Is That Legal?

Maybe he has you confused with Dave Neiwert, who's been very explicit about VDare and its ties for a long time?

"It's all about maintaining white culture."

That sounds quite commendable to me! I'm all for defending White culture and countries. People with normal, healthy instincts defend themselves and their culture; only ones with *perverted* instincts would not defend themselves.

I agree with John. As Kevin MacDonald says, no people will willingly give up their homeland, and it is very much to their disadvantage if they do. If it appears that white people are agreeing to their dispossession in the U.S., that is only because the elites who are dispossessing them have been keeping them as much in the dark as possible as to what was happening. People are waking up now. No doubt much to the displeasure of the proprietor of this web site.

Hmmm... so "racially discriminatory immigration policies" sound deplorable to you. How about "religiously discriminatory immigration policies"? Would you say that it is as deplorable to judge a would-be immigrant by the color of his creed as by the color of his skin? Are you saying, for example, that Israel is wrong to limit immigration to Jewish people? And if not, why not? Shouldn't all immigrants be equal? Are you saying that you agree with Yasser Arafat, who called for a secular state there instead of a "Jewish" one? After all, you seem to oppose discrimination based on race, religion and national origin.

Itis a convenient tactic used by Illegal Alien supporters to throw the "racist" card at Americans who are defending America and American Culture. In fact it is Americans who are being persecuted and discriminated against by our own government and by some of our own people. Illegal Alien is defined in Federal Law Sec 8 USC 1324 as anyone who is in our country without authorization. While 93% of the illegal aliens are Hispanic, 7% are from other countries. It's simple, if you are here illegally...take your disrespect and arrogance and get out!

Muller,
Why not explain why it is wrong to maintain white culture. Would you object to people trying to maintain black or latino culture?

I've long thought that if you scratch almost any serious restrictionist on immigration you'll find a racist just below the surface. It's nice to have this theory confirmed so clearly by the above comments as VDare in general. It's also amusing to see the "judeo-centric" nature of the blog be criticized by restrictionist as well, since if there has been any group where their immigration has been almost completely for the good to the US it's been Jews.

"I've long thought that if you scratch almost any serious restrictionist on immigration you'll find a racist just below the surface."

Yes, the USA has a racist immigration policy, it is racist against Whites. One doesn't need to even scratch below the surface to see that open-borders crowd has a hatred for White people.

If "racist" means being pro-White then I'm proudly "racist". Based on that criteria most of the world is "racist". I could care less about the paper-tiger accusation of being "racist".

Are the Japanese "racist" because they are pro-Japanese and wish to keep Japan Japanese? Are the Israelis "racist" Jewish Supremacists as they wish to keep Israel predominantly Jewish?

"If "racist" means being pro-White then I'm proudly "racist". "
---I'm glad to see we agree. You don't see this as a vice, I'm sad to see, but at least we agree on the first point.

"Are the Japanese "racist" because they are pro-Japanese and wish to keep Japan Japanese?"
---- Yes. Simple answers to simple questions for you.

"Are the Israelis "racist" Jewish Supremacists as they wish to keep Israel predominantly Jewish?"
----A somewhat more complicated question since Israel was founded to solve a very real problem and so sometimes steps away from the ideal are acceptable as remedial measures. But, certainly some Israelis are guilty of chauvinism here, and I would take a multi-ethnic state as an ideal. Unfortunately it doesn't seem possible in the near future. And the idea that US immigration policy is racist against whites is, frankly, a crazy statement. Whites are treated no worse by it and many whites qualify for the "diversity" visa lottery while a smaller percentage of non-whites do. To a large degree this was just what the "diversity" visa was meant to do- to favor immigration from white countries.

Why do you take "a multi-ethncic stae as an ideal"? Wouldn't you prefer a multi-ethnic world, composed of ethnically distinct states? Isdn't that the fun of travel, cultures and nations? Don't you like the "It's a Small World, After All" show?

My comments about a "multi-ethinic state as an ideal" was meant to apply here primarily to Israel, where in an ideal world I'd think that the most just solution would be one where Israelis and Palistinians could live together in peace in a shared state. I don't see this las likely, though, so think it's not worth worrying about that much in the near future. As for the world in general, the only way we could have ethinically pure states would be to have ethinic cleansing, violence, and other forms of rights violatins. Hoping that different states can be peacefully and happily multi-ethnic doesn't imply in any way that cultures will all be the same, either. It's foolish to think otherwise.

