Posted May 24, 2002

Tesla

In response to Nebojsa Malic's May 9th column, "Images Worth a Thousand Lies":

Perhaps what is missing is no one is mentioning the good sides of Serbians to balance the bad publicity. For instance, Nikola Tesla was a Serb. In America there is a cult like hero worship of Tesla. After all, his inventions brought us AC electricity, radio transmissions, radio (remote) control, logic circuits (computers), florescent lighting. In other words Tesla helped, in a very big way, to make possible what we now consider the modern world.

While I must admit my ignorance of other such Serbs, I think if Americans and Europeans were made aware of the contributions that Serbs and those of Serbian decent have made, it would go a long way towards lifting the attitudes towards Serbs and Serbia. Currently much of the ill will towards Serbia extends from the fact that many knew nothing more about Serbia than that a Serbian was blamed for starting World War I. A single assassin should not forever condemn a people and a nation. But unfortunately that is all that many know. My wife is partially of Serbian descent and thus so are my children. So, I am quite aware that Serbs are not inherently the cold blooded killers that they are so readily depicted as.

As Tesla once remarked, "There are many of us Serbs who sing, but there is nobody to listen to us."

~ Edward H.

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Erasing the Serbs from civilization extends to much more than popular culture, of course. Tesla is nowadays presented to the American public as a Croatian -- since his hometown is in present-day Croatia. Much the same way, the number of Serbs murdered in a WW2 genocidal campaign by Croatian nazis (800,000+) is routinely reduced to 80,000. Add to it the propaganda in the news and popular culture, and it becomes clear that this much screaming will drown out any song.

Immigration

Christopher Montgomery's recent article on immigration ("Let Them In") is so riddled with innuendo that I hardly know where to begin. Rather than argue each of his many flawed assertions, let me rather make two points about his underlying philosophical threads.

First, every sentence of his article assumes the acceptance of one moral point: that it is evil for a particular ethnic/cultural group to wish to live in its own ancestral lands, unmolested by outsiders. I reject this outright. I happen to admire the traditional culture of the British Isles. That culture will not survive mass immigration of non-Western peoples.

Also, it is peculiar that this moral principle is only ever applied to Western peoples. Pakistan, for instance, would never allow mass immigration from different ethnic/cultural groups. Nor would Mexico, nor China, nor Japan, nor Jamaica -- nor any other nonwestern nation. And never have I heard the familiar chorus of denunciation from the likes of Mr. Montgomery about this.

Second, Mr. Montgomery's argumentative style is borrowed from the PC left. He seeks to defame his opponents rather than convince them via logic. Basically, he thinks that immigration is correct and that anyone who disagrees is not incorrect, but evil. This type of dehumanization is responsible for the recent tragedy in the Netherlands, and his use of this style so soon after that event is disgraceful.

~ Steve LaTulippe, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Christopher Montgomery replies:

I am not convinced by criticism of things I, pace, 'it is evil for a particular ethnic/cultural group to wish to live in its own ancestral lands, unmolested by outsiders', haven't written. Though I think as claims for what 'groups' want, this strikes me as being pretty dubious. Britain and America, like it or not, are credible enough democracies, and since plenty of vocal people put the case against mass immigration, we can vote for them if we want. As yet, we don't show much sign of it. However, Mr LaTulippe's argument apropos China and Pakistan not being inclined to admit 'different' cultural groups is absurd. China and Pakistan are amongst the most culturally mixed/messed up/diverse (whatever word you want) countries on the planet. They couldn't preserve some monoculture as they've never had one.

I'm accused of selectively applying a standard I've never suggested, and, er, arguing like a leftie (and maybe murdering poor old Prof. Pim). Just to try and put Mr LaTulippe's mind at ease: I don't think that opponents of immigration are automatically racists. In fact, given the demonisation they do receive, and the pious lies they're confronted with, I think many sincere folk who argue against it are notably brave. My unremarkable point is that I disagree with their contention, and -- and I'm sorry this throws your correspondent -- oddly enough, I'm inclined to think that my point of view is 'correct'. Would he have me argue a case I didn't believe? One of the signal virtues of antiwar.com is that every shade of opinion takes a bow here, united only by our opposition to lunatic, dangerous and frankly silly foreign policy.

