JWH has a post up about the apparent awakening of PeterFrost. He is an anthropologist whose work we have featured in the past, and for which he garnered a certain degree of respect. Now, it seems that, to quote JWH, “he has wised up”.
I can’t find the original post in which the following statement by Peter Frost was published, so I am quoting direct from JWH’s post:-
I used to consider myself an anti-racist. I even once sat on the board of directors of an anti-racist organization. Today, I have trouble recognizing myself in what this belief-system has become.
Why did I identify with anti-racism? I saw it as a means to defend non-European peoples who had become politically and demographically marginalized, often to the brink of extinction. This was, and still is, the case with Canada’s First Nations, but it’s also the case with many other peoples, including some that are oppressed by governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As an anthropologist in particular, I saw anti-racism as a moral duty.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. But I do believe that ideologies can be exploited to serve new ends. In this case, anti-racism has gradually become an instrument of political disenfranchisement and demographic replacement – in a word, the very thing it used to combat.
This gradual change has turned what was once an ideology of the Left into an ideology of the Right. Anti-racism now serves the interests of a corporate globalist elite for whom the free flow of labor dovetails with their belief in the free flow of capital and trade. For these people, it doesn’t matter that their ideology will destroy long-existing cultures and populations. They don’t even feel guilty about what they’re doing. Anti-racism gives them a clean conscience.
So, is this a person who has really undergone a damascene conversion, and whom we might now expect to join the ranks of the fighters for European survival?
We shall see who cut the dice! We shall see who cut the ribbon! We shall see who shredded the documents! It is now apparent that the Jewish spirit has not only infested the minds and souls of countless innocent young brothers and sisters. It has also entrenched itself in the ecosphere. The wind that blows from the frozen waste lands in Antarctica, slightly caressing the tops of volcanoes in South America, is now infused with tiny particles of decompository particles. These particles are partly produced by factories on the East Coast of the United States of AmeriKKKa and partly by tribesmen in the barren fields of North Etrigeia. What these particles do is well known in certain scientific circles. They settle on forests and fields and slowly transform vibrant organic life into a purely vegetative state of existence. The resisting powers of the immune systems, formerly inherent in flora and fauna all across the globe, have been totally neutralized. This means that the true manipulators, with the Asian mind and the White face, can perform mundane operations and sell them as miracles.
And the juice flowed freely from the manifold wounds that he received at the hands of his Roman captors. The juice was red, and the juice was called blood. And it took 10,000 years to build the apparatus that enabled the scientists to travel back in time to observe the christening of the Christ child. And the Christ child became the great ennobler of the great continent of Europe. Crusading from coast to coast, beheading from north to south and baptizing from west to east, the Christ child became the benefactor of the minority that secretly ruled from sea to shining sea. And the world was his oyster, and he ate it with just a bit of pepper and lemon juice. After all, he was a sophisticated gentleman as an adult. He was well-versed in the arts of deception and seduction. He deceived kings and politicians and seduced children and women. All did his bidding. Some started wars in his interest. Some stroked his ego and bedded him to receive the seed of the suckproof store storm.
The Marxist theory of False Class Consciousness, simply expressed, pictures the working class as falsely believing themselves to be a free and valued, but actually trapped by capitalist oppression. For the Marxist, just as much as for the Capitalist if not more, everything is about money and economic pressure, and therefore ridiculously far removed from the human experience and what it means to be human. Not that Marxism ever really got anything right.
That said, the Marxists were on to something in the broad strokes. The little I’ve read on False Class Consciousness also refers to a Marxist call to action for the working class from being an oppressed and deluded class to being a class in itself and for itself, and here the Marxists grasped a fundamental concept. The root of any mass populace problem lies in the mass mind of that populace. Where Marx’s working class was pictured as being enslaved and ground-down, where Marxists falsely see everything in terms of capital, economics and class, we see, and see truly, everything in the light of the people and civilisations concerned. More specifically, the folk and civilisations concerned.
While worker and capitalist ‘classes’ are less and less an issue, still less a fixed one, in a ‘developed world’ more switched over to the service and bureaucratic lines of work than any other, our ethnic and cultural group (the white folk indigenous to Europe and the founders of the civilised nations outside it, such as the USA, Australia, South Africa and others) is truly trapped and deluded as to its ‘freedom’. This is a direct result of a False Folk Consciousness (FFC), which simultaneously holds that the White Race does not exist, and that White Guilt is nonetheless an appropriate and moral thing for all members of the White Race to have. Logic and consistent thought have never been strengths of the Left.
