What an Asian-American reader thinks about America and whites
John Liu writes from the West Coast:
I happened upon your interesting website. It seems to me you are a bunch of fantasists. As someone has so rightly noted, the “settled states” of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were originally non-white.
It would seem for instance, that a person like yourself, whom I presume is only about 2nd or 3rd generation American, has no right to demand that non-whites such as Hispanics—many with ancestors in the Americas stretching back tens of thousands of years, be denied their right to America. Or even other non-whites from around the world. A tad hypocritical don’t you think?
As the proportion of non-Europeans grows in Europe and in the United States (and also in Canada and Australia) and eventually become majorities, the intelligence of the populations will fall. The strength of the economies will equally inevitably decline to the level of developing nations.
Well of course the obvious solution is for whites in the places mentioned above return to Europe, allow the “settled” states to revert to being non-white, and then whites may have some moral authority about limiting the influx of non-whites.
Whites are the only racial group, which continues to be settled largely outside of their historic borders. For instance there are about 40 million Italian derived people settled outside of Italy (more than the total amount of overseas Chinese), about 80 million Irish descended people outside of Ireland (many more obviously than in Ireland). Of course the same can be said of Germans, and English.
So whites had no moral qualms about displacing other peoples from their homes. Why should anyone care then that whites may become a majority in say, England?
Perhaps if most whites took the lead of the Jewish people, and returned to ancestral lands, then the problem would be solved overnight.
LA replies:
Don’t waste my time with such moronic arguments as that the U.S. was originally a nonwhite “state.” The U.S. was created by whites.
By your idiot reasoning, every country on earth not currently populated by its earliest population from tens of thousands of years ago has no right to exist.
Don’t bother me again.
John Liu writes:
The problem is we are not talking tens of thousands of years ago. Up to about 200 to 150 years ago, most Asians lived in Asia, whites in Europe, blacks in Africa. [LA notes: in his first e-mail, John Liu said that Hispanics’ “right to America,” meaning their claim of a right to enter en masse and take over the United States, is based on their ancestors’ presence in the Americas going back “tens of thousands of years.”]
It was white people who changed this demographic balance and moved people around the globe like so many pieces on a chessboard. Now they find themselves aghast that they find themselves in contact with non-whites.
You write: The U.S. was created by whites.” Well by your “idiot” reasoning, China invading the Americas and establishing a Chinese flavored polity, would have every right to rid themselves of the white population?
If I steal your house, renovate it, add a balcony, re-paint it—it is somehow then mine?
Face it Mr Auster—you are an anachronism, your cause was doomed from the start—not least because of its inherent immorality. May I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time?
Good day to you,
John Liu
LA replies:
Thanks for confirming everything I’ve been saying for all these years about what immigration is really about—deluded whites opening the doors of the West to resentment-filled nonwhites and empowering them to get back at the white man and destroy white societies.
- end of initial entry -
Robert B. writes:
Some of my ancestors came here in 1740—one such produced a needle point to celebrate it. As such, handed down from one generation to the next, is the reality of what they found when they got here—I have books that are 150 to 200 years old, history books.
What the “white man” found when he got here was appalling to his sensibilities. There was no myth of the “noble savage” here at the time, only reality. They found a people who lived in (relatively speaking) small tribal units that preyed upon one another in the most savage ways—taking women and children as slaves after killing off the older ones and warriors for such petty things as animal hides. The truth is, is they all attempted to use the white man for his advanced abilities as a means of gaining advantage over one another. What the Euros found was a people that one might have found living in Europe 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. A people living in the stone age with stone age superstitions. They were incapable of harming the land because they had no technology—they did, however, set forests and prairies on fire in order to drive herds into kill zones where they would gorge themselves until the meat rotted. Then they would take the hides and leave the carcasses to rot. Today we know that there was a great “kill off” of species around 5,000 years ago—including the native horse population. Simply put, they ate everything in sight.
It is a common modern myth that the white man forces modern day Indians to live in abject poverty on their reservations out West. This is a falsehood. This is the way they choose to live—I have seen it many many times with own eyes and know once “pie in the sky” individuals who went to these reservations to educate and uplift these people—just like some of my ancestors tried to do 250 years ago. Just as then, they learned that the teaching was not wanted nor appreciated—they want to live the way they do and have no desire for “the white man’s ways”. Their “towns” are filthy with garbage everywhere. Abandoned cars, refrigerators, stoves, you name it, are everywhere on the streets and yards. They live in the midst of the most beautiful land in the world and this is how they care for it.
There was nothing here when the modern white man got here. “We” collectively made this nation, a great and thriving place, at least as it once was. It was our Protestant Work Ethic that transformed a rugged wilderness into the world’s foremost economic, military and technologically advanced nation on earth in a mere 250 years (1690-1940) while “great nations” such as China languished in a medieval stupor. Let us not even compare the 10,000 years that others were here with no discernible progress whatsoever.
They are all jealous—all of them. They hate us for doing here what the rest of the world could not do in a thousand years. And thus, you are right, we never should have let them in. The Founders knew and understood this—it is why, up until 1965, none but Europeans were allowed into this country or its predecessor colonies—save (the great mistake) of the African slaves. And they knew that some day, there would be a reckoning for having done so—that two peoples so different could never occupy the same space in peace.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
John Liu seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the immorality of large numbers of people settling in places that are not their homes, unwanted. He suggests that the problem could be solved overnight if whites returned to Europe, and allowed America to become…nonwhite?
Might I remind Mr. Liu that the place Europeans found when they settled here was not simply non-white, it was distinctively and exclusively North American Indian. There were no Chinese here either. The way he frames his grand “solution” is not that the land become entirely Native again, but that the whites—and only the whites—leave. Notice that he folds his political interests in with all those who are non-white. This reveals what he is, and what liberalism is: anti-white to the core.
(By the way, it’s notable that whites are East Asians’ only serious competition in the high-achievement sweepstakes in multicultural America. Imagine it—the political benefits of being a minority in liberal society plus the highest native IQ of any single group. Not a bad situation, I must say.)
LA replies:
You’re absolutely right, and that would have been a good argument to use with him
The flagrant irrationality of what he’s saying is explained simply by the fact that he’s out to get whites, and he’ll pick up any argument he can find, no matter how absurd or contradictory, that will enable him to do that. It’s pure animus. And how many belief systems are there today that boil down to the same? Of coursre, that’s what the left says about us.
Not to mention the anti-Semites. While the left and the nonwhites say that everything I do is motivated by animus against nonwhites, the anti-Semites say that everything I do, is motivated by animus against whites.
Yeah, it’s a really mentally healthy world out there.
Philip M. writes:
I see you have had the misfortune to be discovered by John Liu. John normally posts these type of arguments at the American Renaissance site, and has done so for years. Most recently he has started a similair argument at that site under the thread from 26th May under the heading “rioters arrested after Luton protests turn violent.” I once got into a similair argument with him that ended with me having to block his e-mail address when he started sending me taunting (over the fact that he has a white wife, something he wrongly thought would annoy me) and abusive e-mails. He claims to be non-racist, yet when you scratch the surface he reveals his animosity against whites for the Chinese opium trade and colonialism. His claim that only whites are living outside of their historic homelands carries with it the inference that we are somehow uniquely rapacious and greedy and must be made to redress some cosmic balance for the sake of an arbitrary “fairness” which is to be decided by non-whites such as himself.
John Liu says we are a “bunch of fantasists” whilst at the same time calling for the three-hundred million-plus whites living in North America and Australia/New Zealand to “go home.” He must realise that this is not going to happen, it is a ludicrous idea—there is not even the space in Europe for this. It is not an achievable goal, so you have to question his motivation for suggesting it. It is not a serious or construcitve starting point for a debate and he knows it. There is little point getting into discussions with him, so I think you were right to take the approach that you did by dismissing his claims, and seeing them as perfect examples of the anti-white animus that motivates many racial minorities that live in the supposedly “post racial” America, and which manifests itself with ever greater confidence the more concessions whites make to other races. Would a Chinaman in ‘50’s America have demanded that all whites leave the USA? Probably not, but the election of a black President and the constant appeasement of non-whites is rightly seen as a sign of weakness by other races, whose strident claims culiminate with John Liu’s demand. He is in effect taunting whites for their weakness, which is why he searches out white-interest sites where he feels his comments will irritate the most, and have the most impact. He would not bother making such comments on left-wing sites where whites would probably limply agree with him. He clearly has issues with whites, whatever he pretends.
I would suggest to Mr Liu that it is white liberals who are the true fantasists, as they are the ones who honestly believed that non-whites would be grateful for the opportunity to live in America, and who tell us that different races can live in harmony, when his comments suggest otherwise.
LA replies:
I closed out his e-mails after his second comment so that they don’t arrive at my computer. In my post of my second reply to him, above, I left out the second paragraph. Here it is:
Now that you’ve shown what you are, don’t write to me again. Any e-mails from you will be delivered to the void, where they belong.
As for his claim that he’s not anti-white, yes, of course: he just believes in justice, as all men do. And it just so happens that whites are uniquely immoral and so they deserve to lose everything they have.
Philip replies:
Consigned to the “Laurentian abyss” where his suggestions belong!:)
Whats the betting that if all whites did return to Europe John Liu would be following shortly behind you? In reality he would not enjoy living in a black/Mexican America any more than you would. Shame he can’t use his debating skills trying to persuade the greedy and rapacious Chinese to get out of Tibet.