But that is exactly my point. Multi-ethnic states may be a happy ideal, but the reality we see around us is grimly different. Whether through peaceful plebiscites, as in former Czechoslovakia and former Soviet Union, or through horrendous bloodshed, as in former Yugoslavia, former British India and soon-to-be-former Iraq, nationalities stubbornly prefer to separate into their own ethnically distinct nation-states. Not even Montenegro was too tiny to vote itself out of Serbia.

We Americans have been spared all that. We have the luxury of reading about it in the newspapers.
We have, or had, the luxury of our unitary, Norman Rockwell, Saturday Evening Post culture.
The one "minority" we had, the 10% among us who were black, were, luckily, as American as we were, had been in this country as long as we had been, and shared our religion and culture. We went to a lot of trouble from the 1950's to the 1970's to rectify our ancestors' wrongs and bring our black brethren in as full members of the family.

So after all that work, agony and aggro, why do we want a return performance? Why are we mounting this elaborate effort to demolish the blessings of union we have hitherto enjoyed and, through undiscriminating immigration, import the sea of troubles that roils the Old World? Just to prove to the world that we are not "racists"?

Do we really want the trouble of Canada, which just last week agreed wearily to let Quebec call itself "a nation within a nation", for our own? Do we really want to import Mexicans en masse into our southwestern states, into unredeemed Aztlan, just to prove to ourselves, as though we haven't already, that we really, really aren't racists?

Enough already. Don't borrow trouble!

In our ever shrinking world where journeys that once took days or weeks now takes hours, where we can communicate with people virtually anywhere in the world via e-mail or facsimile, the idea that we should all fortify ourselves in our racially exclusive laagers is ridiculous.

Just remember this, no matter what race we are, somewhere back in time we all descend from a common ancestor. We broke from one another at various times in the past, and now advances in transportation and communication technology has enabled us all to rediscover one another. Now we have to learn how to live together.

What is white culture? How is it under attack? What constitutes an attack on white culture? Can someone be not white and yet part of white culture?

When was it that America received white culture? Who made it? How did they manage to isolate themselves from all the non-whites in order to manufacture white culture?

It has nothing to do with white culture; it has to do with white people.

Advocacy of open borders for majority-white nations -- and majority white nations ONLY -- is nothing less than straightforward advocacy of the genocide of whites. As a lawyer, you must know that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. It doesn't matter what sort of humanitarian platitudes you mask your ethnic animus behind, the extinction of the white race is the natural and foreseeable result of depriving whites of territories of their own.

By the way, mass immigration is a disaster for American blacks, too.

Ben,

Do you know anyone who advocates "open borders"? I know of a few academics who do, but even they are not that numerous, and I know of no politicians who do and few activists. And even if we did, how would this be "genocide" of the white race? Do you think the fearsome darkies are going to kill us in our sleep? That they will steal our precious bodily fluids? That we'll all cross-bread and lose our vital white essence? Really, I'd like to know what you imagine will happen.

Ben, my wife is from the Philippines and my two children are racially mixed? Are you afraid of them Ben? Would you not want your children to play with my children?

I was once an immigration restrictionist but have not been for seven years. Maybe it is because I live on Long Island and work in New York City, but racial diversity is natural to me and I do not fear it.

Advocacy of "open borders" has been, for instance, the official and explicit policy of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. In a July 3, 1984, editorial, the board wrote: "If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders." The WSJ reiterated this stance repeatedly (and as recently as July 2001) before the events of 9/11/2001 produced a bit more discretion. There is little reason to think that the board's position has changed.

And, of course, to disagree with those who seek to limit immigration seems to imply support for unlimited immigration, i.e., open borders. Perhaps with exceptions I am unaware of, supporters of the immigration status quo don't promise (let alone *credibly* promise) that there is any limit to the number of immigrants they will support. They don't even pretend that this massive influx of immigrants is temporary.

It's fair to say that anyone who supports the status quo supports open borders, since under present policy there is no limit to the amount of immigration the US will be subjected to.

