UCLA student expresses mild, humorous exasperation about certain behaviors of Asians, and gets death threats
I just had to laugh when I saw this story in the Daily Mail. Some dingy blond UCLA student with exploding cleavage made a harmless video and put it up on YouTube in which she talks about certain Asian traits she observes on campus. Observational humor is something comedians do all the time. Mainly she complains about Asians’ use of cell phones in the library to stay in constant touch with their extended families. Well, all hell has broken loose and she is getting death threats and even the university is calling her to the carpet. The overreaction to this video is amazing. If you were to go on YouTube right now you would find thousands of videos of whites being made fun of by blacks, Asians, Hispanics, you name it.
And to add insult to injury this blond is a third year political science major. I suppose we will see her on Fox news in a few years as a “consultant.” Lord knows she fits the mold of the jiggly Fox news babe.
She was very foolish to have put such a monologue online. But that she has received numerous death threats over her mild criticisms of Asians, presumably from Asians, is not funny at all and gives an idea of the hell whites have created and are creating for themselves in this country. As of 1965 America was an 89 percent white European country, completely controlled politically and culturally by whites. The Congress then opened America’s borders to the entire nonwhite world, and now America is about 65 percent white, and white people have been transformed from a free and sovereign people who could express their opinion about anything they wanted, including the foibles of other nations and peoples, into a besieged and suspect group who cannot utter even mild criticisms or jokes about nonwhites without having their lives put in danger and their careers ruined.
- end of initial entry -
Racial diversity—worshiped by every liberal and every mainstream conservative—has turned whites from a free and confident people ruling their own country into an unfree and frightened people in a country that is no longer theirs.
Every time you see a mainstream conservative praise our diversity, remind him of what the real costs of diversity are.
Robert C. writes:
I found the video to be in poor taste. It’s a free country with free speech and nothing should happen to the girl. However, it does seem that some White nationalists seem to be directing their ire at Asians for not being criminal and actually doing well for themselves. These are the same people who go after Blacks and Hispanics for being criminal and dysfunctional. That does not seem fair as they just want to feel animosity toward non-whites no matter if they are functional and assimilate or not. I would like to point out that not only Whites are allowed to be Americans. If a White girl who is a Meghan McCain look alike can make fun of Asians, then the targets of her ire can call her out on it. It’s a free country and people have the right to have their say.
Agreed that it’s in poor taste and that it’s a free country and that nothing should happen to her. But then you say, “If a White girl who is a Meghan McCain look alike can make fun of Asians, then the targets of her ire can call her out on it. It’s a free country and people have the right to have their say.” The issue here is not people “having their say,” i.e., criticizing her. The issue here is people making death threats against her. And even apart from the death threats, there is the making of this into such a huge sin that it could destroy her career at UCLA. So the real issue here is not whether we are a free country or not; the issue is that once America has turned itself into a conspicuously diverse, increasingly nonwhite country, whites lose their freedom. They cannot, for example, speak about race. It’s not just that they can’t make somewhat insulting comments about people of another race, as this girl did. It’s that they can’t say anything about the pro-nonwhite and anti-white regime that is now in place in our country. Even criticism of minority racial preferences, which used to a centerpiece of mainstream conservatism, is now attacked as racist and is effectively banned.
As for your observation that “White nationalists seem to be directing their ire at Asians for not being criminal and actually doing well for themselves,” I haven’t seen that, and this is not a white nationalist site in any case. White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.
[In an e-mail to Robert C. (which I revised when I posted my reply online), I said he had reversed himself in his first e-mail to me. Here is his reply, followed by my further reply.]
Robert C. writes:
I do not reverse myself. Harsh language putting a person on the spot does not equal death threats. Free speech does not excuse criminal behavior such as making death threats. I would never make death threats or condone anyone else doing so. As I said, it is still a free country. She can make fun of Asians all she wants and in return people can also make fun of her as well. Is that clear enough? I have noticed on sites like Mangan’s and Whiskey’s that the white nationalists are taking the stance of disliking non-whites in general; not just disliking their behavior but disliking their existence. I can understand disliking the behavior of certain non-whites and certain group behavior. However, I don’t take the stance of disliking the existence of other people or groups. For example, do I dislike Muslims for being Muslim or simply because they want to do bad things like jihad or terrorism toward me and mine? The latter because I would not care about Muslims if they weren’t a bunch of jihadis, terrorists, etc. toward me and mine. If they were nice people, who would care?
It’s not a free country, Robert, if her comments lead to death threats against her.
It’s not a free country, where that cartoonist Molly Norris who published an inoffensive cartoon and called for “Draw Muhammad Day” had to go into permanent hiding and change her identity to save her life from Muslim death threats.
It’s not a free country, because Muslims are here. Once Muslims are here, and some of them will try to kill anyone who “insults” Islam, it’s not a free country. Do you understand that?
In the same way, if merely making some annoyed but not hateful comments about the foibles of Asians results in death threats from Asians, it’s not a free country. The very presence of Asians here in large numbers has rendered us no longer a free country.
This is not about disliking people because of their race or background. I have never expressed dislike of people simply because of their race and background (and if you have a problem with white nationalist sites for doing that, then complain to them, not to me). I do however say that when people of different race and background become a numerical power in a formerly white society, the whites lose their freedom and their power over their own country, and therefore for a white country to institute immigration policies which turn it into an increasingly nonwhite country is an act of national suicide.
