Correcting a false impression at Jihad Watch; and the meaning of racialism

On February 11 a commenter named “Courage” wrote at Jihad Watch:

By the way, racialist Lawrence Auster is also a big fan of JW’s Roland Shirk. You know the same Roland Shirk who wrote on January 28 here calling for shooting Egyptian protesters, seeking a Tienanmen Square type massacre, and calling for Suharto style genocide.

That’s a bit slick. The commenter makes it sound as though I endorsed Shirk’s purported call for a “Tienanmen Square type massacre” and a “Suharto style genocide” of the Egyptian protesters. In fact, I find a total of two VFR entries (here and here) that quote and praise Shirk’s writings at JW, and they both have to do, not with Egypt, but with Shirk’s support for stopping Muslim immigration into the West. Also, as far as I can remember, I have never positively advocated the use of force against the Egyptian protesters. What I have said, echoing Israeli author Barry Rubin, who I don’t think is known as a racialist, is that Obama, by telling the Egyptians that they must yield to the protesters and must not use force against them, demoralized the Egyptian regime just as Carter demoralized the Shah’s regime in 1978-79.

As for the commenter’s description of me as a racialist, it is of course correct. I am a racialist, a position I have consistently defined over the years as follows:

1. I believe that race and racial differences matter in specific ways that are socially important. For example, the racial composition of a society fundamentally affects the character, culture, and destiny of that society. A country consisting of, say, Mestizos will be fundamentally different culturally, politically, and economically from a country consisting of white Europeans.

2. I care about the white race and its survival. Which means that I oppose current immigration policies and anti-white ideologies that are steadily turning the white peoples into powerless and despised minorities in their historic nations. I’ve been trying to get Richard Gere, who believes that the Tibetan people should preserve their control of their historic nation and culture, to sign on a similar defense of the white Western peoples, so far without success.

If you are inclined to agree with the preceding paragraph, but are afraid to say so because you fear being condemned and rejected for it, here is a simple truth that might help free you from that fear. The people who would condemn the preceding paragraph believe that it is morally good to support our current immigration policies which are steadily turning whites into minorities in their historic countries, but they believe that it is racist, i.e., morally wicked, to oppose such policies. Such people should asked: “On what basis is it moral for you to support the transformation of America into a nonwhite country, while it is immoral for me to want America to remain a white majority country? Why is it that pro-nonwhiteness is good, but pro-whiteness is bad?”

- end of initial entry -

February 17

Laura Wood writes:

You suggest asking, “Why is it that pro-nonwhiteness is good, but pro-whiteness is bad?”

Many liberals would respond, if they ventured to discuss their views frankly, that it is precisely because of the distinctive characteristics of whites that pro-whiteness is bad. They would say they are the race realists and you are a racial egalitarian who denies important aspects of race because you believe all races should have the equal right to assert racial identity.

Tibetans and Africans do not control vast communications, financial and scientific networks, at least not to the degree whites do. They have no real potential for world power. Whites do and because of their innate potential, they must never be permitted confidently to assert themselves lest they impose a debilitating inferiority complex on other races and render it impossible for them to function at their full potential.

It is wrong to think of liberals as not believing that race matters. They do. They believe fanatically that race matters. If anything, they believe race matters too much, determining the whole of individual and social destiny. But they draw entirely different conclusions from inherent racial differences.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 16, 2011 02:17 PM | Send