I think "European" is what we mean by "white". We mean the civilization of the West as opposed to that of the Middle East,India, China and their respective outliers. Western civilization was made over the last 2,500 years and we brought it with us from Europe (especially Britain) starting in 1607. (400 years, hooray!)

Of course the "darkies" aren't going to kill the "whiteys" in their sleep. What happens is that with citizenship in hand, they gain voting power and political strength (as is their right). Today, instead of assimilating into the liberal traditions of the liberal West, they are using their clout to keep their own. We see it happening in Britain, France and Italy - the ancient heartlands of Christendom - where immigrant Muslims are insisting on their Islamic identity, on the veil, the head-scarf, the banning of crucifixes in public places, fatwas against cartoonists, and so forth.

I am all for preserving Muslim culture in the Middle East, in the land of the oud and the canon, of the Arabian Nights and Omar Khayyam. But please, no minarets in Tuscany. No imam-led prayer groups in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Their culture may have enriched us, but our culture has made us.

Matt,

You're conflating homicide with genocide. Genocide can be accomplished without a single instance of homicide.

This "Matt" (see numerous comments above) is such a legalistic insincere quibbler that there is a high probability that he is none other than Mr. Muller himself.

This brings up an important point: the way to deal with Tamar-Jacoby stone-cold Stalinist liars of this sort is to expose their tactics to others rather than debating them.

Appeal to the common sense of others and stoke their rightheous hatred of those who would destroy us.

[["If 'racist' means being pro-White then I'm proudly 'racist'."]]
["---I'm glad to see we agree. You don't see this as a vice, I'm sad to see, but at least we agree on the first point."]
Then are you saying that being pro-White is a bad thing?

[["Are the Japanese 'racist' because they are pro-Japanese and wish to keep Japan Japanese?"]]
[---- Yes. Simple answers to simple questions for you. ]
No need to complicate things. So defending ones self interest is a vice!? Would you then suggest that Japan opens up their land for immigration? If so, what would be the purpose of that?

US immigration is policy is discriminatory against whites. We allow unlimited numbers of Latinos to immigrate, but only a relative handful of (often much more skilled and valuable) people from other countries, including whites. Therefore, US policy discriminates against whites (and Asians and Africans and...).

You may counter that this applies to illegal immigration only, but that's beside the point. People want to be here to earn that fat American paycheck, and you can do that whether you're here legally or not.

Also, if your only reason to oppose a multi-ethnic Israel is that the Palestinians hate your guts, would you support allowing millions of Mexicans, who don't particularly hate Jews and have never done anything to them, to immigrate to Israel and become the majority?

Advocacy of open borders for majority-white nations -- and majority white nations ONLY -- is nothing less than straightforward advocacy of the genocide of whites.

Could you please define genocide for me?

"cross breeding" as you say is genocide. Just read Harvard Professor E. O. Wilson's book "The Diversity of Life."

For Wilson, reproductive isolation is the holy grail of evolution. He talks about different breeds of finches on the Hawaiian islands, and how some developed a unique hooked bill for catching insects. If these finches went and breeded again with ordinary finches, it would be a great tragedy (according to Wilson).

As with animals, so with humans. Reproductive isolation, not race-mixing, is what advances evolution. Race-mixing reverses evolution.

Immigration has a direct effect, increase population, and a substitution effect, substitute immigrants for births. Eventually it must become all substitution effect when the population stops increasing.

Current pop is 300 million. With a lifespan of 75 years, we get 4 million deaths per year. If entrants are 2 million, and pop is stable, we get 2 million births as the residual. 2 million births over 4 million deaths is a genetic survival ratio of 1/2 per generation. A cylce from birth to parent is 25 years say. So in 3 cycles we are down to 1/8 the genes, i.e. ie in 75 years.

If pop went to 450 million and we had 1 million entrants in a steady state, we would still be down to about 1/4 in 150 years.

I can assure you that I'm not Eric. I'm writing from Philadelphia, for example. I've never met Eric though I have to say that being accused of being his sock puppet is one of the more funny things that's ever happend to me on the internet.

That's a funny definition of genocide used above, by the way. It's totally unlike the one used by any organization that works on genocide. I suppose you can just use words to mean whatever you want if that's what you want to do but it shouldn't surprise you if other people think you're either ignorent or a liar for doing so.

