Different Kinds of Security Risks from Chinese Immigration

Various types of security risks.

This ostensibly reasonable post by Derbyshire poses some problems.

I suppose that my suggestion to bar persons with China connections from sensitive national-security work will seem outrageously shocking to many; perhaps doubly so as I myself have such connections. Should I be barred from access to sensitive data? 

Yes, I think I should. I have publicly expressed fondness for my Chinese relatives. It would be reasonable for an investigator, on learning that, to suppose that threats to my relatives in China might be effective in “turning” me.

That’s great. Let’s take it further. Having someone with such “connections” is a security risk in Der Movement and associated precincts, such as the anti-White HBD cult and “immigration patriotism.” Why only talk about risks to The System? What’s the difference? One can argue that the immigration of “Rosie” to the West is a security risk because it affects Derbyshire’s influence over racialist discourse, with all the damage that does to interests of value to “latrine flies.” Speaking of interests, note that The Derb only talks about narrow proximate concerns, and not about the damage done by Chinese immigration to White American ethnic genetic interests, nor about the damage done to the cultural/civilizational organic solidarity of the nation and its identity.

Also note the picture accompanying the article. Was The Derb only “teaching English” to Chinese females?

HBD, HBD, HBD marches on.

Sidenote: This is exactly one of the reasons some of us find Derbyshire so annoying – his hypocrisy. Except for the one time he should have mentioned it but did not (the essay attacking MacDonald), Derbyshire is always, constantly talking about his “Chinese connections” and his mixed marriage. It is seemingly his favorite topic, particularly if one includes not only his work at VDARE, but his writings elsewhere, as well as his personal website. He seems to derive satisfaction “tweaking the noses” of the “race purists” by making his private life a public spectacle. But, on the other hand, he acted as the outraged family man on VDARE, concerning emails allegedly received from skinhead types critical of his family. How dare they! And then Derbyshire “invites” them to come to his home, so he can “greet them in the appropriate manner.” Derbyshire himself makes an issue over his “Chinese connections” and then in that VDARE post exuded SJW rage because others mentioned it. That is like Ted Cruz’ plastic anger over people like Trump and cartoonists mocking the Cruz family that Ted himself intentionally uses as props in his campaign (note to Brimelow: using your children as VDARE props is not fair to them). Or, it is like the White women who demand that White society smile benignly on, and fawn over, their inter-racial relationships and mulatto children. If you choose to make the private public, then you have to acknowledge that not everyone is obligated to approve of your private choices. If you cannot acknowledge that, then keep the private private.