Leonard D. writes:
A few thoughts I had on reading your exchange with John Liu.
When I hear that kind of rights-talk, applied against states, I have to laugh. That is the sort of jejeune reasoning I expect of a child, or perhaps a very young man. (Which reminds me of Churchill’s alleged quip.) But here’s the old man’s truth: states do not have to recognize any rights, because they are states. You cannot force them to do anything. The USA, Mr. Liu, can do just about whatever it can summon the will to do, and nobody will stop it because nobody can stop it. This certainly includes actions like controlling immigration, which every state in the entire world does hold, and has always held, that it has the right to do. Indeed, the people whom American immigration restrictionists are most concerned about excluding, namely Mexicans, have established very strict immigration laws themselves, for Mexico. Exactly where is the hypocrisy here? For a man named “Liu,” perhaps China would be a better example. China does not even seem to have the concept of naturalization; you can get a green card, and that is all.
The answer to Liu’s analogy is easy enough. If you steal my house, Mr. Liu, and manage to defend your claim against all those who would fight on my behalf to restore the initial property situation, then yes, you own it. You don’t have to fix it up to own it, or do anything else; you do in fact own it, by the fact of your possession of it. (Look up what ownership means.) And you know what? If you did manage to take ownership in this manner, you probably would be well-served not to allow me to “immigrate” freely back into your house. You never know what can happen late at night.
As for what is “right,” meaning what is righteous (which is the religious concept that Mr. Liu is actually talking around), well, everyone is entitled to his religion. However, he ought to examine the wikipedia entry for right of conquest. The reason why the USA does (not should; does) own this chunk of land north of the Rio Grande, is that our ancestors conquered it, while avoiding being conquered in turn. This was perfectly OK by the international law of the time. But why did that law say that? Two reasons. First, there is no way to right earthly wrongs against the dead. Those Indians who the USA lied to and dispossessed and killed and whatnot? Dead, every one of them. Second, righting wrongs that states disagree about means war, and war is a very nasty thing. Minor injustice is better than war, Mr Liu. Our European ancestors learned that at tremendous cost; you would do well to learn from history on this one, rather than experience.
But let us consider Mr Liu’s religion seriously for a minute: perhaps it is the written, in some platonic lawbook in the sky, that “no person is illegal.” If so, then USA is being unrighteous, by failing to throw open the borders to all two billion humans who would like to immigrate here, but are unrighteously being kept out. I am curious what Mr. Liu thinks the penalty for all this flagrant unrighteousness will be. Will a progressive God (or gods, perhaps, or Goddess) send the USA to hell? Perhaps after minorities fully capture the government, whites should be tried for crimes against humanity, if it were proven that they had been, or ever voted for, Republicans?
Mark P. writes:
The only way white Americans should leave the United States is by “leaving” it as we found it.
Everything that can be moved and carried should be moved.
Everything that can’t be moved should be torn down and rendered inoperable.
Salt the earth…destroy the major cities…and then go…
Screw the rest of the world.
Alan Levine writes:
Read the exchange with and about John Liu with some interest. I was mildly surprised that some of the commentators seemed too ready to enter into some of this creep’s fantasizing. Just how does this man think that China became Chinese? The Chinese civilization expanded the same as the Western, from a relatively small nucleus in the Hwang Ho valley, by a process of conquest, assimilation, and colonization, which, in the case of Taiwan, was simultaneous with the white settlement of North America. I was also intrigued by his complaint that whites moved themselves around the world. Does he regret that some Chinese moved to colonial Southeast Asia? Should they be chased from there “back” to China?
June 3
Kilroy M. writes from Australia:
I’m a little dismayed. John Liu writes that “As someone has so rightly noted, the “settled states” of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were originally non-white.” Obviously this is a reference to my prior discussion of “settled states” as compared with “ethno states.” I was not saying that settled states were non-white.
To the contrary, the Old Empire’s settled colonies were of course built by Anglo-Celts. The countries that have evolved from these colonies are therefore a product of white people and their culture. The line Liu draws is arbitrary: the ancestral fathers of the Indo-Europeans originally came from Central Asia. So, does Liu suggest that we all return to Northern India and Tibet and ask the Asians there to move back to Africa, and the blacks there to go where?
The present settled states have no relationship to the indigenous populations they replaced/subsumed in any way other than being geographically located over the same land. For all intents and purposes, whites are indigenous to the states of North America as well as Australia, New Zealand, and even places such as South Africa and Rhodesia (where the black populations were unsettled/nomadic, or in some cases totally absent, being attracted to the region due to the industry created by whites.) Liu is just driven by a hatred that he would probably claim motivates us for merely wanting to preserve our homelands.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 02, 2009 11:59 AM | Send