Immigrants, Hooligans, and the Right Reasons to Oppose Immigration

As I have argued before, leftists have one cardinal rule: “marginalized” groups are beyond reproach; unless, of course, their bad behavior can somehow be blamed on oppressor groups. That’s why, regardless of non-whites’ penchant for organized tribalism, leftists will always absolve any given non-white group of collective responsibility whenever members of their tribe transgress. For example, following the wave of sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, the usual suspects did everything they could to divorce the assailants’ Middle Eastern/North African backgrounds from their deeds. Instead, the crimes of non-white men were conveniently blamed on “men” – a safe, “privileged” target – as a whole. Pretty neat trick!

Another neat trick that absolves non-whites of responsibility is to harp on native born white crime. This article I stumbled upon from the Middle East Eye, which attacks European soccer hooliganism, is part of the overall leftist attempt to whitewash (pun intended) immigrant crime. Don’t you see? It’s those white ruffians who are the real problem! As the author explains (emphasis mine):

From the dozens of videos that have emerged this week of football hooligans wreaking havoc in France during Euro 2016, how many “immigrants” did you notice? From my limited observations of these videos, I did not identify a single one.

The hooligans currently causing chaos happen to be white Europeans – arguably the indigenous “born” sons of this continent. Now of course, it would be grossly incorrect to generalise an entire nation or race for the actions of a minority, especially as a Muslim who experiences this “guilt by association” on a regular basis.

However, we currently have a situation where hundreds if not thousands of white European men, who probably have a lot more in common with each other in terms of religion and political ideology, have been engaged in brutal street brawls involving glass bottles, chairs, and in some cases knives. Businesses have been wrecked, members of the public have been hurt in the crossfire, and dozens of arrests have been made.

Lefties who highlight white peoples’ bad behavior seem to genuinely believe that wayward whites somehow delegitimize opposition to mass immigration. In fairness to them, their claim that white Europeans commit the large majority of crimes in their own countries isn’t wrong. But guess what? None of that matters in the context of the immigration debate.

I know that white people are hardly immaculate beings, and I’m aware that we have our fair share of pathologies. However, contrary to leftist delusions, shining the light on white misbehavior in European countries where whites comprise at least over 80% of the population isn’t a “gotcha” moment. In fact, such “logic” looks downright absurd when applied to a non-Western context.

Take the US military presence in South Korea, where rapes and other violent attacks perpetrated by American servicemen five years ago rightly engendered outrage. Just imagine how local Koreans would react if Americans – or their apologists – tried to absolve American servicemen by pointing to native Korean crime, such as the systematic sexual abuse of deaf schoolchildren. Koreans certainly don’t deny or excuse horrific acts perpetrated by their own people, as evidenced by their furious reactions to the aforementioned abuse of deaf children. But the existence of Korean criminals doesn’t let violent American soldiers off the hook.

I’m sure many would insist that there’s a difference between raging against occupying soldiers and demonizing vulnerable immigrants. You know, the usual “punching up” and “punching down” tripe. But putting context aside, the point I’m trying to make is that outsiders’ affronts will always arouse more anger than domestic disturbances – in the same way that a host’s bratty kid gets sent to his room, while a belligerent dinner guest is shown the door. One simply cannot compare local crime to alien crime.

In conclusion, white people frowning due to the West’s browning need to oppose immigration for the right reasons – and in doing so change the terms of debate. As of now, the left has easy retorts to the usual feeble objections to mass immigration. Whether one wants to denounce immigration from an economic or law-and-order standpoint, the left has those bases covered. Sure, leftists are wrong on both fronts, but we don’t do ourselves any favors by turning an existential issue such as demographic displacement into discussions about immigration’s effect on the GDP.

White people are a group, and have legitimate group interests; one of those interests includes preserving white majorities in Western nations. That’s all the justification for opposing immigration one needs. Whether or not growing numbers of whites come to recognize this simple logic remains to be seen.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cultural Marxism, Europe, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values, White nationalism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Immigrants, Hooligans, and the Right Reasons to Oppose Immigration

  1. alan2102 says:

    “Lefties who highlight white peoples’ bad behavior seem to genuinely believe that wayward whites somehow delegitimize opposition to mass immigration.”