He said: “If you look at, er, folks, er-er, of color, er-e-a-e, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, er, excuse me, in the, ha, Republican party ...”
Parapraxis, or the Freudian slip, is the escape of a repressed thought. Given the well-known characteristics of the typical politician, it is safe to assume that a Freudian slip by a man like Dean constitutes a little moment of honesty in a lifetime of deceit and distortion. So what truth did he let out of hiding here?
Not, I think, that the GOP is the white party. Too boring, too obvious.
No, he is talking about the Democrats. He is saying that the party itself, its values and its policies for America are for “people of color” and “even women”. He is saying that if you are a white male American you are totally outside of the ministrations and ambitions of his party. He is saying that as a party of “color and women” the Democratic Party does not like white male America, does not serve white male America, indeed exists to undermine the proverbial hegemony of white male America. He is saying that the Democratic Party is as fixed and as singular in its antipathy to white male America as it is traditionally towards the GOP. He is saying, frankly, the GOP can have white male America.
But, of course, it wasn’t meant to come out quite like that.
“Everything was perfectly quiet at Rorke’s Drift after the column had left, and every officer and man was going about his business as usual. Not a soul suspected that only a dozen miles away the very men that we had said ‘Goodbye’, and ‘Good luck’ to were either dead or standing back-to-back in a last fierce fight with the Zulus. Our garrison consisted of B Company of the 2/24th under Lieutenant Bromhead, and details which brought the total number of us up to 139. Besides these, we had about 300 men of the Natal Native Contingent; but they didn’t count, as they bolted in a body when the fight began. We were all knocking about, and I was making tea for the sick, as I was hospital cook at the time.”
So begins the account by Private Henry Hook VC of the Defence of Rorke’s Drift, 22-23 January, 1879. It is the greatest single action of British arms, a not inconsiderable place in history to occupy.
This morning, forty-four years after the release of Cy Endfield’s 1964 film Zulu, the Telegraph reported:-
Battle to restore ‘Zulu‘ hero Henry Hook‘s reputation
A campaign is underway to restore the reputation of Henry Hook, the soldier portrayed as a drunken shirker in the film Zulu.
In the 1964 film, Private Hook, played by James Booth, was shown becoming a reluctant hero by saving the lives of eight patients stranded at an Army hospital during the Zulu war in 1879.
That much was true - but far from being a cowardly, drink-soaked malingerer, Private Hook’s posthumous supporters are insisting, he was a teetotal lay preacher and was given a bonus for good conduct shortly before his heroics.
Major Tim Whedon, from the Royal Regiment of Wales, which incorporated Private Hook’s old regiment, said: “Henry Hook is an example of how a character was distorted to attract the film-goers when the story was captivating enough.”
… With Private John Williams, Private Hook, then aged 28, fought off fighters to bring eight patients to safety. However he was described onscreen as “a thief, a coward, and an insubordinate barrack-room lawyer,” only in the hospital because he was shirking duty.
Despite the distortion, Zulu was an honourable enough attempt to make a film in an already cynical, post-colonial age about a brief moment of extraordinary Victorian valour. The script accorded the 4,000 Zulu attackers sufficient respect that Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi saw fit to appear as the Zulu war-chief Cetehwayo. The writers were comfortable with that. But they were obviously not comfortable with the real-life soldierly virtue of all the defenders. One wonders how they would like to be remembered themselves. Presumeably not as traducers.
However, that said, restoration of a reputation besmirched by film people may be a hot ticket in the next few months. Here’s the Telegraph again:-
My Postcivil Society series on MR has focused on many threats and opportunities provided by the increasingly unbalanced nature of globalization, but none were so urgent as this:
An imminent electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the United States.
Read on for why the neocons, who are promoting fear of this threat so as to justify preemptive war against Iran, may have outfoxed themselves while being correct in predicting an EMP attack with catastrophic consequences…
The news that white Americans will be a minority has washed up at the Telegraph:-
Higher birth rates among minority residents, especially Hispanics, is accelerating the demographic changes brought by immigration and will lead to an end of the US’ white majority around 2042.
