Beullogeo's

Commenter Flippityflopitty sends this link via email. Let's Get Real About Racism: Lee Mun Wah:

Before we can truly become a multicultural nation, we must have relationships based on respect and understanding, reflection and compassion; where our differences and our similarities are embraced, valued, useful and integrated into the very fabric of our workplaces, communities, schools and governmental institutions. I come from the belief that awareness and holidays are just the beginning. What is required is an ongoing dialogue and relationship with each other, one that allows for conflict and differences, questions and curiosity. To me, that is what a healthy and intimate relationship possesses. I hope that you will join me in making this not only a better world for our children, but for ourselves – not by starting tomorrow, but beginning today.

Let’s Get Real: What People of Color Can’t Say & Whites Won’t Ask

For People of Color:

1. What’s hard telling whites the truth about racism?
2. What’s the price of telling the truth about race relations in the U.S.?
3. Why do you think it’s so hard for whites to hear the truth about racism?
4. What would you say to whites if you could tell them the truth about racism?
5. In what ways do whites keep people of color from telling the truth about race/racism?
6. How have you learned to “play the game” to appease white folks?
7. What would it take for you to feel safe enough to tell the truth about race/racism to white folks?
8. What is the difference between talking about race and racism?
9. What is the illusion about race relations in the United States?
10. Are race relations getting wors e or better in the U.S? Why or why not?
11. Can you ever envision a world without racism? Why or why not?
12. What was your most profound experience with racism? How old were you? How did it affect you and how does it affect you today?
13. What do you think it will take for whites to truly embrace diversity?
14. In order to unlearn racism, what do you need or want from white folks?
15. What can’t you say about racism? Why or why not?
16. What does assimilation mean to you? Why?
17. When you have told the truth about racism, what has been some of your experiences? How have those outcomes affected you?
18. When talking about racism, what opens you up and what close you down?
19. What do you say to folks that feel that racism is no longer an issue now that we have a black president?
20. Do you think that your children will experience racism when they grow up? Why or why not?
21. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color?

For Whites:

1. What’s good and what’s hard talking about racism?
2. How does guilt keep you from dealing with racism?
3. How do you think you benefit from racism?
4. What opens you up and what closes you down to talk about racism? Why?
5. What are some of your fears to bring up the issue of racism with people of color? With other white folks?
6. What do you need from people of color to feel safe to talk about racism?
7. What do you need from other whites to feel safe to talk about racism?
8. If you could say three things to people of color about racism, what would you say?
9. What do you think it will take for people of color and whites to trust each other?
10. Do you believe that racism is a learned behavior and attitude? If yes, why? If not, why not?
11. Where did most of your stereotypes about people of color come from? How did those stereotypes affect your perceptions and attitudes toward them?
12. What part do you think you play in perpetuating racism?
13. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color? Why?
14. What do you think it will take to unlearn racism for white folks?
15. What are some of the things that you are afraid to say to people of color?
16. What would be some questions you would like to ask people of color?
17. Why do you think many white folks don’t identify as a group?
18. When did you first experience racism? What happened and how did it affect you?
19. What percentage is your life is impacted by racism? Why or why not?
20. In what ways have you been able to avoid talking or dealing with racism?
21. Are there two Americas? Why or why not?
22. What does assimilation mean to you?
23. What does diversity or multicuturalism mean to you?
24. What do you think keeps people of color and whites apart?
25. What do you think it will take for the United States to heal from racism?

When I opened the email of which this was the main article, I could hardly believe what I was reading. The National Front was formed on the 7th February 1967 when the Racial Preservation Society, the British National Party and the League of Empire Loyalists merged. The above article would have fitted very easily into a publication of the League of Empire Loyalists, which praised the Empire and the occupation of alien lands to benefit the tyrannical Establishment of the Royal family and their Zionist Establishment, but to find it in the most recent publication of the modern National Front was surprising and alarming.

Chechar questions the non-anti-semitic limits on his White nationalism: A lightning in the middle of the night!

Lawrence "the majority should reassert itself" Auster supports the move, saying he understands Whites and jews have different, sometimes conflicting interests, and though he unequivocally favors jews he does not object to White political or cultural self-determination: An anti-anti-Semitic blogger announces that he is removing the first "anti".

Just kidding. Larry is such a serious anti-"anti-semite" he'd never say anything remotely like that.

UPDATE 26 Feb 2010: "Tanstaafl on Auster (I)"

While searching for the government immigration report mentioned in Cheerleading Genocidal Immigration I ran into a recent Australian government report.

Clear-eyed report spells out the risks | The Australian:

THE government's white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor.

What I mean to say is, it's a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days.

Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in.

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It's in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It's in the white paper but not the media.

