Andrea Mitchell and white Iowa

Paul Kersey writes:

Happy New Year. At a time when 82 percent Black Detroit shuts down police stations from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m., Andrea Mitchell of NBC asks if Iowa is too white to be the first state to hold a presidential primary.

Only we ask if Detroit is too black for civilization.

LA replies:

Maybe someone should ask if Andrea Mitchell is too Jewish to be giving opinions on national television about the undesirability of a white-majority state.

Mitchell herself is a product of the openness of white Christian America that allowed her non-Christian ancestors to come to this country. And how does she repay the debt? By declaring that white Christian America is illegitimate and insisting that it go out of existence.

I repeat what I’ve said before: if America had known when it began admitting mass Jewish immigration in the 1880s that the children and grandchildren of those immigrants would declare that because America had admitted European Jewish immigrants, it had a moral obligation to admit unlimited, non-European immigration to the end of time, would America have allowed in those Jewish immigrants?

Of course not.

And if America had known that the children and grandchildren of those Jewish immigrants would declare that white majority Christian America is illegitimate and that the only way for America to become morally legitimate would be for it to transform itself into a nonwhite country through mass nonwhite immigration, would America have allowed in those Jewish immigrants?

Of course not.

As I’ve also argued, if mainstream, respected white gentiles began saying things like this, which they’ve never done, because the NEVER stand up for themselves), it would give a healthful shock to the anti-majority Jews and they would realize that they can’t run America according to their anti-majority ethnic agenda. This would not be anti-Semitism. It would be the majority (like a parent who has given up his authority over his children and now realizing what a mistake he has made) asserting once again its authority as the majority and saying to a minority, “You’re out of line. Stop it.”

But it doesn’t remotely occur to any members of the majority to speak this way. Why? Is it because they are whipped by PC and fear of Jewish disapproval? No. It is because, whether they realize it or not, they themselves share the same liberal, anti-white premises as the Jews and everyone else in our society. America subscribes to suicidal liberalism, and that is why it is going down and deserves to go down, unless it radically changes course.

- end of initial entry -

January 4

LA writes:

I see from a blog discussion elsewhere that the point of my above questions has been misunderstood. The point was not to say that Jews should not have been allowed to immigrate into America. The point was, first, that Jews were allowed to immigrate here on the implied understanding that they and their descendants would be reasonably supportive of this country and its majority group and culture and not seek to undermine them; and, second, that many Jews today by violating that understanding are undercutting the very basis on which their ancestors were admitted here. Instead of respecting the majority group and culture, they despise and seek to overturn them. If America had known that the descendants of the Jewish immigrants would change the rules in this manner, they would not have let those Jewish immigrants in. Therefore it is incumbent on Jews to be loyal to the implied understanding on which their ancestors were admitted to this country, and it is incumbent on the majority to enforce that understanding, if Jews violate it, by telling Jews when they are behaving unacceptably and insisting that they stop. I am not advocating some law, but collective self-respect on the part of the white Christian majority, a self-respect that seems to have been almost wholly lacking since the mid-twentieth century.

Mark Jaws writes:

One thing I have learned Don Lorenzo, that if a group does not stand up for its collective rights (think of blacks prior to WW2), it will get Rodney Dangerfield treatment—no respect. Simply put, whites need to go tribal or they will be badly trambled. Not only are liberal media Jews piling on, but as Michelle Malkin pointed out today, Hispanics are as well.

As a semi-Semite with skin in two camps (Zionist and pro-traditional white American culture), I try to get my fellow white Christians to man up, but these goyim are so out of it, they look at me as if I belonged in a zoo. Unfortunately, it will take something big and bad to jolt them out of their Eloi-ish stupor—and what that is, I don’t know yet.

In the meantime, I try coaching them into taking some baby steps by getting them to utter some simple retorts such as, “OK, Andrea (and and any liberal Jewish media person). If Iowa is too white for your tastes, then I guess the American media is too white and too Jewish, and therefore illegitimate.” But I might as well be teaching Australian aborigines to fly airplanes.

The solution will likely come from someone prominent on the Jewish right.

January 5

Ron L. writes:

Do these oikophobic Jews act all that differently from the oikophobic [definition: having fear of the familiar] WASPs and other Christians in our cosmopolitan centers? Do they act differently from the oikophobic elites in other countries with few Jews or from the post-Zionist elites in Tel Aviv? I certainly find this to be the case. This treason of the elites is a transnational Western illness stemming from cultural Marxism, the reticence of the hoi polloi to shut up and accept the governance by their transnational betters, and the unthinking belief that nationalism is what caused the horrors of both World Wars. That minorities would accept this belief system is no surprise and neither is the desire of market-dominant minorities to try to benefit from a transnational order.

Could you imagine any politician, much less an east coast liberal, saying something like the following from Teddy Roosevelt?

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American is to be a traitor to American Institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of foreign votes are engaged with treason to the American Republic.

And it seems that this cosmopolitan illness isn’t new at all. Roosevelt decried it in 1894:

One may fall very far short of treason and yet be an undesirable citizen in the community. The man who becomes Europeanized, who loses his power of doing good work on this side of the water, and who loses his love for his native land, is not a traitor; but he is a silly and undesirable citizen. He is as emphatically a noxious element in our body politic as is the man who comes here from abroad and remains a foreigner. Nothing will more quickly or more surely disqualify a man from doing good work in the world than the acquirement of that flaccid habit of mind which its possessors style cosmopolitanism.

(Forum, April 1894.) Mem. Ed. XV, 20; Nat. Ed. XIII, 17

LA replies:

Oikophobia defined (in an article by, of all people, James Taranto):

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has coined a term to describe this attitude: oikophobia. Xenophobia is fear of the alien; oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’ “

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 03, 2012 07:59 PM | Send