“The white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years,” said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future.”
The Census Bureau released projections through 2050, based on rates for births, deaths and immigration.
The US’ 305 million population is expected to grow to 400 million in 2039 and 439 million in 2050.
White non-Hispanics make up about two-thirds of the population, but only 55 percent of those younger than 5.
By 2050, whites will make up 46 percent of the population and blacks will make up 15 percent, a relatively small increase from today. Hispanic will account for 30 percent in 2050, double their current share.
Asians, which make up about 5 percent of the population, are projected to increase to 9 percent by 2050.
The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 19 million.
The companion piece to this was last November’s “come-clean” by the UK Official of National Statistics, which forecast that population would rise to hitherto unmentioned levels. The Daily Mail, ever anxious to stoke the fires of righteous indignation, majored on the upper level of the forecast thus:-
Geopolitics trumps everything, they say. That’s a pretty good rule, and pretty apposite in the case of the Russian invasion of Georgia now. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians are getting what they want, which is freedom from ethnic Georgia. They will doubtless feel that the military aggression they have wilfully exhibited towards the Georgians has paid off in the most handsome manner imaginable. But they are only foils for the real objectives of the Russian campaign. The problem is that no one knows exactly what those objectives are, and how far Russia must go to meet them. And they ain’t saying.
The possible objectives are:-
1. To prevent Georgia from joining NATO, thereby furthering the latter’s ambition to encircle the bear.
2. To make a gesture in the direction of empire unmistakable to other Western-oriented neighbours, and also to the world community (not coincidental, it seems to me, at the moment when China is announcing to a watching world its own arrival as a major international power).
3. Possibly, if Russia seeks to install a puppet government in a defeated Georgia, to exercise control over the movement of oil and gas supplies across Georgian territory.
Meanwhile, the Western press has moved swiftly to engineer public sympathy for poor little Georgia, notwithstanding the fact that Georgia was an inexplicable aggressor (or almost inexplicable). Judging from that Telegraph thread not many thinking folk are content to be engineered.
Here’s Stratfor’s somewhat kosher but still worthwhile, current take - not illuminating enough, but as good as I can find at present:-
He has a blog called ... wait for it ... Real England. He has published a book titled, erm, Real England. And, for all these reasons no doubt, he has been interviewed by something called Albion Magazine.
So you might be forgiven for thinking that Paul Kingsnorth is someone who loves and believes in this little country and the people who made it.
Today the Telegraph and the Daily Mail both carried a turning-worm story about a government study into attitudes by ethnicity towards the country generally and public services in particular. The interesting finding is that the attitudes of “whites” - a group which may or may not be synonimous to the English - and of all non-whites are growing divergent.
This is good. This is the beginning of a zeitgeist of rejection. No doubt it is influenced by the current poor economic outlook. But minds are made-up and attitudes will only harden. Labour and the Conservatives issue their regulation calls for unity, but it is a total waste of breath.
From the Mail:-
One third of whites claim they are victims of racism A growing number of white people believe they are the victims of racial prejudice in Britain, official research has found.
Almost one in three - 29 per cent - said they now expected to be treated worse than other races by key public services.
And the number of whites claiming to have been refused a job or discriminated against at work for reasons of race has doubled in the last five years, according to the Government study.
Seven per cent believed they had failed to win a promotion because of their race, up from three per cent in 2003.
Three per cent alleged they had been turned down for a job for the same reason, up from one per cent.
In addition, the study reveals that most ethnic minorities living in Britain feel stronger ties to the nation than whites.
One in six white Britons feel only a slight sense of belonging to the nation.
Whites also now feel less able than other ethnic groups to influence decisions affecting their local area and the country as a whole.
For example, 41 per cent of black African, 36 per cent of Bangladeshi and 35 per cent of Indian people feel they have a say in decisions affecting Britain, compared to 19 per cent of white people.
The survey of 15,000 people - ordered by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears - is likely to prompt a fierce debate about the disillusionment of the white majority.
The Tories blame Labour’s race relations strategy.
Tory communities spokesman Baroness Warsi said: ‘It’s no wonder more people feel there is an increase in racism when Labour’s multicultural industry is forever talking up what divides us rather than concentrating on what unites us.’
The research found that overall, whites are more likely than those from ethnic minorities to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination is getting worse.
Fifty-eight per cent said they believe there was more racial prejudice now than five years ago, compared to 44 per cent who were interviewed in 2001.
The figure for ethnic minority communities has hardly changed, at 32 per cent.
The survey found that 29 per cent of white people expect to be treated worse than other groups by at least one of eight public services, including the police, prisons, courts, Crown Prosecution service, probation service, local housing organisations, schools or GPs.
Whites identified council housing departments or housing associations as the most likely to discriminate against them.
The proportion of members of ethnic minority groups who expected to face discrimination from one of the eight bodies fell from 38 per cent in 2001 to 34 per cent.
But it remains higher than for white people in many categories, particularly the police.
Tory MP Greg Hands, a member of the Commons communities and local government select committee, said: ‘It’s a dangerous phenomenon if any part of the population feels they are being systematically discriminated against.’
Overall, 84 per cent of people felt they belonged strongly to the country, including 45 per cent who said they belonged very strongly.
However, nine out of ten Pakistani and Indian people said they felt a strong sense of belonging, compared to 84 per cent of whites.
I have been sent the URL for a site new to me, assembled by an NZ scholar - and strict dialectician - named Kerry Bolton. I am impressed with the work Dr Bolton has put into his site thusfar, which includes an extensive catalogue of study resources and a page on a periodical, Restoration Magazine, which I guess he is editing. This latter, it appears, might be a worthwhile addition to that small group of intellectual English-language publications serving our range of interests, of which Occidental Quarterly and Michael Walker’s (soon to be rescusitated) Scorpion are the finest exemplars.
Efforts like Dr Bolton’s, which go beyond the usual “protest website” and offer paths to understanding for anyone motivated to tread them, deserve our attention and support. I note with interest that this effort includes a Commentary page with just one entry todate: a more detailed and considered obituary to the great Solzhenitsyn than the one I knocked out!
I shall watch the development of the Renaissance Press project closely, and commend you to do the same.
The story in yesterday morning’s Telegraph was unambiguous and damning:-
Old boy network is obstructing police investigation
An “old boy network” of officials is deliberately obstructing police investigating decades of alleged abuse at care homes in Jersey, according to the police officer who spearheaded the inquiry.
Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper angrily hit out at the figures who he says have engaged in a “day by day attack” on the inquiry team and the alleged victims of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and other island institutions.
In his most outspoken criticism of the Jersey authorities, Mr Harper told the Telegraph: “I can quite clearly say that the investigation is being held up. There are people on the island who just don’t want us going down the route of this inquiry.”
... More suspects would have been charged by now, said Mr Harper, if it hadn’t been for delays in the island’s legal system.
“We are walking through treacle at the moment,” he said. “One file has been with the Attorney General’s office since April 29 and it’s still showing no signs of moving at the moment. It’s been very frustrating.
“I don’t think they are involved in child abuse, it’s more like an old-boy network.
“The ordinary people of Jersey are overwhelmingly in favour of the inquiry, but how many expressions of support and sympathy for the victims have we heard from the politicians? None. They don’t do sympathy for the victims.”
This situation of the investigator obstructed at every turn by shadowy Establishment forces crops up with alarming regularity in large-scale child abuse cases. In Jersey the obstruction takes the form largely of an official code of silence. Since Jersey is a family holiday destination, one could charitably conclude that these are the machinations of a pack of Larry Vaughn types (Vaughn being the “don’t-rock-the-boat” Mayor of Amity artfully played by Murray Hamilton in both Jaws and Jaws 2: “I’m only trying to say that Amity is a summer town. We need summer dollars. Now, if the people can’t swim here, they’ll be glad to swim at the beaches of Cape Cod, the Hamptons, Long Island ...")
Jersey, however, is a highly successful if no longer entirely off-shore banking centre. Its wealthy residents are perfectly content to avoid prying eyes - indeed, that’s the whole point of being there. There is, then, a darker materialism at work on the island than a mere interest in ice cream sales and beach balls, and this interest is surely what Harper means by “an old boy network”. The implication for any revelations damaging to the zeitgeist of confidentiality, never mind allegations of child abuse, are plain. There will all too probably be an outbreak of “official incompetence”. As the News of the World reported on 13th July:-
An inside source told The News of the World: “There’s a strong suspicion that the files are being held on to until Lenny Harper goes and a new team is in place.
