Friday, October 5, 2007

Two Interesting Posts From Steve Sailer Point Out Why The West Won't Surive.

Unless we change, radically.
Item one is a New York Times Article about Indian-Americans (as in Namaste, not whoop-whooop, how) wanting to emulate the Jewish model for activism and influence on government:

One of the funnier aspect of the furious denunciations of Mearsheimer and Walt's article and book on the power of The Israel Lobby is that professional ethnic activists all admire the consummate skill with which Jewish organizations wield their vast -- yet unmentionable -- power. (Well, to be precise, the lobbies mention how powerful they are all the time. But nobody else is supposed to mention it.)

There have been a slew of "the Lobby doesn't exist" articles, articles that fly in the face of a reality that everyone knows, most of all immigrant activists, who don't have the same hang ups as Americans and Europeans about pointing out the obvious. (I heard it put more bluntly once on a train to Jaipur, when a Sikh man matter of factly said 'The Jews, they control your country" - even if that's an obvious exaggeration, it reflects a world perception, which is discussed quite bluntly in Israeli dailies like Haaretz, the only place it isn't is America).

The article goes on:
In Jews, Indian-Americans See a Role Model in Activism
By Neela Banerjee
When Anil Godhwani and his brother, Gautam, looked into creating a community center for Indian-Americans in Silicon Valley, they turned to the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco as a model.

When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.

Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.

Wow, just what we need eh? Another ADL like group or the ADL getting more power? It might be a good fit: Hindu Nationalists and many Indians are vehemently anti-Christian (owing to their hostility to peaceful evangelical efforts going back to the Raj, which were often embraced by the lower castes), as are many east european jews as evidenced by the ADL, ACLU, SPLC, (German-American Jews tended and tend to not be so hostile, and EE Jews often derided them for this) So I do see a natural alliance here. Jewish groups like the ADL have always tried to create the illusion that opposition to Christmas carols, trees, saying "merry christmas" (who could find this offensive!) came from a broad coalition when, if fact it was almost always just Jewish groups.

If they want to form an ethnic block and lobby in their interests, it would be an alarm bell to many whites. Indians have never suffered any serious discrimination here, in fact, Indians proudly say they have one of the highest per capita incomes in the US...yet they still complain and want to practice identity politics. Even though they have equal access and are prospering here, they want to form a power block (maybe we can end up having 20+ different separatist movements here as India has!)....seems whites are the only ones stupid enough to still be 'color blind' or willingly cede power - or, more accurately our leaders have. I for one, am tired of this crap, and since the article points out that they are blatantly lobbying for the Indian government and the interests of India, it is paramount treason. At least it would have been considered so a generation ago. Thanks to AIPAC it's standard operating procedure in Washington now. I think anyone who does it, AIPAC and the ADL included, should be stripped of their citizenship..but that's just republic-not-empire me.

I have noticed that more recent generations are adapting the identity politics model, perhaps because its a way to shrewdly navigate through our increasing byzantine , touchy feely system - being a hurt victim is easiest way to shield yourself from criticism and move to the front of the queue for handouts and quotas. Older (like above say 35) Indians usually were open minded, willing to engage in discussion, often un-PC, while the younger seem more indoctrinated (as are younger whites, but paradoxically, younger Jews - at least some - seem to not be) and more quick to shut down arguments or scream racism. Perhaps, like shopping malls, industrial farming ect, its a more efficient route to getting what you want. It may not be as good for you, but it's cheap and quick.

A comment from Steve's blog:

Ron Guhname said...

For a conservative, this is an argument against all types of immigrants: high IQ, European, and legal, as well as low IQ, non-white, and illegal.

I don't know if the Jewish model would be one I would want to follow, the ADL et al have pissed off a LOT of people and the animosity is growing, as is increasing awareness of Jewish American influence on foreign policy which often runs counter to American interests. If all those families across the US who are receiving their sons in body bags knew the Iraq war was pushed by AIPAC.....I wouldn't want to be associated with anything remotely Israeli. Really Jewish America's relationship with America is the New World version of a sad story repeated in country after country - undue influence, awareness of that influence, conflict of interest, and conflict.