SL Toddard writes:
With regards to your presumption that the death threats toward the UCLA student were from Asians, I must say I’m not in agreement. In my opinion these death threats are such a disproportionate and unhinged reaction to the girl’s statements that I would wager they are (at least mainly) from white “antiracist” types, which is to say spoiled, affluent whites from upper middle class suburbs with nary a dark face to be found. At the very least, such a reaction is far more typical of that sort than Asians, who (even the Americanized ones) tend to have better manners and behavior than those threats would indicate. And Asian-Americans do not hate whites even a fraction of how much such whites hate themselves.
Such types, and liberals in general, look at the world from the vantage point of European Civilization, standing on the shoulders of the giants of the West, as we all do. But unlike normal (i.e. conservative) men, liberals, in their extreme and infantile narcissism, believe they’ve attained that height themselves. They see the giants beneath their feet, but instead of an uplifting colossus it appears to them in their delusions as a vanquished foe. Instead of realizing they have been lifted to such dizzying heights by those who came before, they believe they have the ability to fly to such heights themselves. So, believing such, and reviling the foundation on which they stand, they leap off, flapping their useless arms—and demand the rest of us leap with them.
For all we know, you could be right. Let’s say, just for the sake of discussion,that all the death threats came from liberal whites, not from Asians. It would not change the nature of the problem as discussed in this entry and the following entry. Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That’s one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself .
This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal “script” I’ve often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either “included” by the good, liberal white or “excluded” by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it’s between the “good,” non-discriminatory white and the “evil,” discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.
Now this is not reality; it is the script within which white liberals operate; it is the way the construct the world. In the real world, nonwhites, especially as they become numerous and powerful in the host society, are moral actors too. They have their own view of things, their own agenda which is not necessarily the agenda of white liberals. But the white liberals (which includes mainstream conservatives) can never admit this fact, because nonwhites are simply supposed to fit into the liberal program.
Robert C. replies:
Freedom and liberty were lost not because of nonwhite immigrants. That is a symptom, not the cause.
Freedom and liberty were lost because certain elite whites used immigration, propaganda, etc. to take it away or trick people into giving it away.
The whole edifice of multiculturalism, political correctness, diversity, etc. were used as methods of power, control, and agitprop to take away freedom and liberty from ordinary people for the benefit of the certain elites comprised of certain whites and certain non-whites (mostly hanger-ons).
A self confident people with an elite who loved the old USA and the old West would not have allowed the above to happen.
Even today, with the presence of non-whites, Muslims, etc., if you call people on their bad behavior, non-white or not, and make sure that they feel the consequences, order can be maintained. Thereby, liberty and freedom can be maintained. I believe that if you call people on their bad behavior, either they back down or you make them back down.
“A self confident people with an elite who loved the old USA and the old West would not have allowed the above to happen.”
In reality, a self-confident people who loved the old USA and the West would not have allowed the mass immigration to take place in the first place.
You are an assimilationist. You believe that a country can maintain its identity, culture, and moral ethos no matter how many immigrants it admits and no matter how different racially and culturally they are from the country’s historic population. This is an ideological fantasy.
Vivek G. writes:
Don’t miss two other important points here:
1. The way the Mail has composed the headlines: “UCLA student who posted racist rant on YouTube says sorry—as video prompts death threats”
How does it qualify as racist rants? I am sure that such hostile reactions from non-whites (in general non-majority) will finally lead to civilizational divorces, that is civilizations will become even more resistant to admitting foreigners.
2. No one is discussing the nature of the contents. For example:
In the three-minute clip Miss Wallace complains about Asian students using their cellphones in the library—and speculates they’re “going through their whole families, just checking on everybody from the tsunami thing.”
Beside the reference to the tsunami thing there is nothing that is even within miles of being objectionable. From what we hear about the Japanese, it is unlikely the Japanese would behave this way, but lots and lots of Asians do behave the way they have been described.
She mocks the way Asian students speak, condemns them for not having “American manners” and attacks them for disturbing her when she is “deep in study.”
Further, being unconcerned about the possible disturbance to others is a common trait in modern Asia. Forget about whites, a very large numbers of Asians, like me (I am Indian), resent it ourselves and find it disgusting. I often surmise that an increase in noise-friendliness is a sign of degenerating society.
So, in this case, someone is being made to apologize, not for racial rants as is portrayed by the headline, but for making factual statements. Miss Wallace may have crossed a line by referring to the tsunami, but that too is not racial, it is merely an inappropriate reference to a delicate matter, and for which just a mild parental reprimand would do. Don’t elders tell the children and the youth, there there, not like that my child, that would do!
Robert C. replies:
I never said this country could assimilate an unlimited number of immigrants. It depends on the number of immigrants a country puts in and more importantly, how compatible they are with the country’s norms and way of life. Assimilation is certainly much easier when immigration is low and the immigrants are high quality as in high IQ, good behavior, not a threat to the natives and loyal to the native population. That being said, the elites thought it was a great idea to have open borders. Despite what Emmanuel Celler and Edward Kennedy advocated, Lyndon Johnson was dumb enough and crazy enough to sign it into law in 1965. At the time, very few except Sam Ervin and the Daughters of the American Revolution objected and the objections were not that vociferous.
That being said, we can still salvage something and preserve our country and civilization. That is what I meant.
Yes, and the only way that there is any chance of saving it is if the white majority and those who identify with it stand up for themselves and identify the anti-white, anti-American nature of the forces that have been unleashed by demographic transformation and that will become more and more powerful in the future unless that transformation is stopped.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 15, 2011 05:23 PM | Send