    The problem is wayward whites who created a climate catastrophe that dooms (if you consider mass immigration to be “doom”) the Western world. Direct opposition to that immigration is a futile rearguard action, itself doomed to fail. (INdirect opposition, in the form of humility-driven total reorganization and reformation with the objective of comprehensive global justice, might work, but that idea would seem to have a snowball’s chance.) Yes, you can try to create a “fortress europa”; let me know how that works out for ya.

    The white West has — suicidally — created an utterly untenable global situation. I would have been happy to take up my cudgel in defense of the West, maybe even marching with you in your white pride parade. But it is too late. The white West — mired in contradictions, besotted with greed and arrogance, bristling with militaristic and imperial excesses, and hopelessly overcommitted to environmentally-ruinous technologies — has fucked things up irreparably. It’s all over but for the shouting.

    This article is curious; note that the text contradicts the title:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article55628.html
    BrExit to Save Europe from Climate Change Refugee Migration Apocalypse
    Jun 22, 2016
    By: Nadeem_Walayat
    snip
    “pardon my language when I say that we are FUCKED! There is NOTHING that can now be done to avert the consequences of climate change which will make its effects and dire consequences increasingly felt with each passing year…. The UN estimates there will be 200 million climate change refugees by 2050, or 5 times the current number. So what does that imply for a Europe that cannot cope with today’s refugee crisis of 1 million per year, what is it going to be like when the crisis reaches 10 million per year and probably a lot more? And that is based on conservative climate change consequences of 2c by the end of 2100. If 5c+ happens as seems very likely then one can quadruple the number of climate change refugees! Most of whom will be wanting to migrate to ‘rich’ Europe. So again pardon my language but we really ARE FUCKED! The world we live in today is already rapidly accelerating towards the world we will be living in 20 years from now which will be unrecognisable of which just one consequence will be mass migration. Other’s include the emergence of totalitarian states in response to economic, social and environmental crisis which is where perhaps an already undemocratic European Union is on the fast track towards arriving, using it’s EU army to try and keep law and order in chaos.”

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      The white West has — suicidally — created an utterly untenable global situation.

      You raise some fair points, and I actually agree with you in many ways.

      If you’ve read some of my older articles, you’ll know that I am a very harsh critic of the white capitalist class. Even though I’m not down with the browning of the West, I recognize that non-white people are not the architects of Western malaise.

      Instead, I blame employers, opportunistic politicians, neoliberals (and their SJW allies), etc. I am by no means a fan of modern Western capitalism’s pathologies.

      • Quartermain says:

        I wish I could give you an up vote more than once.

      • alan2102 says:

        This was the core of my post:
        “INdirect opposition [to immigration], in the form of humility-driven total reorganization and reformation with the objective of comprehensive global justice”

        THAT is what we really need. And that is what the social-/global-justice-oriented left — the authentic left — stands for. That will remove the CAUSES of mass immigration. Everything else is just futile flailing against the effects.

        It would be so nice if the right would start opposing immigration in the right way, i.e. by attacking the real causes of it, instead of letting it be nothing but a xenophobic racist bullshit reaction. In doing so, not only would they be taking THE ONLY PATH TO GENUINE PROGRESS in this area, but they would be doing it in part by letting go of the xenophobic crap for which they are correctly excoriated and rejected. A win-win deal! Do good by doing good! What’s not to like?

        A good read:
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-imperialism-the-brexit-culprit.html
        “when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that…Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. …. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why [NB: “WHY?” –alan2102] are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATOs war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine.” END QUOTE

        Indeed. “WHY?” is the key question, the indispensable question, which the right wing is generally too intellectually lazy to ask. The right REACTS to job loss, and the browning of neighborhoods, and crime, etc., but never asks “WHY?”. It takes intellectual muscle and discipline (prefrontal cortical domination) to ask “why?”; emotional reaction (reptilian and limbic domination) — “send them damn muds and muzzies back to where they came from!!” — is relatively easy and comfortable. And wrong.

        Immigrants are flooding Europe because of the imperial and jingoistic policies of the white West — the policies of NATO and all that it represents (neoconservatism, “Project for a New American Century”, and all that shit). Attacking immigrants themselves, or sending them home, or building a wall, are all STUPID reactions to the problem, typical of the right.

