The Vanishing!

When I read this piece that connected with Shri Lawrence Auster’s website I somehow thought of the plight of Shri Mikhail Gorbachev. A man who freed millions upon millions of people and tens of nations..a man whose actions possibly were greater than the greatest of freedom loving heroes the world has ever known; reduced to modelling for Pizza Hut (the irony of this ad!) and other such nothingness.

But then Shri Gorbachev too thought he was doing something good and great when the fact is that he was being unthinkingly reckless and being a true liberal.

One can foresee this fate for Shriman Bill Clinton just as he for-sees the destruction of the US as a White Judeo-Christian Civilization and real historical entity. All-though I am in no manner comparing such a Civilization with an unmitigated evil like the Communist Soviet system was, one has to consider the will to kill it (White Western Civilization) as having the same force. 

There is one sharp difference though. The popular will to see the end of the Soviet Union was shared across its many enslaved nationalities. This is at least true of those nationalities that willed themselves to freedom and potent nationhood. Can the same be said of White Christians of the West? Indeed how can one separate Shri Clinton’s argument ‘for’ the US with that of Europe’s fate? Is there enough will in the White Christians of America and Europe to stop this homegrown aggression on their very soul? If that will be present, then this Hindu will support them all they!

With this I will briefly make some observations on the probable Hindu Nationalist position vis a vis Shri Clinton’s speech.

There is a chance that the Hindu nationalist will applaud such a scheme as the ‘de-fanging’ of Christianity and the West. There are many Hindus in the West and so there is also a possibility that this is taken to mean greater opportunity for such Hindus to come into their own. After all, Hindus were mentioned in Shri Clinton’s speech.

One cannot complain about maggots feasting on the dead or dying. But if such maggots are crushed by a struggling living fighting organism, this Hindu will applaud!

There is no need to feel distracted by the apparent violence in my language. What I would like readers to think about though is the intended destruction of Civilization and Nation. Destruction we Hindus are struggling against in India. Such fighters for survival can only applaud and encourage other fighters for survival. Hence the stirrings of White Judeo-Christian nationalism (not internationalism mind you) must inspire Hindu nationalist respect.

It is true that there is still too much confusion in the Western nationalist discourse on whether they must abandon the much planned and executed worldwide Christianising and Democratizing internationalist startegy for a protective and ‘within defined borders’ nationalism. There seems to be a sense of realization in some circles that such Church internationalism is proving terribly counter-productive and is in turn shaking the very nationalist foundations they want to preserve in their homelands. This is what is bound to happen if anything is stretched too far. Nationalism cannot support internationalism unless one is sufficiently self-deluded and does not realize the meaning of either. Christian and Islamic evangelism is borderless and does not respect specific Civilizational entities other than their own. 

So dear readers, I present to you Shri Mikhail Clinton (with due apologies to the tragic Russian hero) and some very interesting observations by a man I have learnt to respect, Shri Lawrence Auster.

– Namaste


WASHINGTON (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that Americans should be mindful of the nation’s changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world “this is a very positive thing.”

Speaking in a hotel ballroom to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee during its annual convention, Clinton also praised Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was focused on the Arab world.

Clinton told the audience that it’s important that they push government leaders for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He cited an experience in 1993 when he failed to persuade many Jewish-American and Arab-American business people to invest in the Palestinian areas because violence and bombings had deterred them.

“It just took one more bus bomb or one more rocket or one more incident and then people got scared of losing their money,” he said.

As the U.S. continues to push for peace in the area, “I think it’s really important to give the Palestinian people something to look forward to,” Clinton said to loud applause.

Clinton, who wasn’t paid for his speech, spoke in a wide-ranging 35-minute address that focused on people’s identity in an interdependent world. He said the U.S. can’t rely on its military might in global relations. “It has to begin by people accepting the fact that they can be proud of who they are without despising who someone else is,” he said.

–Varta on Shri Auster’s website–

Tim W. brings to Shri Auster’s attention:

In a speech a couple of days ago to a Muslim activist group, Bill Clinton said that the impending loss of America’s white majority is a positive development. He also spoke approvingly of the rise of Islam, Hinduism, and other religions which are reducing the Christian majority and weakening the powerful Jews in our nation. He drew large applause when he praised Obama’s Cairo speech.

This speech didn’t get much publicity, but it’s a pretty brazen slap to the face of historic America. With Obama in the White House they don’t even bother to hide their hostility all that much. The Republicans should be all over this speech, but they’re stupid and for the most part in full agreement with Clinton & Obama on these issues. We need an ANP (American National Party).

LA replies:

I haven’t yet read the speech, but at first glance this doesn’t seem particularly objectionable. After all, the fact is that, due to our non-discriminatory immigration policies, we ARE becoming a nonwhite country. Yet this fact, the single most consequential fact of our times and perhaps of all American history since it means the end of everything America has been, is virtually never mentioned. So it’s a good thing that a prominent figure like Clinton brings this out, as he also did once when he was president. That makes it a topic and opens the possibility of debating it. If Clinton can support the prospect of America turning into a nonwhite country, then others can oppose it.

Further, why should we blame him for supporting it? What else is he supposed to do? The whole Western world today believes in race-blindness and non-discrimination and diversity, and as a result we are becoming more diverse. How else should a good liberal–or, for that matter, a good “conservative”–feel about it, other than to say that this is a wonderful thing? Should he say it’s a bad thing? That would automatically put him with the “extreme right” of race-conscious immigration restrictionists. Obviously, for anyone in the liberal mainstream, the only option–other than the usual cowardly and evasive stance of welcoming “diversity” while never stating what this diversity actually means in concrete terms–is to welcome and approve the transformation of America into a nonwhite country. Given our established beliefs, there simply is no other way for a respectable person to talk about it. If we want that to change, we have to provide people with a point of view that is fundamentally different from the prevailing liberalism. And that is something that today’s “conservatives” will never do. (Pala S – See how this resonates with what the “BJP will never do”)

We could see the speech as positive, as an opening to a real debate on immigration. Or we could see it as the liberal establishment coming out and saying,

“Up to this point, we remained silent about where non-discrimination and open borders were really heading. We only discussed these policies in terms of abstract rights and humane feelings. We didn’t say what they really meant for white America. But now the process has gone so far, and our own power is so great, that we can come out and tell you: our policy is to eliminate white America and the white West, and reduce the white race to what white South Africans are now.”

Well, if that’s the message, I say that that also is welcome. Far better to have this stated openly so that it can be discussed and opposed.

However, there is one more angle here. When he made similar remarks as president welcoming America’s demographic transformation, it was to a group of reporters at the White House. Here he has said it to a Muslim audience. Making such a statement to Muslims conveys the same sinister implications as Obama’s Cairo speech: “We are, or we are becoming, your dhimmis.”

But if that’s what he meant, then again I say: Fine, let’s have this out in the open.


%d bloggers like this: