Lawrence Auster’s simple and true-as-can-be blog entry here is an example of what makes this site, “View From the Right,” one of the absolute best sites on the entire internet. It just doesn’t get any better than this analysis by Mr. Auster.

And it’s free. It’s anyone’s for the asking.

Now, I want to know what white people everywhere are going to start doing about it? Let’s go, people … wake up. It’s being handed to you here on a silver platter! Mr. Auster is even saving you the bother of having to think it through! He’s giving you the answer, plain as day!

Just have the wit to act please, ladies and gentlemen! It’s not hard! I’m talking expecially here to the white élites — if you are reading this blog entry and are a wealthy or influential white person: Please, just open your eyes! The greater your wealth or position of influence, the greater are your moral obligations.

Tolerence meens respecting every cutlure except those of white countries.

“Tolerence meens respecting every culture except those of white countries.”

Ron’s got it right but it goes much further. Don’t forget, “respecting every culture except those of white countries” is not enough — you could be lying. No, you now have to *prove* that you respect all countries’ cultures except white ones, by warmly and wholeheartedly acquiescing in the death — the complete and utter annihilation and permanent extinction — of your white one and the unalloyed triumph and eternal preservation of the non-white ones. Those are the rules by which the dhimmis (modern western liberals) now accept to play the game.

(If that’s to be the new game, deal me out please.)

Australia shouldn’t aim to be considered an “Asian” country, anyway. If only there was the political will in the white, English-speaking world (Great Britain, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) to work towards the formation of some sort of more formalized “Anglosphere”, based on our common Anglo-Saxon / Celtic heritage, the English language, and principles of English common law and free enterprise. (Some sort of loose free-trading organization, perhaps with a common defense pact.) Alas, given Western elites’ self-loathing, fat chance of that happening anytime soon…

Mr. Auster’s comments are music to the ears of white traditionalists and to all nations (even nonwhite nations) except those that wish to invade and to take over nations and cultures. Parts of the above article will be another of the many Austerian quotations I save.

It is going to be difficult not having Mr. Auster around, but sacrifice is what traditionalists need to begin learning. I will use the time to be more active and to study the many articles on the On To Restoration Website.

The Australians have set themselves up for this nonsense by their recent insistence, in defiance of geography as well as cultural connections, that their continent be considered part of Asia, which never occurred to anyone before, except perhaps for the more ambitious Japanese planners of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Alan Levine wrote,

“The Australians have set themselves up for this nonsense by their recent insistence, in defiance of geography as well as cultural connections, that their continent be considered part of Asia, which never occurred to anyone before, … “

Those Aussie dunces did that? One is tempted to say, “You made your bed — now sleep in it! Your demise will serve as an example to other countries not to make a similar mistake.”

I don’t think Australia is facing nearly the threat the U.S. is. The major threat to the U.S. IMO is that our immigrants are disproportionately unskilled and stuck in the underclass, even after 2 or 3 generations. There is also a threat in the sheer NUMBER of immigrants—i.e. one million legal plus a few hundred thousand illegal, plus high birthrates weighted to the poorest and most unskilled end of immigrants. I may be misunderstanding, but aren’t most of Australia’s immigrants skilled, middle to upper class, and staying out of trouble (i.e., crime and welfare out of proportion to the native population)? That doesn’t mean Australia has nothing to worry about, but I don’t think Australia is in nearly the same danger as the U.S. immigration wise.

I think the main goals of the U.S. should be to stop illegal immigration (a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border plus steep and well-enforced employer sanctions plus active and immediate deportation of criminal aliens would be ideal), to slow down legal immigration to around 300,000 per year (maybe more during a good economy, less in a bad economy), and to implement a skills and merit-based policy.

That said, I don’t think concerns about nonwhite immigrants in general are *completely* invalid. For example, Asians voted 55-41 for Al Gore (whites voted against Gore 54-43), and it seems like I remember a CIS stat that upper income Hispanics vote Democratic, if less so than their lower-income counterparts. However, with 300K rather than 1.3M immigrants per year, and a hard-nosed pro-America/pro-assimilation education system, I think the tendency of middle- and upper-class nonwhites to vote socialist could be reduced or eliminated. The weakening of anti-Christain/anti-relgious (other than Islam, of course) fanatacism would also help in terms of the religous/cultural angle of immigration.

