I’ve learned that Lawrence Auster is a Jew who converted to the Episcopal Church. Is one religion really more believable than the others? Practically all of them require us to believe absurdities – and so the concept of “faith” was invented. So, for a Jew to go out of his way to convert to another religion is rather disturbing – unless he did so for some practical end.
But he did write a very good essay about immigration, which my friend Gaurav Ahuja sent me and I just finished reading. It is called “Huddled Cliche’s” and it contains good rebuttals of every argument made in favor of mass immigration. I like his style; he does away with niceties and goes for the jugular each time, demolishing each pro-immigration claim, generally by reductio ad absurdum.
Unfortunately, though logic and reason are on our side, I fear that things will become a lot worse before they become better. If Auster’s essay on immigration were required reading in every school (as long as we have public schools) then we might be able to thwart disaster. As it stands, we suffer from a dearth of readers, not a dearth of good reading material.
Bookmarks
- 4racism.org
- Alternative Hypothesis
- American Renaissance
- Amerika.org
- Black Pigeon Speaks
- CanSpeccy
- Countenance
- Counter Currents
- Dan from Squirrel Hill
- Diversity Chronicle
- Europa Unitas
- fleuchtling (refugees)
- Government and Corporate Anti-White Discrimination
- Hail to You
- HBD Chick
- Human stupidity
- It's Okay to be White
- John Derbyshire
- La Griffe du Lion
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Luke Ford
- Madspace
- Muunyayo
- Nimshal
- Nodhimmitude
- Occidental Dissent
- Reluctant Apostate
- Sincerity
- Soviet Men
- Steve Sailer's blog
- Taki's Magazine
- The Atheist Jew
- The Last Ditch
- The Mad Jewess
- The National Conservative
- The Politically Incorrect Australian
- The slitty eye
- The Unz Review (Steve Sailer)
- Those who can see
- Thuletide
- Utter Contempt
- VDare
Buy Your Coffee From These Patriots
Once an argument is understood in that it possesses explanatory power, is non-contradictory, and solves a pertinent practical political problem, one can seek consensus. And as long as that consensus appeals to a majority, then a democratic polity can adopt the policies that support the argument.
However, the classical liberal ideal cannot be supported within a democracy, and no such rational arguments can prevail, for the sole reason that freedom is the desire of the minority – the creative class. And instead, safety is the objective of the majority. And the majority will always pursue safety rather than liberty.
If the freedom-desiring minority loses it’s willingness to use violence to preserve it’s freedom, it will possess neither freedom, nor prosperity. And the rest of the civilization will calcify upon being deprived of the mental fertility of its creative, and therefore, most productive classes.
This is the history of civilization. Fertility followed by calcification, followed by conquest and poverty.
The answer is not violence, nor is the answer argument. The answer is sufficient argument so that the creative classes will apply violence, for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining the political power needed to secure the minority liberty against the predatory majority’s exploitation of the creative class in order to obtain security.
We can be free, or we can be exploited, or we can be oppressed or we can be enslaved, or we can be murdered.
Choose your position on that spectrum. Because your actions in the use of violence will determine it.
Talk is cheap, and demonstrably ineffective.
Excellent article, JAY. Thanks for sharing this!
This, along with Kurtagic’s article, should be required reading for every white advocate.
In fact, I think you should have a separate category at the top of your blog which lists required reading.
By the way, do you have more excellent articles like this?
What good stuff have you been hiding from us all this time, JAY? 🙂
No point in hiding them. I post them as I find them or as they are sent to me – and then after I read them. Glad you liked them.
Well, thanks to that article (in spite of a few flaws), I now know how to defend an anti-immigration position in an everyday argument with a leftist.
Auster is great and quite fun to read.
By the way, you know that some religions, like, you know, the Abrahamic ones, actually make truth claims. They even have arguments. Please do not take the pietist Protestant view of faith and make that your definition of religion.
What reasonable person is moved by unverifiable claims? Even though some muddleheaded pietists state this sometimes, they really cannot mean it, can they?
It’s fashionable to reduce religion to the flying spaghettic monster, but it’s not accurate or fair. It’s reductionist in the extreme.
Back when I was more serious about observing Judaism, I would follow the teachings of Maimonedes (the Rambam). He was a rationalist and approached religion as if it were a science. I always admired him for that. Still, his reconciliation, while possible with the science of his day, would be a stretch with the science of our day. While some articles of faith can be explained rationally, I don’t believe that all of them can.