        Only the left (the *authentic* left, that is, and there are plenty of fakers and poseurs) has the integrity to identify the true causes and remedies. And, mind you, that degree of integrity is not much; I’m setting a low bar! It really takes neither a rocket scientist nor a saint to see the true causes and solutions to the immigration problem. It is right there, glaringly, in front of our faces. Many on the so-called “left” are as dumb, or as heartless, as the masses of reactionary idiots on the right. The typical Obama/Hillary supporter would exemplify the type.

        I suggested “total reorganization and reformation with the objective of comprehensive global justice”, and that would be great, but maybe the immigration problem can be solved with much less than that. Maybe if we just stopped the insane mass slaughters, bombings, dronings, tortures, support for terrorism, and other ruinous shit, that would be enough.

        Hey, maybe if we just stopped being complete and total assholes, that alone might solve the problem! Maybe we don’t even have to be truly GOOD. Maybe if we just stopped being evil fucking bastards, that might be enough! What a thought!

  2. alan2102 says:

    Above, I wrote about the international situation, and immigration. But the same principle applies to racial issues domestically: the analysis of the authentic left points the way to REAL solutions — solutions which, if actually affected, would be surprisingly accomodative to the visceral desires of the right.

    Would you like to have nice segregated all-white neighborhoods, like back in the 1950s? Well, maybe you can have them! You can have them by creating a decent society where blacks have equal opportunities for economic advancement, as well as decent neighborhoods of their own, (and: the two go together), so that blacks don’t feel desperate to move OUT of the ghetto/hellholes and into white neighborhoods. “Oh”, you say, “but the blacks were the ones that CREATED those ghetto/hellholes! Why don’t they clean up their own act!” But you’re wrong. The ghetto/hellholes were largely created by institutionally racist policies over many decades which held blacks down and created the context in which social pathology (high crime, neglect, low IQs, lousy schools, and on and on — the “hellhole” scene) was inevitable.

    It is true that the blacks themselves were/are partially responsible, insofar as they developed and tolerated cultural pathology that plays-in to and exacerbates the racist policies from without. But the main driver was not the blacks themselves; it was racist whites and their institutionally racist policies. Blacks should be held responsible for their sins; whites should be held responsible for their greater sins. If you think that that is “liberal guilt” then you’re full of shit. I’m not *guilty* about anything. I do, however, have a sense of *responsibility* which — paradoxically — the supposedly “moral” and “god-fearing” right seems to lack. We are RESPONSIBLE, both individually and collectively, for many things, and we are obligated to do what we can to rectify wrongs. To deny this is to deny morality.

    Again: create a decent society where blacks have equal opportunities for economic advancement, as well as decent neighborhoods of their own, and ensure that this society endures for a couple of generations (long enough to heal the wounds) — in other words really SOLVE the racial problem, rather than just repressing it, or ignoring it, or blaming the blacks for it — and many people (not all, but many) will self-segregate into their own neighborhoods. Presto! The all-white neighborhoods of the 50s!

    The right is correct that many people (not all, but many) are ethnocentric and tend to congregate with those they feel to be “their own”, racially or ethnically. That’s fine. But the right cannot seem to understand the economic, social-justice underpinnings of a natural and free self-segregation. The right cannot understand that they must go left to get what they want. They think that they can get there by fascistic policies like building walls, or forced segregation, or whatever. Stupid.

    YES, YOU CAN HAVE your lily-white neighborhood, just like in the Ozzie and Harriet days! But you have to be a left-winger to get it. You have to create a decent, fair society, which has always and everywhere been the primary agenda of the authentic left.

    Same on the international/immigration front: YES, YOU CAN STOP the horrible flood of mud-brown immigrants! But you have to be a left-winger — opposing the racist imperialist jingoist and islamophobic policies of the white West — in order to do so.