“No one will be surprised if the truth about what happened in the care home never surfaces and once more the evidence gets swept under the carpet.”
Ever since Proposition 209, the anti-race-preference initiative, was passed by California voters in 1996, various state and local government agencies have sought a means to save race-based government programs.
The opening, true words of an NRO article written in May 2004 by Lance T. Izumi & Sharon Browne (both energetic opponents of affirmative action and, in Browne’s case, a successful litigant).
Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more. The San Jose Mercury News reports:-
Students recruit minorities to UC in ways institution can’t
By Lisa M. Krieger
California law bans the state’s public universities from recruiting students based on race.
But it can’t stop student volunteers.
Call it the outsourcing of affirmative action. Stepping into jobs made off-limits to university officials by Proposition 209 - the 1996 California ballot proposition that prohibited public schools from targeting students based on race, sex, or ethnicity - students are reaching back into their own communities to boost diversity on campus.
“We feel an obligation to help open the door to allow for more of our brothers and sisters to enter,” said Fuifuilupe Niumeitolu, a Tongan student at the University of California-Berkeley who is a member of the student group Pacific Islanders Higher Education Recruitment Program. “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.”
The passage of Proposition 209 hit UC-Berkeley’s racial and ethnic communities hard. The number of incoming freshmen from under-represented minorities groups - African-American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander - shrank by half.
The numbers are just now beginning to recover. But the campus is still far from reflecting the state’s diversity. Although about 47 percent of public high school graduates in California are members of underrepresented minorities, they make up just 25 percent of UC’s incoming freshman class. At UC-Berkeley, the system’s most elite campus, there are only 15.7 percent.
Under-represented minorities groups. That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News. What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.
Richard Lynn, sometimes along with Tatu Vanhanen, has been publishing books challenging the economists and social scientists to look at average national intelligence as an important factor in how well off a nation is including health, wealth, earnings, democracy, etc.
This latest book is an excellent source to give someone who is doubtful about racial hierarchies around the world. Country by country Lynn looks at the races making up a country and explains historically how they became what they are today. Over and over again such themes such as when slavery ended in different parts of the world, Blacks refused to work, and usually East Asians and/or Asian Indians were brought in to do the manual labor, and eventually moved up taking over entrepreneurial sectors of the economy.
This pattern was also shown by Amy Chua in “World on Fire,” though that was not the intent of her book. Lynn shows that wherever there is a mixture of races the pecking order follows the average intelligence of each group: Ashkenazim Jews, East Asians, Whites, mestizos of different hybrids, Amerindians, and Blacks—to name just a few. Only aggressive affirmative action in many of these countries can keep the smaller, more intelligent minority from totally dominating the economy.
Again, of Lynn’s books, this is probably the easiest read and the most convincing arrangement of arguments to convince the skeptic that intelligence does matter and that it is highly genetic.
“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose words those are, has died from heart failure in Moscow, at the end of a long period of decline.
“You can have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power.”
The author, among other works, of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), The First Circle (1968), Cancer Ward (1968) and The Gulag Archipelago(1973–1978), historian, Nobelist, and a profund Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox Christian, Solzhenitsyn belonged nowhere but in the socks and shoes of his own spirit. Life forced moral judgements upon him wherever he looked ... as a soldier in Germany in 1945 witnessing the murder and rapine of the Red Army, as a witness to the grotesque violence inherent in Stalinism, as a prisoner in the gulag and a persecuted intellectual outside it, and as an exile in the liberal West appalled by the spiritual absence, self-indulgence and materialism there.
Until I came to the West myself and spent two years looking around, I could never have imagined to what an extreme degree the West had actually become a world without a will, a world gradually petrifying in the face of the danger confronting it . . . All of us are standing on the brink of a great historical cataclysm, a flood that swallows up civilization and changes whole epochs.
Solzhenitsyn’s final act of courage in the written word, Two Hundred Years Together (2003), remains unpublished in the West. It examines in a critical way the nature of the Jewish engagement in Russian life from the partial annexation of Poland in 1795 to 1916. Whilst it finds that the Revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy, it does dwell on the culpability of Jews where Jewish culpability existed. For this, of course, Solzhenitsyn has received his due measure of reflexive semitic hatred inside Russia, and his book has been very effectively frozen out in the West.
“It is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka only by the fact that two-thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”
But the Jewish tantrums will be of no import to our memory of the man. Solzhenitsyn will be revered in Russia and admired in the West for his moral stature, and for proving that the human spirit was greater than the corruption and violence of the Soviet system ... and, perhaps, greater too than the equally deady - actually, more deadly - dangers of modernity which beset Westerners, in all their comfort and security, today.
“It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey.”
Mace Rixer, multicultural detective, met his friend Carl the cryptographer in their favorite bar. Carl was very upset. He told Mace that he had to find a new place to live because he had locked himself out of his apartment.
Carl’s impregnable ex-apartment could also be called his [_____________________].
Jean-Marie Le Pen, Front National member of the European Parliament, given just 4 minutes to explain the world to Monsieur Bruni, le président de la page trois.
Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.” English, no less! But I digress.
To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-
Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond. To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”
Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States. In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion. His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...
Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities. Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-
“I was looking at him on the news and just thinking what an amazing moment this is, watching his speech in Berlin and thinking what a critical moment this is for America and for attitudes towards what they can achieve amongst the black community.
“If Barack Obama can do it, it will be the most fantastic boost, I think, for black people everywhere around the world.
... I think a Barack Obama victory would do fantastic things for the confidence and the feelings of black people around the world - that they can win.”
Unfair comparison? The last of the great Conservatives ... and Boris. With a friend.
Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”.
Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”. Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest. He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).
Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.” And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently.
In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been. We are all MultiCultists now.
Leading on from this MR essay, where I asked some questions that needed to be addressed in future updates of Salter’s work, I now repeat and, in some cases, expand upon these here:-
1. Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests
This refers to genetic structure, and this has been discussed in detail already – e.g, here. This is a crucially important point that needs to be expanded. It can certainly be done theoretically and qualitatively based upon the known facts. A quantitative examination would require the services of an objective/sympathetic population geneticist (if such exists - doubtful today) and/or further studies about genetic structure and population differences in said structure. In any case, this topic needs to be addressed in future editions of On Genetic Interests.
2. Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests
Adaptive genetic interests can be renamed functional genetic interests, since the pursuit of kinship genetic interests IS , of course, adaptive and there is no clear distinction here.
Functional genetic interests are a subset of total genetic interests. A simplistic view would be:-
Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + (Functional Genetic Interests – The Kinship Component of Functional Genetic Interests).
Simply put, kinship genetic interests are those genetic interests based upon relative kinship, independent upon the functional consequences of the gene sequences in question, while functional genetic interests focuses on how the gene sequences influence phenotype to make the individual and/or group more competitive, and more likely to pass on distinctive genetic information to the next generation.
Remember Lester Jones, the interesting social constructionist who troubled to engage with “Recititive” at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”? Alas, shortly after that conversation Recititive was despatched to the gulag by the Guardian mods. They do like to preserve the intellectual purity of their thought-world, and poor Recititive was judged altogether too polluting.
However, some very similar right-wing swine named “unsanctimonius” is playing with the fire of the mods instead, and today he had an encounter with the aforementioned Lester Jones. As there are one or two half-useful pointers to debating technique in it I will reproduce the goalmouth moments here:-
The thread followed on a very fine and interesting piece of writing about the illusion of leadership by the (I think) Marxist intellectual Jeremy Seabrook. It finished with this splendid observation:-
Power and privilege will always find ways round efforts to create economic and social justice. And so it has been in our time. The principal participants in the global theatre are increasingly masks of some gigantic harlequinade or Noh play. The script is pasted in the wings. It is their business to offer prospectuses of freedom and constant improvement to the people, to receive acclaim, to fail, and be scorned and repudiated for their venality and dishonesty. They know this. This is why they tend to expend so much effort providing against the time of their downfall; sometimes corruptly, usually within the loose limits placed upon their right to accumulate and prepare for the day when they will be hounded from power in defeat.
