first 10 years he only focused on one hang-up, (Black-White) inter-racial dating and marriages. At the same time, he was fighting for the Civil Rights Movement. He was Jewish. He was open to my work in Holocaust revisionism.