  3. alan2102 says:

    On counterpunch, today:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/27/brexit-establishment-freak-out/
    [snip]
    There are two major forces driving discontent: Deteriorating economic prospects for majorities, and challenges to traditional cultural hierarchies. The left plays on the former while the right plays on the latter. The right has a coherent program regarding the latter with broad appeal among older ethnic majorities: Re-segregation and restoration of white skin privileges. But the right has no coherent economic program besides blaming ethnic “others.”
    The left has a coherent critique of neoliberal economics, and offers some useful alternatives: Stop catering to finance and subject it to competent regulation. Stop pointless fiscal austerity and provide needed fiscal stimulus. And stop dismantling, and rebuild the welfare state. Moreover, this program has broad appeal among the discontented.
    But the left has not been able to compete successfully with the right regarding the second source of discontent. If progressive groups campaign for a principled defense of multiculturalism and protecting immigrant rights, they win support from ethnic minorities and some among the young, but they alienate older, majoritarian communities in economic distress. Moreover, the dilemma for the left is even worse. Because the truth is that until a left economic program is won and firmly in place, principled multiculturalism and defense of immigrant rights does further aggravate the economic distress of disadvantaged, majoritarian populations.” END QUOTE

    Three comments:

    1. Regarding: “The right has a coherent program…with broad appeal among older ethnic majorities: Re-segregation and restoration of white skin privileges.” This is not a coherent program. It is hopelessly behind the times, and doomed, partly due to broad attitudinal changes (embrace of multiculturalism, anti-racism, etc., which WILL NOT STOP), and ultimately due to multi-generational demographic megatrends (the world is becoming more brown and this WILL NOT STOP). The “re-segregation” mentioned is of the old-fashioned, authoritarian/fascistic type; this cannot survive. It might be possible to re-institute it, briefly, but ultimately it is doomed. Any dreams that the right has of re-segregation must be of the free, spontaneous type about which I wrote above — and that depends on social justice, i.e. the “left economic program” (see #2).

    2. Regarding: “UNTIL A LEFT ECONOMIC PROGRAM IS WON AND FIRMLY IN PLACE”. Right! That is, until we create a decent, fair society. And that is where the right must step up, take the long view, understand the hopelessness of their old tactics (forced segregation and the like), and GO LEFT in order to get what they want. The right must renounce it’s old antipathy to socialism and social democracy, and embrace the left economic program. Authentic left, that is! (NOT Democratic Party bullshit). The Green Party is probably the best existing (and reasonably-prominent, as opposed to the dozen or so minuscule socialist parties) standard-bearer on this front, what with their “green new deal” and other ideas.

    3. Regarding: “principled multiculturalism and defense of immigrant rights does further aggravate the economic distress of disadvantaged, majoritarian populations”. Very true, and the left needs to make some concessions here as well — not so much by backing off on anyone’s (including immigrant’s) RIGHTS, but by being more sensitive to the plight of the indigenous/majority population; in the U.S., the white working class. This is a serious problem and the left must address its intolerance and even hatred of the white working class. There’s room for everyone to grow up, step up, and take more and better responsibility for our sins.

  4. Dota says:

    Alan

    The traditional right has always opposed imperialism as well. Pat Buchanan speaks out against it and he’s not the only one. Mainstream conservatives are frauds. On the right, you can’t trust anyone save for the Alternative right and Paleocons.

    • alan2102 says:

      I agree… almost. The right has a history of anti-interventionist tendencies; Justin Raimondo has written a lot about this. But it has been minor, in the big picture. On the whole, the right and far-right have been imperialistic, either in conscious, explicit ways like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, or imperial/fascist Japan, or in less-conscious but equally certain ways, i.e. capitalism’s general tendency to expand without limit, including internationally (remember Lenin’s words: “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”). Capitalism and imperialism are joined at the hip, and the right has always (with minor exceptions) defended capitalism, while the left has opposed it.

      I’m talking about the LEFT, not liberals. Liberals don’t oppose capitalism; they seek minor reforms to make capitalism bearable. Liberals are commonly called “the left” by the MSM, but they are not left. They are apologists for the right. A great book title springs to mind: “The Liberal Defense of Murder”, by Richard Seymour. The title says it all. Liberals defend the mass murders of capitalism/imperialism; they defend murderous monsters like Obama and Hillary, while clucking about “lesser of two evils” and suchlike. It is sickening.