And, if you knew anything about the matter you might know that there is in fact a very large amount of illegal immigraiton done by "whites" from Europe, Australia, and even Canada- visa over-stays, largely from these countries, make up a large percentage of illegal immigrants in the US. And you'd be more accurate to say, at best, that our enforcement methods provide tacit encouragement to illegal immigrants from Mexico, though that's also pretty tendatious. (You've already indicated that you don't actually care about being accurate, though, so I suppose that's beside the point.)

Kievsky- since, by most accounts, the average genetic variation within so-called races is higher than the average variation between them you arguemnt (based on a poor understanding of evolution anyway) can't even get off the ground.

If people having sex is genocide, count me among its supporters.

Matt,

I'm using "genocide" in the standard dictionary-definition sense, which is also the meaning suggested by the word's roots. It means the killing of a race, nation, or tribe, not the killing of members of a race, nation, or tribe.

From the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I see it more as suicide than as genocide, myself. After all, immigrants could not force themselves upon us without the acquiescence of those inside who want to keep open the gates and welcome them in.

I'm curious, Matt, about why you see multi-ethnic states as "the ideal". That is quite a drastic change that you propose for the ethnically uniform, Frank Capra America of "the Greatest Generation" (or the Miles Davis America of the Pepsi Generation, for that matter). Can you list for us positive reasons why we should sign off on this massive, whole-body, inside-out makeover? Positive, now, not negative. None of that you're-a-racist-otherwise stuff.

Also, immigration, you agree, should stop at some point short of 6 billion people. We are now 300 million. Can you quote us the optimal cut-off population figure and tell us why?

I'm enjoying the debate and you are keeping us on our toes!

Matt,

You wrote that the average genetic variation within races is higher than the average genetic variation between them.

Your comment is rather misleading and the idea you were trying to convey is not particularly useful. Please explain the meaning of "average variation"? An average is a particular magnitude. The variation is the deviation from the magnitude. What is useful to consider when thinking about groups of people numbering in the tens of millions is the average of a particular trait and not the small number of extreme cases (i.e what you referred to as the variation). For example, there are filthy rich blacks and filthy rich whites. There are dirt poor blacks and dirt poor whites. It is clear to anyone with a brain that there is more economic variation within each racial group than between them. Would you conclude that there are no economic differences between blacks and whites as a group?

Regards

Ben,
How, I must ask, do you think that _any_ of those things listed in the UN definition threaten the "white race" if we allow more immigration? That was the definition I had in mind, of course, and it seems a bizzare fantasy to me to think the "white race" is treatened by any of them. (Note that the UN definition also requires intent, as do nearly all criminal laws, but even leaving that aside I must admit that it's beyond me to see how immigration could bring these things about.) Please explaine.

Annatag- of coure the US wasn't ethnically homogonous during the so-called "greatest generation"- it had a large african american population, a significan latino population, and a small but significant asian american population. More importantly, the same arguments made by you and others here were used against allowing jewish, Italian, Greek, Russian, Hungarian, and other Southern and central/eastern Europeans. They were not the same culture- different ethinic types, not even really white, it was said. But they all managed to be part of this great generation. Why think anything different will happen? And, immigration has made us a much culturally (not to mention culinarily!) richer and interesting country. Why would I want to go back to a boring WASP country when we already have something much more interesting and exciting now?

The remark about gentic variation was in response to the idea that human races are distinct breeding groups. They are not. Races cannot be defined genetically, according to most geneticists. The point is that genetic differences, which of course there are among all people, don't pick out what we normally think of as races. Beyond that, the weird claim about human evolution should also be mentioned, namely, that it's very strange to think we should care about it- why would we have any duty or desire to promote human evolution, or to think that we can do so in any interesting way? The remark seems clearly to display a misunderstanding of evolutionary ideas.

"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be going; I have the rest of Al Franken's monthly guest schedule awaiting my review and approval, and then I've got a conference call with Spielberg so that we can decide which Jewish actors and directors will be winning which Oscars this year."

When someone writes nonsense like this it means the opponent has won the argument. This is a low and despicable ploy used by people who can't deal with facts.

Anyone who would use Wikipedia as a biographical reference is an idiot and in this case, a smear merchant to boot.

Admit it, Prof. Muller. You got caught. Now, debate Brimelow.

ELM: "Got caught" doing exactly what, Ryan? Please specify.

