Takuan Seiyo on Vietnamese Mass Murderer Jiverly Voong

And Other Asian and Moslem Immigrants Who Brought Us Such Blessings as Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome and Cannibalism


"The deadly jive of Jiverly diversity, at Gates of Vienna," by Takuan Seiyo

….The tragic explanation of Jiverly’s evil rampage, overwhelming in its empirical precedent, has been in plain view for decades. Third World immigrants come to America not for its Shakespeare’s tongue or WASP Constitution and founding ideas of freedom expressed in rights and linked responsibilities. They come for the fraudulent “American Dream,” a dream that both the Right and the Left have bleached of all its cultural and ethnic denotations or even connotations. It’s all about opening a Laundromat, mailing to the old country a photo next to a newly acquired Mercedes, sending the son to the old country to find a wife and increasingly, having the son fight or spy for the old country against the new one. Or it’s about cramming for years to get an advanced degree and get rich that way.

This is not immigration as it was 120 years ago, but colonization. And when the streets turn out not be paved in gold, and golden-haired maidens will not be pawed, the fraudulent Dream crashes. The toxic jive of petty capitalist exploiters, opium-sucking “progressives” and toothsome politicians claims its victims. And the victims claim their victims.

(Update: 3 p.m. I began writing the following response to a poster at Gates of Vienna who goes by the handle, “Thalassopolites,” at 1:50 p.m. By the time I was ready to post it (2:50 p.m.), I learned that Tak Seiyo had already addressed this individual, whom he identified as a troll following him from blog to blog. I have left my post unchanged.)

Well, Thalassopolites’ rhetorical razzle-dazzle was quite entertaining for a bit, but when he seeks to confuse and misdirect the reader, I must say, “Halt!”

Thalassopolites consistently uses the term “Asian Americans,” in speaking about people who are most certainly not Asian Americans. As far as I can see, every Asian killer Tak Seiyo cited was an immigrant, not an American, not even a naturalized one.

In his earlier remaining post, Thalassopolites argues against Zen Buddhism and for Western music. If anything, that would be a cultural argument against importing Asians. But in a later post, he attacks any argument against importing Asians.

Is Thalassopolites two different people, posting under the same name? Is he a one-man contradiction machine who seeks to hide his irrationality through rhetorical bombast? Rather, I believe that he simply despises Takuan Seiyo, and will engage in any sophistry necessary to take cheap shots against Tak, in order to score momentary debating points against him. Since Thalassopolites’ cheap shots have mutually incompatible consequences, he must carefully separate them.

Tak has previously reported that he practices Zen Buddhism. Thalassopolites sought to insult him (though not in the presumably more crass way of his first post, which was gone by the time I showed up), and so he puts down Zen. In Thalassopolites’ later post, he puts down Tak on purported criminological grounds.

Since Zen is a pillar of East Asian culture, the consequence of Thalassopolites’ hostility towards it would be hostility towards East Asian immigrants. But the consequence of Thalassopolites’ later (true) claim that “Asian Americans” are less crime-prone than American whites is to embrace more East Asian immigration.

Let me cut through Thalassopolites’ sophistry to get back to the argument that I believe Takuan Seiyo is trying to make, and which the former is for purely personal reasons seeking to hide.

1. The embrace of the insane ideology of multicultural diversity has caused America’s elites to jettison their sense of morality, and to instead embrace, or at least excuse evil. The proper moral response to monstrous behavior is to condemn it as such, pray for the victims and their survivors, and consider whether different practices might have prevented the monstrosity, not to nihilistically “celebrate diversity.”

2. No society that wishes to survive can uncritically admit immigrants. Period. When increasing numbers of immigrants engage in behavior toxic (behavior which includes everything from being a financial burden to engaging in treason) to that society, it must deport as many offenders or threats—including naturalized citizens—as its people deem necessary, and rethink its attitude about accepting immigration, not “celebrate” the uncritical admission of unassimilable immigrants.

3. Already in 1965, when the immigration madness began with the Immigration Act, America had more than enough domestic problems of its own, and had no need to import additional problems. Before America entered into its mad experiment with mass non-white immigration, it had a grand culture. The right to keep and bear arms, and the necessary, corresponding duty to engage in restraint, were pillars of that society. They still are. Importation of mass numbers of people—even if they should statistically be less crime-prone than the natives—who are culturally incompatible with that right and that duty, will inevitably exert pressure on the society to degrade the duty, and then gut the right.

Thalassopolites, you potentially have a great future ahead of you as a tenured professor. That was not a compliment.