It is the ignoble shabbiness of their role that has created a highfalutin language of “governance”, “high office”, “senior politicians”, “veteran leaders”, “statesmen and women”; as well as the global babble about “transparency”, “accountability” and of course, the “empowerment” and “participation” of the people. The grandiose words are merely decorative. No one should be under any illusion about the emancipatory potential of Barack Obama, and nor should we be quite so vengeful over the shambling figure of Gordon Brown who strings together cliches much as our grandmothers knitted kettle-holders. Their destiny is to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, to exit and not mess with the decor.
“Unsanctimonious” duly praised Mr Seabrook thus (trolling ever so slightly, you understand):-
An informed and eloquent article in a desert of wrong-headedness. Thank you, Mr Seabrook.
However, you omit to mention that the power elite are not merely corporatists but are also coldly determined anti-nationalists whose primary assault on our lives is not economic but racial. The power elite is bound to attempt to kill the most stubborn and salient point of resistance to its absolutist ambition, which is the ancient European state tied to and defended by its people.
Nation-killing and race-replacement immigration - all wildly applauded by the dumb and self-loathing, universalist left - is a power elite crime against humanity. When are you, Mr Seabrook, going to break with your universalist principles and defend your people and their homeland against this attack?
And off we went. Lester Jones, defending his ideological turf next in the thread:-
“Big Brother” - the king of reality shows - is, they say, coming to the end of the road. But then along comes Obama to prove that our life as passive consumers of shallowness and narcissism is not over yet.
The 44th President of the United States, apparently, graced Britain with his presence on Friday - a busy schedule of private meetings and no more engagement with the public than the inevitable sight-seeing photo-calls and a quick appearance outside No.10 (the impudent demand to address both houses of Parliament having been rejected on grounds of protocol). That left little opportunity for we Brits to guage the exact degree of “greatness” Obama is supposed to have about him, falling from his lips and his fingertips like so much fairy gold. Just as well, really. We are in a politically carnivorousmood, and probably not well dispositioned towards snake-oil salesmen.
But not so the 200,000 “people of Berlin“ who renounced critical thinking to stand for 45 minutes and listen to what, I suppose, the American media will sell as Obama’s JFK moment.
Because every Democrat candidate has to lay claim to something of Kennedy. Jimmy Carter had his hairstyle.
Now, everyone should read Obama’s testimony to his own coming greatness and all-round magicality. So I reproduce the speech in its entirety here:-
“A new generation ... common humanity ... the greatest danger of all ... my father ... give our children back their future ... the moment to stand as one ... listen to each other ... keep the promise of equality and opportunity ... banish the scourge of AIDS in our time ... the road ahead will be long ... the walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrant cannot stand ... learn from each other ... Christian and Muslim and Jew ... aspirations are bigger ... America cannot turn inward ... will we welcome immigrants from different lands… trust each other ... this is the moment ... shun discrimination ... our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom ... you too know that yearning ... live free from fear and free from want ... Berlin ... people of”
There. I think I got it all.
Well, it flirts with a truckload of vacuity. Can’t deny that. Alright, there was some foreign policy substance: Obama wants to withdraw American forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period, though only to commit them to Afghanistan. Or possibly the Horn of Africa because, you know, what‘s happening down Darfur way shames the world, and America cannot turn inward. Etc. But getting out of Iraq is certainly a positive. And, though it wasn’t part of his speech, so is the left-Dem line on NAFTA that he has taken thusfar. But beyond these and a few other scarcely detailed policy hints, everything but everything is 100-octane aspiration. John Gast should be raised from the dead to paint it.
Now, obviously, it’s mighty tempting to swing a wrecking ball at anything that has 200,000 naïve Germans swooning over a junior American politician on a dais in Berlin. But let’s set temptation aside, and also cease accusing this poor man of shallowness, narcissism and having unfortunate ears. Instead, let’s consider what Obama-speak might portend for white America.
Several times over the days since his capture I’ve toyed with putting up a post about Radovan Karadžić. The angle would have been to speculate on his trial strategy ... on whether there really is forensic evidence for the Srebrenica massacre ... on whether the wider claims of a Bosnian genocide actually stand up ... on whether the issues will remain as clear as the prosecution would want, or whether the realities of Western geopolitics will be forced into the open, to overtake the moral standard. In a word, will Karadžić do what Milošević did prior to his death, and lead the Court by the evidential nose.