Unfortunately, I don’t know how realistic ANY immigration reduction/merit-based immigration policy is likely to have any success any time soon. The U.S. really does seem to be on the Path to National Suicide, by importing an underclass and constantly expanding the welfare state (as the population ages, no less!). Even alone, those policies are dangerous, especially the mass unskilled immigration, which is likely to be a disaster in itself. But together, they are almost certainly a disaster, and Bush has done nothing about either mass immigration or the ballooning welfare state.

“That said, I don’t think concerns about nonwhite immigrants in general are *completely* invalid.”

However, I would add that I’m not sure how conservative even white immigrants are/would be, given the socialist tendencies of Europe.

I think there is good reason to think about race and immigration beyond just who votes for what. Every society is carried along to a large extent by tradition. Whenever people try to set up tradition-less societies, they generally fail in a rather bloody way.

Tradition is not something passed on by government schools or villages raising a child. It is passed on by parents. In all sane societies, parents are the main contributors to the education of children in tradition. The main ties we have to culture are not genetic, but educational. But since that education is parent-child, culture has a high correlation to genetics. There always has been and always will be a substantial connection between culture, ethnicity, and race.

This alone should make people very wary about importing highly divergent cultures (and therefore races) into their society. They will be together for a long time. And what generally wins out in the end is not ideas, but numbers.

Alan Levine:

Australians did not ‘set themselves up’ for the present situation. ‘Multiculturalism’ was imposed upon an unwilling country by those in power at the time.

I cant claim to speak for all Australians, but many of us always believed that a non-discriminatory immigration policy would spell diaster for our way of life, and we were right.

To Dee,

While there is a lot of truth in the idea that liberal elites exercise a a kind of soft-totalitarian sway over Western countries, I ultimately don’t buy the idea that immigration and multiculturalism, or any other policy, were “imposed” on an “unwilling” country. Ultimately, all government is by consent. If the people of Australia had REALLY not wanted those immigration policies, they could have marched by the hundreds of thousands or millions in the streets of Sidney and forced the government to change them. The Shah of Iran was a dictator, yet when the Iranian people marched a million strong in Tehran, his government fell. If a people truly don’t want their government to do something, it is in their power to stop it.

The Telegraph article to which Mr. Auster links gives yet another example of the essential imbecility of President Bush. Whether it is because he does not know anything about the rest of the world or because his advisers do not tell him the truth about it hardly matters. How could Bush possibly have thought that describing Australia as America’s “deputy sheriff” in East Asia would do anything other than (i) irritate the Australians whom he patronizes and (ii) make life more difficult than it already is for Australia vis-a-vis its overwhelmingly more populous neighbors to the north?

What a clod. For so many reasons, conservatives should pray that Bush is not re-elected. HRS

Consider, in addition to Mr. Auster’s idea for responding from now on, the idea that one speak about crime by illegals or by anyone with “Until the federal government began enforcing tolerance of crime on people in the 1960’s, America was a safe and wonderful country.” Think about it. Until segregation was ended in my southern hometown in the 1960’s, my parents left their keys in their car with the windows rolled down. We slept with the front door open and the window fan on.

Matt W. wrote:

“Unfortunately, I don’t know how realistic ANY immigration reduction/merit-based immigration policy is likely to have any success any time soon.”

The grim thought is that only some horrible disaster related to immigration would finally lead to reform. What would it take? A Chicano revolution in the Southwest? It would have to be something extreme. A few years ago there was a big Hispanic rally in D.C. Half the speakers spoke in Spanish. There was zero public reaction to this.

We can’t know the future, or what it will take to start to turn the issue around. But we must be there, ready with our arguments, when it happens.