      The U.S. does not have an organized left, just a scattered few individuals and grouplets. There was an organized left in the early part of the 20th century, but it lost its way in tepid social democratic reformism (liberalism), and later got smashed during the McCarthy years. There was a little upsurge in the 1960s/70s, but by then the government and intelligence community, dominated by right-wingers and ex-Nazis, had figured out better ways to suppress and subvert. After that came the neoliberalism wave of the 1980s Reagan/Thatcher era, still dominant. In other words, the U.S. has been a right-wing nation — pro-unrestricted-capitalism, pro-neoliberalism, and pro-militarism/adventurism/imperialism — continuously for over a century, and becoming more so in recent decades. Even people described as “left” are center-right or even extreme right! Obama, both of the Clintons, etc.

      Things are looking up, however. The Bernie insurgency marks the beginning (along with Occupy and etc.) of a sea change. The millennials are waking up, and they are the future. Progressivism/leftism will grow in the coming decades. It is inevitable on several accounts, mostly by virtue of economic stagnation. Economics will impel people to go left. Either that or populist/fascist right, like Trump, but in the longer term Trumpism cannot survive; the demographics forbid it. The wave of the future is left, and it is up to all of us to ensure that that energy does not get entirely spent on tweaks like raising the minimum wage. We must dismantle the empire and shut down the military/industrial complex, among other things. This stuff is rapidly becoming existentially essential, not just a preference.

  5. Bay Area Guy says:

    Mainstream conservatives are frauds

    Mainstream “conservatives” are really just classical liberals who occasionally attack abortion, gay marriage, and immigration as a way to convince their constituents that they aren’t complete corporate sellouts.

    And regarding the WHY of it all, I am cognizant of the reasons why immigrants come to the West. However, I don’t blame native white people for being angry about the browning of their communities; I blame despicable scum like Hillary Clinton who advocate for wars that displace millions of brown people – and who then have the nerve to lecture the little white people about tolerance when those millions of displaced brown people take up residence in Western countries.

    I blame avaricious corporate turncoats who care more about obscene profits than their own nations. I also blame opportunistic politicians who import immigrants as a means of securing an electoral advantage. But in all of my blog posts (correct me if I’m wrong), I have never blamed immigrants themselves.

    This post – which I wrote over at Alternative Right – will help shed more light on the matter.

    http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-limits-of-compassion-and-morality.html

    • alan2102 says:

      BAG:

      You’re right about the dispicable Hillary, and you’re right about the obscene profits of corporate turncoats. Etcetera.

      However, you seem to lack a historic perspective.

      from your alternative-right.blogspot article:
      “Just because I support other people’s independence does not mean that I (or other people) have a duty to bend over backwards to accommodate their every need and whim”

      It is not about accommodating “every need and whim”. Western imperialism has created massive, persistent problems the world over. We, i.e. the West, are responsible for this, and we cannot simply withdraw and be passive, expecting everything to then be OK. There are debts to be paid. That’s the problem with Buchanan-esque (paleocon-esque) withdrawal and isolationism: it does not admit to the debts; it does nothing to right the historic wrongs.

      Let’s say I beat you to a bloody pulp every day for two months, and then say “I’m now going to withdraw, no more beatings. Let’s just forget the whole thing. You’re on your own.” And you reply: “Forget the whole thing?! Are you freaking kidding?! You OWE me, you asshole! At the very least you should pick up my medical bills. Maybe even my therapy bills for PTSD. Not to mention the lost income because I couldn’t work.” And of course you would be right. Picking up the medical bills would be the BARE MINIMUM to expect. This has nothing to do with “accommodating every need and whim”. We’re talking about essential, fundamental justice, not “whims”. When I hear a right-winger talking like that — “accommodating every whim” — I think to myself that this person must be ignorant of history, must know little about how the world has operated over the last 500 years.

      Here’s a very nice easy-reading introduction to how the West loots Africa — for one example — thereby keeping it an underdeveloped shithole:
      http://www.liberationafrique.org/IMG/pdf/TJN4Africa.pdf

      The looting of Africa actually goes back centuries, as did the looting of China, India, and many other places. Vast human suffering was (and is) the result. Many hundreds of millions of lives, and perhaps billions, were cut short by this looting. The development of China and India was retarded by many decades, perhaps a century — with all that that implies: mass poverty, prevalent filth, pervasive malnutrition, truncated life expectancies, etc. Horrid!