Matt,

You made so many classic misrepresentations that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Firstly, no one seriously maintain that races are distinct breeding groups, so it is pointless for you to argue that distinct breeding groups don't exist. Races are essentially very large extended families.

The point you made that races cannot be defined genetically is patently false. DNA in criminal cases is commonly used to determine a perpetrator's race. The fact is that someone's race and even their degree of mixture from multiple races can be determined from their DNA.

The point you made about WASP America being boring is insulting. Is this superficial reason (along with desire for variation of culinary options) really what is motivating you to support a radical experiment that may cause tremendous social unrest in America?

The comparison between Jews, Italians, etc and Africans and Mexicans misses a few obvious points. Namely, all groups are not equal. Mexicans have the highest high school dropout rate and teen pregnancy. African Americans have commit 8 times as much violent crime as white Americans. There are noted differences in IQ. How many predominantly Mexican or African American neighborhoods can you think of that you would like to move into? Other than food, can you think of any way that mass Mexican immigration is improving this country?

Take a look at this study here:

http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/fall/sallyport/segregation.html

White liberals say all the "correct" things about race, but when given the freedom to choose they prefer to live in white neighborhoods. When white liberals start moving into black and mexican neighborhoods, instead of fleeing from integrated ones, I'll start believing that the multiracial America will be a success.

Regards.

In the early 1970s, I attended UNC Chapel Hill as a graduate student in History. One enduring memory of my otherwise wonderful experience there was the disgraceful manner in which left-wing students and faculty members engaged in sustained efforts to shut down the university and stigmatize any dissent from their anti-war views. This memory is all the more shameful since I participated in many of the anti-war protests at that time.

There is still no doubt in my mind that the American intervention in Vietnam was wrong. But the anti-war movement allowed anti-American leftist leaders both a platform and an opportunity to exercise their moral vanity and to establish a politically-correct, self-loathing mindset in an entire generation of white Americans. During the 60s and early 70s we were told over and over by the predominantly Jewish leadership of the anti-war movement that all non-white Americans were the beneficiaries of an unearned and exploitative "white-skin privilege." We have spent the last 30 years seeking to expiate the guilt of being white. The only sure way of renouncing "white-skin privilege" in the view of people such as Professor Muller appears to be a policy of handing over the USA and other Western nations to an unending flood of Third World immigrants.

Strangely enough, I remember North Carolina as a state which was still working in the 1970s to overcome the tragic legacy of slavery left to it by earlier generations of greedy landowners who put their own financial interests ahead of the Anglo-Saxon majority's interest in establishing and preserving a community of memory, tradition, language, religion and blood in the New World.

Clearly, open borders fanatics such as Professor Muller are now desperately seeking to repeat that crime against the interests not just of white North Carolinians but this time round contrary to the interests of black North Carolinians as well. Having examined this website, it is clear to me that Professor Muller's motivation is somewhat different than that of the Anglo-Saxon slaveowners who blighted America's future back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His interest in flooding America with Third World immigrants appears to be more related to his ethnicity than to his bank balance.

Like many Jewish supporters of open borders throughout the Western world, the good Professor hopes that the creation of a multi-racial society in the USA will somehow make his co-ethnics more secure against the threat of persecution from an "Aryan majority." Of course, he has no desire to see Israel go down that path to national suicide. So, in a thoroughly hypocritical unprincipled effort to promote his own particular ethnic interests, he is willing, inter alia, to denounce anyone who defends the core Anglo-American identity of the USA, using his influence and professional prestige to deny such patriots access to the media.

Shame on him! Professor Muller is a disgrace to a fine university created by the very Anglo-Saxon people you are trying to replace by hordes of Third Worlders who could never create much less maintain the traditions represented by that institution. Unfortunately, he is not alone. Like almost every other Western university, UNC has fallen victim to the soft totalitarianism of the multi-racialist, feminist, homosexual fanatics who now masquerade as scholars.

If Professor Muller had any intellectual integrity he would muster the courage to debate these issues with Peter Brimelow in an open public forum. As things stand, his cowardly efforts to silence Mr Brimelow and smear VDare.com simply demonstrate that it is Professor Muller, not Mr Brimelow, who stands revealed as the real source of hate speech in this matter!