Mr. Auster suggested that Australians should have marched in the millions to force their government to change policy. In the USA, millions of people marching in the streets for immigration control would have absolutely no effect on GWB or the WSJ, and the Murdoch-financed media. I believe the pro-immigration “conservatives” take pride in ignoring popular sentiment as expressed in polls for reducing immigration.

As Howard Sutherland has said, Mr. Bush would prefer to be defeated than win reelection as a hard-headed GOP President who closed the borders. Mr. Bush is the epitome of the Guilty and Rich White Liberal in this respect.

If the ENTIRE GOP (no hope for the Democrats) from the White House, plus Senators and Congressmen were behind reducing immigration, something could indeed be done. One Congressman isn’t enough. How bad a catastrophe will it take to bring about this state of affairs?

David wrote,

” … [M]illions of people marching in the streets for immigration control would have absolutely no effect on GWB … .”

David’s being hyperbolic here — millions marching in the streets would of course force a change — but the outrage is that Bush (our second black president) would oblige people to go to that extreme; would refuse to notice anything motivated by less than that level of pent-up, had-it-up-to-here anger, frustration, and desperation. He would push decent people to the limit — push them out of their homes and offices, spilling into the streets in their millions — before deigning to notice they were mad as hell about his policy of replacing literally all the whites in the U.S. with non-white third-worlders.

David wrote,

“I believe the pro-immigration ‘conservatives’ take pride in ignoring popular sentiment as expressed in polls for reducing immigration.”

They do, and for many reasons, one being that they’re bought and paid for by the pro-immigration interests (Sam Brownback’s an example; so’s Grover Norquist obviously; I believe GWB is too) and they take pride in the big paycheck they’re going to bring home to the wife (or in W’s case, in whatever Mexican “financial arrangement” Fox has set up, which he stands to benefit from after he leaves office). Also, touting national suicide by means of excessive incompatible immigration is how these people feel moral for a change, probably for the first time in their lives. Feeling moral is a great sensation, so much so that it can become addictive. These moral reprobates aren’t about to forgo that which gives them their desperately needed daily “fix” of moral feeling, a feeling they’ve never had before.

” … Mr. Bush would prefer to be defeated than win reelection as a … president who [controlled immigration].”

What does he care if he gets defeated? He’ll be all set, regardless. He’ll go back to golf and managing his baseball team, his oil interests, and the various Mexican financial schemes he undoubtedly has lined up as payback from Fox’s cronies (the ones who aren’t in jail yet) on orders from Fox. Besides, what need has the future Emperor of Aztlan to worry about so piddling a thing as the U.S. presidency?

“Mr. Bush is the epitome of the Guilty and Rich White Liberal in this respect.”

That’s too “lofty” a level. Bush’s problem is (can we talk?, as Joan Rivers used to say) he’s not too swift — or, as we used to put it when I was growing up: when God was handing out IQ points Bush was standing at the end of the line. By the way, what’s up with that? What’s the deal with dumb Republicans and smart Dems? Why do we keep getting severely synapse-challenged candidates like Bob Dole, Dan Quayle, Bush-père, and Bush-fils while they get guys who can brag of having at least two IQ points to rub together, like Clinton?

Mr. Auster wrote,

“We can’t know the future, or what it will take to start to turn the issue around. But we must be there, ready with our arguments, when it happens.”

Or if it doesn’t happen we must continue developing our arguments and set them down — record them somewhere — as a legacy for our children’s and grandchildren’s generations and beyond, if necessary, to build upon after we’re gone (can anyone tell I’m in this for the long haul?).

FAIR (Federation for Immigration Reform), which I understand to be the oldest and most reputable immigration reform organization in the country, estimates the cost of providing illegal aliens “general services” including welfare and other social services to be $20 billion annually. 20 billion! This number takes into consideration taxes paid by aliens who are working illegally in our country.

How do illegals “qualify” for welfare benefits? Apparently the same way they get jobs. With false documents. FAIR reports that fradulent documentation can be obtained in many U.S cities for as little as $40.

Correction: FAIR is the “Federation for American Immigration Reform”