      China has found a way to recover, thank God, and India is in the slow process of recovery (give it another half-century and they will make it). Africa is still in the mud, and it is our fault. No, it is not because of their low IQs, and it is not because of their corrupt leaders, even if those things do play some role. It is primarily because our banks and corporations, aided by the U.S. state department and various other Western institutions (IMF, WB, etc.), fuck them up the ass.

      We should not only cease to fuck them up the ass — essential, but not sufficient — we should undertake serious development initiatives in Africa. We should make like China is now doing, approximately: undertaking infrastructure and other development initiatives, in Africa, on a partnership basis (NOT an exploitation basis). China is no model of perfection in this respect, but they are doing far better than anyone else. We should be doing something like what they are doing, but instead we bomb, invade, despoil, destroy and suppress, while fostering further looting of what’s left. We have a great deal to be ashamed of. “Liberal guilt”? No, it is called taking ADULT RESPONSIBILITY. Adult responsibility, instead of infantile denial.

      And where is the money going to come from for these development efforts? Easy! From the budget of the wildly-overfunded military/industrial/prison/security complex. The development of whole nations can be underwritten for the price of a single fighter-bomber. We’re LOADED with money; we only (“only”, haha) lack the moral integrity to use it wisely and justly.

      I mentioned the biggest current “horizontal” debt (cutting across all nations), still growing, in my first post on this thread: climate change. The West burned far more than its share of fossil fuels, and now we have a global climate disaster to show for it — a disaster which will be suffered more by people elsewhere than here. This is an historic DEBT, and we cannot walk away from it. We cannot simply withdraw. Even if we could ourselves convert to 100% renewables, say this year (haha!), we would still be obligated to take an active part in fostering the conversion to renewables, AND in developing carbon sinks (especially in agriculture, but also reforestation), worldwide, for decades, for the rest of this century. Further, we’ve got to deal with the actual climate-related population displacements that are already occurring, with much more to come, inevitably. It is not sufficient to build a wall, turn away boats, keep out the immigrants. That’s the blinkered right-wing approach, but it is immoral as well as unworkable.

      Do I think we should fling open the doors to unlimited immigration? NO. But I think we have a shit-ton of work to do to establish some semblance of global social justice — justice that has been compromised or destroyed by our greedy actions over decades and centuries. There’s no way that we can rightly talk about turning away immigrants until we make at the minimum some gestures in the direction of global justice — if not actual concrete actions, like China is doing.

      Lastly, when I say “we”, I mean the West as a whole. Of course it is true that the rank and file white Western person is less responsible than the ruling class, the elite corporate/finance assholes. LESS responsible, not non-responsible. You see, we are all the beneficiaries of this game. The elite assholes don’t keep all the booty; they share it (to a limited extent) with all of us. We all partake in the ill-gotten gains. The richer we are, the more we partake. This is the great paradox for us: we are both the fuck-EEs and the fuck-ERs. We need to fight for social justice within the U.S./West, yes; i.e. we need to fight the corporations and banks and finance vultures (indeed, capitalism itself) to keep from getting fucked over even worse. But at the same time we have to remember that, globally, we ARE the fuckers; we lend our support to a vicious, immoral system by particpating willingly in that system. And yes, I personally am to blame as much as you. I’m not guilty; just responsible. Like you.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        When I hear a right-winger talking like that — “accommodating every whim” — I think to myself that this person must be ignorant of history, must know little about how the world has operated over the last 500 years.

        It’s not that I’m “ignorant” (leftists always love to accuse those who oppose those them of ignorance), it’s that I DON’T CARE.

        Call me heartless, or call me an asshole if you like (though I wouldn’t recommend that, as it goes against the comments policy), but I just don’t buy your whole collective responsibility bullshit.

        Do the Japanese feel any collective responsibility for what they did to their fellow East Asians? Do the Turks feel any collective responsibility for what they did to the Armenians, or for the centuries they spent subjugating the Balkans? Funny how we seldom hear about THAT oppressive form of imperialism. Will Turkey be handing back Constantinople to the Greeks anytime soon? Do those oh-so-moral Chinese take collective responsibility for what’s being done to the Uighurs and Tibetans?