Wait a second, Matt. There was no shortage of ethnic restaurants even during the Norman Rockwell years. One million immigrants annually seems like way overdoing it just to get a diversified food court at the local mall.

But I know the phrase "Norman Rockwell" is going to sum up for you the "boring WASP culture" you mentioned. And if American culture really were just Bing Crosby or Pat Boone crooning "White Christmas", I might be tempted to agree with you.
But the fact is that our culture (a Euro-African fusion) has been fantastic in the 20th Century, and the rest of the world (except the sourpuss Muslims) has united in importing it.

Never mind our technological brilliance (more Nobels in the sciences than any other nation). What about... Jack Kerouac, Elvis Presley, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Jimi Hendrix, Jackson Pollock, Walt Disney, Lee & Charles Eames, et al (the list goes on). We don't need 100 million new immigrants (and their offspring) just to enrich our culture. Our culture is already great, don't you think? And if it ain't broke, why fix it?

As to your other point, almost all the nationalities you mention came from the West, and shared our culture. Plus, they came then to assimilate. The blacks (10% of the population) were alwqays Americans, never immigrants. As for the Asians and Latinos, they together amounted to 3% of our population - nice for seasoning but not a main ingredient.

The size and duration of today's influx is unprecedented; you may not be aware of the scale of it. Also, I think you are not aware that non-whites are 85% of new immigrants, and whites are 15%. While that may reflect the world's ethnic composition, it does not reflect America's. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

C'mon Matt and Eric, help leave us be to live our lives and don't line up with those Wall Street Journal busybodies who want to... experiment on our country. Especially not just for spicy eats at the restaurant!

Ryan,

Perhaps a bit more decorum is called for. It's never advisable to harangue one's host.

Matt,

I cited the UN's declaration to correct your misunderstanding of the concept of genocide. While you may have difficulty finding the mens rea, the imposition of unlimited immigration on a population surely causes its "physical destruction in whole or in part" and "prevent[s] births within the group". Moreover, these results are the natural and foreseeable results of a policy of unlimited immigration, and, as I mentioned above, one is presumed to intend the natural and foreseeable consequences of one's acts.

Matt,

You are confused again. No one is talking about "promot[ing] human evolution." We are talking about staying alive. Can you not identify with that?

Ben, The remark about evolution was in response to the bizzare claim by Kievsky that "Race-mixing reverses evolution." Do you accept that remark? I'd hope not, since it's crazy nonsense on several levels. But moreso, even if we allowed 'unlimited immigration', why would that "physically destroy" the white race? Why would it prevent the births of whites? Would whites no longer be able to mate with other whites if they wanted to? For the UN definition to come in to play you'd have to have someone actually _preventing_ or _taking positive steps_ to make these things happen. If, say, whites, by their own choice, engaged in enough "race mixing" so that we were all a nice tan color and so ended the 'white race' this wouldn't be genocide on the UN definition. If you think otherwise you don't actually understand the law here. And, if this was done by the free choice of people I'd see no moral problem with it. Really, though, genocide is a legal term and nothing you've suggested gives any reason to think the legal standard would be met even if we removed all borders at once.

Annatag, I have no concern at all that 85% of new immigrants are not white. (That's not actually true, either, since a large percentage of hispanic immigrants self-identify as 'white' and self-identification is all 'race' is.) Why should I care? White, not white, it's all the same to me. (I already live in a city that's minority white and let me tell you, it's much better and more interesting than when I lived in 95% white Idaho.)

You have a point, Matt. And I certainly garbled mine. The 85%/15% split that I corrected you on is Third World/Developed World, not white/non-white. "White/non-white"; it's all the same" has proven to be quite true in the case of immigrants from developed, modern societies like Japan and Korea. But not tribal herders or illiterate peasants. We should discriminate as to whom we take in, just like every other country does.

You know, Matt, there have always been cosmopolitan, big-city bohemias for those like yourself (and me) who find places like Idaho to be staid. But does that mean we have to keep the taps running forever and turn the whole country into a boho Lower East Side? Maybe Idahoans (and I) like Idaho the way it is. If America as a whole thought its rural heartland was so boring, it would not celebrate its culture so endlessly through movies.