The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa'ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves.

The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically.

One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government's policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That's starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures.

The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.

Future geo-political events could mean other terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here. And in the future new terrorist threats could manifest themselves in Australia, either as a by-product of events overseas or as a result of a political grievance within Australia. There will always be the disaffected and disempowered, often but not always at the fringes of communities or the followers of radical ideologies, who mistakenly see advantages in the use of terrorist tactics.

The aim of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is to protect Australia, its people and interests from terrorism.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence-led and focused on prevention.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.

To be effective, Australia must pursue a principled and proportionate response that promotes and upholds the values we seek to protect.

This chapter explains how Australia will counter violent extremism by:

* building on Australia’s history of inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism;

Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths. Australia needs to harness this strength in the face of the divisive narrative of terrorist groups. We have a key interest in not allowing messages of hate to divide our community. Maintaining a resilient society based on shared freedoms, respect and understanding of our diversity helps us achieve that.

Australia is a country that recognises, accepts and respects cultural diversity. However, Australia will not tolerate the propagation of violent extremism and hate under the cloak of that diversity. The Government is committed to promoting respect, inclusion and a sense of belonging, in ways which address issues impeding social cohesion.

Exclusion or marginalisation of any individual or group of people can affect us all. It can affect a society’s cohesiveness, economic performance and, as we have seen overseas, the security and stability of the community as a whole. There are few countries in the world where migrants have achieved the level of economic, political, social and cultural participation that they have in Australia. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We know that a small number of Australians hold extreme beliefs and some of these individuals are or may be committed to supporting or engaging in acts of terrorism.

Illegal immigrant population in Georgia doubles, confirms changing migration trends - latimes.com:

In the years since [the Olympic Games came to Atlanta in 1996], the number of illegal immigrants living in Georgia has skyrocketed, more than doubling to 480,000 from January 2000 to January 2009, according to a new federal report. That gave Georgia the greatest percentage increase among the 10 states with the biggest illegal immigrant populations during those years.

"In a way it could be a sort of badge of success to have a higher undocumented immigrant population" because it means the economy is strong, [Demographer William] Frey [of the Brookings Institution] said.

"The only way you're going to get the illegal immigrant population in Georgia to go down is to legalize them or get rid of the jobs," said Dowell Myers, a specialist in demographic trends at the University of Southern California.

Consider the position of the American Indians at the present day. They live side by side with a people which always wishes to increase in numbers, to strengthen its power. They see thousands of ships passing up and down their waterways. They know that the strength of their masters is irresistable. They have no hope whatever of seeing their native land one day delivered from their conqueror; their whole continent is henceforth, as they all know, the inheritance of the European. A glance is enough to convince them of the tenacity of those foreign institutions under which human life ceases to depend, for its continuance, on the abundance of game or fish. From their purchases of brandy, guns, and blankets, they know that even their own coarse tastes would be more easily satisfied in the midst of such a society, which is always inviting them to come in, and which seeks, by bribes and flattery, to obtain their consent. It is always refused. They prefer to flee from one lonely spot to another; the bury themselves more and more in the heart of the country, abandoning all, even the bones of their fathers. They will die out, as they know well; but they are kept, by a mysterious feeling of horror, under the yoke of their unconquerable repulsion from the white race, and although they admire its strength and general superiority, their conscience and their whole nature, in a word, their blood, revolts from the mere thought of having anything in common with it.

Arther Gobineau, circa 1854, p121 of The Inequality of Human Races, copyright 2009 by General Books LLC.

ENVY

The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary …

The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. …

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.

It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.

Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.

The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.

The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.

Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities. …

~ Joseph Sobran (Sobran’s — April 1997)

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls "The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society". The essence of it is that "liberalism" dictates that "minorities" who behave worst must be treated best by "the majority". It's a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster's terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster's law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn't, can't, doesn't, and musn't. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a "serious anti-semite" would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted "Auster’s Law and Corollary". I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar's post arguing against Auster's law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don't care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It's important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster's frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish ("in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment"). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks "support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue".

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and "anti-semites") from "our" society, but not jews. They'd like to roust "the majority" to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It's a gambit. They know "the majority" might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. "Oh, misbehavior doesn't include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing - misbehavior means violence!" Of course when this doesn't fly it's right back to the same old story. Blame "anti-semitism". Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of "majority-minority relations" perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn't. We can pretend the law doesn't apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster's dissembling. "The majority" is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by "liberalism" but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether "the majority" means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don't get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from "whites", which is Auster's term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-"white", it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-"white" regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as "suicide" would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don't believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He's more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as "the majority", or "white gentiles", or "white Christians") it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.