        It seems like only white people are called upon to take collective responsibility for past depredations, which I refuse to accept. Yes, I’m sure you’ll accuse me of childish morality (ie. “if Jimmy jumps off a bridge, does that make it okay for you?!”), but I’m sick of seeing regular white people – many of whom are struggling, despondent, and barely getting by – browbeaten by self-righteous far leftists like you.

        The development of China and India was retarded by many decades, perhaps a century — with all that that implies: mass poverty, prevalent filth, pervasive malnutrition, truncated life expectancies, etc. Horrid!

        China has found a way to recover, thank God, and India is in the slow process of recovery (give it another half-century and they will make it). Africa is still in the mud, and it is our fault. No, it is not because of their low IQs, and it is not because of their corrupt leaders, even if those things do play some role. It is primarily because our banks and corporations, aided by the U.S. state department and various other Western institutions (IMF, WB, etc.), fuck them up the ass.

        Right, because in leftist fantasyland, all non-white nations/lands were happy, peaceful, and prosperous; that is, until the evil whites showed up. It’s as if poverty and misery are somehow white inventions – as if whites are incapable of creating prosperous societies without exploiting others. You ignore countries such as Germany – which only engaged in (short-lived) imperial endeavors after it had ALREADY industrialized – and Scandinavian societies.

        You remind me a lot of Andre Vltchek, a radical commie who sounds like a Maoist 3rd Worldist type; you both romanticize non-white societies, China in particular. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I get that vibe from you.

        It is not sufficient to build a wall, turn away boats, keep out the immigrants.

        Why not? Plenty of other countries are able to stymie the tide of immigration. You know how many refugees Japan, Israel, and Gulf Arab countries – all sinners in their own right – have accepted? Few to none.

        You see, we are all the beneficiaries of this game.

        So what would satisfy you then? Do you think white people should be poor and destitute as punishment for their sins? Do you think whites should not enjoy any access to subsidized healthcare and other social programs?

        Again, you remind me of Andre Vltchek, who frequently fulminates against the “obscene” benefits afforded to European workers.

        I guess the difference between me and you is that I’m a nationalist, and you’re an internationalist. For me, the well-being of my people is paramount; you’re a quixotic humanist.

        And guess what? Most people are nationalists, even your beloved Chinese. Or do you really think that their involvement in Africa is motivated by altruistic humanism? The Chinese are simply businessmen, and will do business with anyone and everyone. That does have the positive effects and generally results in less meddling, but there’s nothing moral about it.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        It also behooves me to mention that it was the aforementioned Turkish imperialism – in particular, their conquest of Constantinople in 1453, which cut off Europe from trade with Asia – that prompted European exploration/conquest in the first place.

        So when will Turkey fork over a massive amount of cash to compensate Greeks?

      • Gay State Girl says:

        Gay Area Guy

        I agree 100% on the “collective responsibility.” However it is simply absurd to say that the altright has always been against interventionism or neo imperialism. Pat Buchanan was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Vietnam (never having served) in which far more Americans were killed. He was able to wash his hands of it by spearheading the opposition movement at the onset both gulf wars, but he is very much the arm chair general as the neocons of the past decade.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        @ GSG

        You do raise a good point. I suspect that a lot of alt right anti-imperialism has more to do with the fact that the new face of American imperialism is neoconservatism; given that neocons are overwhelmingly Jewish, the alt right naturally looks at them askance. The alt right also opposes saber rattling against Russia, which I suspect stems from their admiration of Putin. But you’re right that they don’t really denounce historical forms of imperialism.

        But still, I’m pretty sure the Global South would do a lot better under Pat Buchanan than Hillary Clinton.

        As for me, I oppose imperial interventions because I’m anti-globalist. Invade the world/invite the world, and all that.

      • Gay State Girl says:

        “But you’re right that they don’t really denounce historical forms of imperialism.”

        I understand that they’re a knee jerk reaction to stifling political correctness so I don’t expect them to. But stop elevating Pat Buchanan as a messiah figure. He never has been one to walk the walk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s