[Matt said: "Ben, The remark about evolution was in response to the bizzare claim by Kievsky that 'Race-mixing reverses evolution.' Do you accept that remark? I'd hope not, since it's crazy nonsense on several levels."]
Sorry to interject here, but the disagreement could be due to semantics. One could indeed argue that race-mixing doesn't reverse evolution, but undeniably it would wipe out a unique *evolutionary-branch*.

[Matt said: "... self-identification is all 'race' is."]
You've got to be kidding! Ah yes, race is a social construct ...

[Matt said: "White, not white, it's all the same to me."]
So you'd then happily live in an all-White country?

John,
No one denies that there is genetic variation among people nor that differnt people look different ways. But, my point is that the genetic variation between people doesn't map on to our common-sense ideas of race- the genetic variation among people or even groups of people don't pick out "races" in the common sense of the term. This is especially clear in the cases of "races" like 'hispanic' (a large percentage of whom are 'white' as far as US law goes) and 'asian' but even so for the idea of an 'african' race. If you really care about this sort of stuff you might looks at Anthony Appia's contribution to the book _Color Conscious_ or any of several books by Naomi Zack and the references therein.

You've taken my remark at the end out of context, of course. I assume you know that. My point was that I don't care if immigration to the US is made up of whites or not whites. Why should I? I do care of immigration rules involve racism and prejudice, though. Would I enjoy living in an all-white country? I don't know- are there any? I'd certainly not enjoy it if it was kept all white via racist admissions policies any more than I'd enjoy living in any evil country. Beyond that I find diversity intereting and exciting so I doubt I'd enjoy it as much as living in a cosmpolitan place. But I suspect that you're not really arguing in good faith here, given the way you've taken the quote out of its obvious context so I'll not go on more.

None of this makes any sense. Matt, you deplore homogeneity. You claim diversity as an absolute good, binding therefore on every nation. But if every nation thoroughly diversifies, and we have absolute mingling and mixing of ethnic groups through unrestricted, un-"racist" immigration, what do we end up with? A completely homogeneous planet! And there will be no escape from the boredom of THAT.

You seem to be advocating a maximum osmosis on a world scale. But that is maximum entropy! "Organization requires energy". Nations are that organization. We cannot gratuitously go about degrading the cultural variety that peoples of the world have painstakingly built up over the millenia.

Sigghhhhh.....

Not one Vdarenik has addressed my comments above, namely, that all of us, no matter what our race, are descended at some point from a common ancestor. In the geologic time scale, therefore, the branching of the human race into different races is a relatively recent affair in world history.

Advances in transportation and communications technology is rendering obsolete the idea that we can all wall ourselves off into racially exclusive laagers. Over the last 500 years, the diverse racial and ethnic groups of humanity that separated millennia ago have been made aware of each other again by our advances. We all have to share this world and the great challenge of the 21st century will be for the human race as a whole to unite or our descendants may not survive to see the end of the 22nd century.

I work at a large law firm in NYC with talented people from all racial and ethnic groups. The idea that we do not benefit from the talents and skills of non-whites is as antiquated as the horse and buggy.

It sounds like Tommykey wants an end to all that "diversity" that Matt celebrates. Tommykey, are you saying that the "diverse racial and ethnic groups of humanity that separated millenia ago" are an unfortunate historical mistake? Should all roses be red once more??

Shall tourism and National Geographic magazine, a century from now, be devoted solely to the wonders of nature's variety, because the wealth of human cultural variety, with all its conflict and racism (alas), will have been relegated to history's dustbin? The cure sounds worse than the malady - very much "Brave New World". But if you do like humanity's marvelous ethnic diversity, then how in the world are we to preserve it without borders and nations?

Tommykey,

Are advances in technology rendering obsolete the notion that you can have an exclusive apartment in NYC? I can drive or fly to New York and move right on in!

Obviously, the fact that something is possible does not mean it is desirable or inevitable. It is simple to stop the flow of humans from country to country, just as it is simple to keep me out of your apartment.

Mass immigration is neither desirable nor inevitable.

Anntag and Ben, you are both a couple of morons.

How am I proposing to end diversity? And where did I say that borders should not exist? What I said was that in this day and age, it is ridiculous to think that we can all live in our racially exclusive laagers.

And no Ben, I do not have an exclusive apartment in NYC. You are both criticizing positions I did not advance as my own. But what you both did write tells me everything I need to know about the two of you.