Whites/Non-Whites

I disagree with Christopher Montgomery's essay about immigration to Britain. Based on crime statistics alone non-White immigration has been a disaster for Britain. Strong-arm cell phone thefts, large scale Muslim riots last summer, Yardie and Asian drug gangs, anti-White attacks and racially motivated murders. Non-Whites are the criminal class of Britain. Letting more in could only please those who favor more crime.

It is safe to say Mr. Montgomery does not live in an area with many non-Whites, if any. He has never received a call informing him his mother has been attacked by Blacks and is now in hospital. He has never been threatened by an Asian gang telling him he had just entered a no-go area for Whites.

If Mr. Montgomery wishes to be of better use he could begin to direct his attention and talents toward the concerns of working and middle class Whites. Will he please do so?

Saying Straw and Blair are opposed to immigration is not true. How does Mr. Montgomery explain the proposed building of 15 refugee centers, each housing 750 'refugees'?

~ Charles W.

Christopher Montgomery replies:

Crime in Britain is habitually carried out by our black fellow countrymen on our black fellow countrymen. I don't think that this statistical 'truth' proves anything much; and it especially doesn't prove some inherent criminality amongst black people. They're arrested, charged, and jailed in numbers greater that their percentage of the overall population would 'suggest' too. What does that tell us? To a radical, institutional racism, to most people, large scale criminality by people who happen to be black. The fact is, the statistic tells us nothing -- a Serbian would tell you that 'white, English speaking' types are statistically more inclined to drop high-ex ordinance on his head than Nigerians are.

The core silliness here is to believe that everything in society should occur, when extrapolated to the national tier, in some exact ratio according to any and every indice you happen to devise. It's the same sort of left wing nonsense that holds, 'X% of the population is female/gay/black/lower middle class, thus X% of the membership of the House of Commons should be female/gay/etc'. In every society there has ever been, crime has as a core determinant, social class and income distribution, i.e. unemployed white folk commit more crime than middle class softies. Should the latter try and get rid of the former? should Mars be settled as a new Australia? I hope not, I'd miss them.

More Accessories

This is no slight against Antiwar.com but every day we read the information you provide and every day we bust a stitch laughing. Has this world gone mad or what? Isn't all of this war nonsense the makings of a B-rated movie? You know what we have here? A bunch of grown up children on steroids and Viagra playing with GI Joe dolls and the game Monopoly. Is it possible to elect big people to run our government? Are there any mature levelheaded wise humble and honest grown-ups anywhere on this globe that can run this country?

We need to start over; we're no better off then we were 150,000 years ago. The only difference is we have more accessories for our GI Joe dolls.

~ B.H.

Our Pearl Harbor

I guess the media was right when they proclaimed 9-11 as our Pearl Harbor, because neither one was a sneak attack. The government had information that both attacks would happen. I just hope that the 9-11 cover up doesn't turn out to be as sinister as Pearl Harbor's was.

~ S. Lewis

The Draft

I appreciate the sentiments expressed by Rep. Ron Paul in his column on the draft and acknowledge that during the Viet Nam War, when I was subject to the draft, I was very much opposed to it. But now I have reservations about my earlier stance. The reason is that since the end of the Cold War the military-industrial complex has taken to putting soldiers in harm’s way to defend the lifestyle choices of affluent Americans.

The “American Way of Life” was used to justify the Persian Gulf War and subsequent military occupations of several Gulf States. Of course, the only thing about the American way of life that was threatened by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was our ability to consume oil at six times the rate of the rest of the world. If we only consumed oil at say, three times the rate of the rest of the world, then we would have no need to concern ourselves with which autocrats controlled which patches of desert in the Persian Gulf. Affluent Americans can now decide, for example, to buy a gas-guzzling vehicle or adopt a bicoastal lifestyle that requires frequent transcontinental air travel secure in the knowledge that their children will not have their lives endangered by these choices – maybe the cleaning lady’s children but not theirs. If there was a draft – one that did not excuse the rich from service like the old one – maybe people would think twice before making such choices.

I would prefer that we ceased to use the military to defend lifestyle. But what are the chances of that?

~ Robert Anglin

The Horror

All propaganda all the time -- god, they're quick to cover their tracks!

Now it's suddenly nukes, apartment bombs, the statue of liberty's head about to be blown off -- all since Saturday, when (remember? can you remember that far back?) people were actually asking questions about Bush administration foreknowledge of 9/11.

The horror isn't that they think they can get away with this; the horror is that they are.

~ NL