Secondly, Indians will not have the power of the Holocaust to shield them nor dominance (thus far) in the media - plenty of Indians work in journalism, but not nearly with the cohesiveness and frequency of Jews.

Third, if another group with 'positive' demographics starts lobbying not as Americans, but as their ethnic group, how long until whites finally get fed up? I know I am getting there.

Overall, it would be a bad move for Indians in America for several reasons :a. They have a 'positive stereotype' now - educated, articulate, cultured, far more interesting than East Asians because they tend to be literate, more culturally in tune with us (probably because of the British legacy, their culture vs. Orientals, and probably a bit genetic too) , lateral thinkers evidenced by a fairly open discussion here. They also really have no need to 'lobby' to get their culture or history imposed via forced curriculum ect - there is enough positive active interest even without many Indians here, the same way there is in , say ancient Egypt. Yoga, ashrams, vedic medicine, Bollywood, and a slew of Indian American writers attest to that. California used to look positively at Old Spanish culture - Santa Barbara is a classic example - that all faded away with mass Mexican immigration (which had nothing to do with old California in the first place ) .

b. If they pushed for more HB1s and more Indians over here, that 'positive stereotype ' would diminish, because less educated and poorer Indians would emigrate- look for example of the negative stereotype of Pakistanis in the UK, vs the positive of Indians. Also its plain old common sense - who in their right mind, especially after all the effort it took to come here, would want to import the chronic overpopulation and poverty problems of India?!

c. Social: They are, on average, a fairly 'handsome' people here- well groomed, good looking - far, far above the average in India. Importing mass numbers here would create a negative or neutral image. For example, many Americans are now shocked to see mexican soap opera stars that look Caucasian, when in fact it is quite common for the uppper classes of Mexico.

But non the less it is happening which means the group most like Anglo-Americans will not/do not want to assimulate, and multiculturalism is on its way to cracking up this country, because if Indians start doing things for Indians, who long is it going to take whites to say ENOUGH! Considering the stupidity of white liberals, actually, it might be awhile.

article 2:

Please allow me to harp on this again

[I am Steve!]
Looking at my UPI article of October 23, 2000, "Arab and Armenian Immigrants Gain Clout," I noticed something that you might think would have been considered relevant after 9/11, less than a year later, but simply never ever has entered the public conversation:

To gratify Arab-American voters in the swing state of Michigan, in the October 11th Presidential debate Republican nominee George W. Bush called for weakening two counter-terrorism policies. "Arab-Americans are [racially] profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got to do something about that," Governor Bush said. "My friend, Sen. Spence Abraham [the Arab-American Republic Senator from Michigan], is pushing a law to make sure that . . . Arab-Americans are treated with real respect."


We now know that the airport ticket agent who checked in Mohammed Atta on the morning of 9/11/2001 said to himself, as he told Oprah in 2005:

"I got an instant chill when I looked at [Atta]. I got this grip in my stomach and then, of course, I gave myself a political correct slap."

Michael Touhey told a reporter:

Then Tuohey went through an internal debate that still haunts him.

"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," he said. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."

It wasn't just Atta's demeanor that caught Tuohey's attention.

"When I looked at their tickets, they had first-class, one-way tickets - $2,500 tickets. Very unusual," he said. "I guess they're not coming back. Maybe this is the end of their trip."
Indeed, it was.

Obviously in both cases, politically correct sensibilities have Anglo-Saxon peoples frozen like deer in the headlights...i know that's a tired analogy but its absolutely fitting. How much longer can a Republic last with such internal pressures and self-censure? Not very...and that is the goal of groups like the ADL, Council of Foriegn Relations, Republican and Democratic elite, as Sam Huntington pointed out.

It boils down to this: are we a proposition nation, like so many neoconservatives claim (and if they really thought this was true and the best model of government, why do they support Israel, which is ethno based?) or are we nation with an Anglo-Protestant core and if you remove or replace that core you'll alter the nature of our government. I think its self evident - the actions of ethnic blocks pursuing their own interest, which run counter to the interest of America.

""In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.""

This would be considered racism or more likely, anti-semitism today. 'nough said.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's also density. I think once ethnic groups meet a critical mass, they assimilation becomes optional. Also depends how they are distributed.