Matt,

["No one denies that there is genetic variation among people nor that differnt people look different ways. But, my point is that the genetic variation between people doesn't map on to our common-sense ideas of race- ...]

We'll probably end up running in circles on this topic.

["You've taken my remark at the end out of context, of course. I assume you know that. My point was that I don't care if immigration to the US is made up of whites or not whites. Why should I? I do care of immigration rules involve racism and prejudice, though. Would I enjoy living in an all-white country? I don't know- are there any? I'd certainly not enjoy it if it was kept all white via racist admissions policies any more than I'd enjoy living in any evil country. Beyond that I find diversity intereting and exciting so I doubt I'd enjoy it as much as living in a cosmpolitan place. But I suspect that you're not really arguing in good faith here, given the way you've taken the quote out of its obvious context so I'll not go on more."]

I am discussing in good faith. I was trying to get to your core philosophie(s) - yes, you're sort of a guinea pig having experiments run on you. No offense intended.

So you seem to be saying that "diversity", or the lack of it, isn't the issue, but racial discrimination. No?

Would a country forbidding all immigration be acceptable to you?

John

Tommy,

["Not one Vdarenik has addressed my comments above, namely, that all of us, no matter what our race, are descended at some point from a common ancestor. In the geologic time scale, therefore, the branching of the human race into different races is a relatively recent affair in world history."]

What are you expecting to hear?

Earlier you said:
["Just remember this, no matter what race we are, somewhere back in time we all descend from a common ancestor. We broke from one another at various times in the past, and now advances in transportation and communication technology has enabled us all to rediscover one another. Now we have to learn how to live together."]

Good fences make good neighbors. Having unwanted invaders is the best way to not get along.

John

Matt,

I hope you don't take this amiss, and that we can all remain good friends, but you really haven't come off your perch to rebut our positions and explain yours. All you have done is clutch a signboard called "racism, racism" and waved it in our faces. Meanwhile, you've told us you find WASP culture "boring", and that 95% Idaho would be better off if it were ethnically un-cleansed, and do you know what you've proved? That you're as bigoted as we are. Do you know why? Because bigotry is a human characteristic just like ethnic diversity is.

Bigotry is not a "Republican" failing, "a paleo-conservative" failing or a "whites-only" failing, to be purged out of us through massive immigration. Bigotry is a fault as old as sin. Everybody, you included, carries it around in his or her human heart. You cannot "social-engineer" it out of existence with a gale of creative destruction. Your utopia of multi-ethnic states will exacerbate, not diminish, racial animosities. The headlines from around the world must show you this over and over again.

We liberals are going to make laughingstocks of ourselves if we don't get off this multi-culti kick. Would you ban dancing to end lust? Would you ban sex to end rape? Would you ban liquor to end drunkenness? Would you ban business to end exploitation? Why then ban American "nativism" to end racism? You will only throw out the baby with the bathwater.

"No sane black man really wants integration! No sane white man really wants integration ... the only solution is complete separation"
- Malcolm X

Turkish workers a mistake, claims Schmidt

By Hannah Cleaver in Berlin
(Filed: 25/11/2004)

Helmut Schmidt, the former German chancellor, has inflamed the country's debate on immigration by saying that multiculturalism can only work under authoritarian regimes, and that bringing millions of Turkish guest workers to Germany was a mistake.
"The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society," he told the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper.
He added that it had been a mistake that during "the early 1960s we brought guest workers from foreign cultures into the country".

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/25/wturk25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/25/ixw

Nativism?

You mean . . . America for Americans?!?

EGADS! Sick 'em boy, go!

I am a current student in a U.S. university. Allow me to explain modern lib-arts academics. I believe this is necessary, as most of you are trying to argue on the basis that America deserves to exist, therefore you may be "arguing past" one another. I have taken the requisite "Whiteness Studies" courses, so please allow me to translate:

America, because of slavery, jim crow, not being deceived into WWII sooner--whatever--has no right to exist. The Constitution is racist, to boot.

Arguments on these grounds are not understood by these insane "academics."

Lastly, I *AM* a racist, (a Jew-wise one at that!) so we can just get that out of the way, and make it so anyone who would take issue with me can just get to whatever point they would like to argue.

kthx,

Theseus
Tomorrow Belongs to *Us*
http://theseus.wordpress.com