But the deeper I got into the researching the issues to a depth sufficient to float the intellectual boat, the more I learned how little I understood, or really have any likelihood of understanding, this extraordinarily dark and challenging event.
I did not understand the region and its peoples and their tremendously complex histories. I did not adequately understand the Bosnian War itself. I did not at all understand the legalities and precedent involved in bringing a case before The International Court of the Hague. I did, I felt, understand the geopolitics of Nato in Bosnia and of the importance to the West’s interests in Serbia of bringing Karadžić and Mladić to “justice”. But it wasn’t enough. Discretion won and I deleted my notes.
Karadžić, however, remains a charismatic and slippery figure, comic in his disguise but also admirable in the roguish but resourceful way he lived. But he still has that word “Nationalism” attached to him and his, we are told, pitiless, genocidal deeds. For us it is an unjust attachment because Nationalism is not that, but is something born of love. Still, those who strive to darken Europe at dawn don’t baulk at such distinctions nor hesitate to use the spectre of Karadžić the War Criminal for their purposes.
We are bound to respond in some way, and this post - a not-post, really - must suffice. Feel free to broach the issue however you please.
Apparently, you and I are criminals. Or possible animals. I never got to find out which.
Yesterday at midnight in multicultural Greenwich - the Observational one, not the beatified Mr Ginsberg’s - erstwhile MR luminary JWH alerted me to a rather Sub-Condescending thread at GNXP. Ever the sharp-eye, he had already posted on it at Western Biopolitics (which, if it isn’t already a staple read for you guys, darn well should be). He thought I should get up to speed.
So here’s the gist.
Godless Capitalist, co-founder of GNXP and the attack-dog of South Asian cognitive elitism in the Kwa, took it upon himself to contribute to a GNXP thread on Steve Sailer’s self-promoting VDare review of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s book, Grand New Party. THE political book of 2008, apparently. Anyway, I will return to it shortly. First, let’s deal with gc.
Now, both Douthat and Salam - a “Bangladeshi-American” like Razib Khan - are editors at TheAtlantic.com. Douthat had put up a couple of posts on Sailer’s review, the threads to both of which degenerated into the usual, pointless argument with difference-deniers and the kind of mental dross which manages to make every third word “racist”.
On July 10th Razib - he, we must presume, of the vindictive inter-racial porn link - posted a short entry headed Sailer on Grand New Party. The thread to this post also got a bit stuck on sticking it to the racially-aware white American - but in that special GNXP way, since the Sub-Con cognitive elitist’s promulgation of human difference is what makes him cognitively elite. In this spirit Razib unburdened himself of the under-capitalised observation that:-
i don’t think ethnic nationalism is malevolent as such. but it has been pathologized among white americans to such an extent that a disproportionate number attracted to white (as opposed to irish or scottish or whatever) identity tend to have bizarre and unattractive personalities.
Now, a dispassionate, socially scientific mind encountering this unpleasant point of view for the first time might, having established that black racial consciousness and Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism are flourishing all over, ask itself whether “ethnic nationalism” has really been pathologized, or just white racial consciousness. And if it is the latter, why? And by whom?
Well, by Razib and gc, for one. Er, two. Here’s the latter’s response to his pal:-
I will begin with a confession. I haven’t kept up sufficiently with the growth of bioethics in American colleges. I seem to remember a few years ago reading about the setting up of special “bioethics” departments. MR touched upon the issue here.
Hardly surprisingly, our take on it then was that the liberal-left and Jewish ethno-centric reactionaries were instituting a strategy to control any damage that genetic science could do to the lovingly-constructed lie of “Race Does Not Exist (and if it does, It Does Not Matter)”.
Ten days ago Stanford University came forward with a portentous set of “Ten Commandments” on race and genetics. The Stanford Group of, yes, ten not overly Jewish hard and soft science folk issued it in the form of a letter. There have been many responses to it, but not much that I’ve seen from the radical end of the market. So I thought I would pitch in.
The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics
Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings. As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate. Classification by racial and ethnic categories has, at particular moments in history, been used to further racist ideology. In view of concerns that linking of emerging genetic data and race/ethnicity categories may promote racist ideologies, we emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.
Let’s rewrite that. All seats are created equal. Discrimination against a comfy settee because it doesn’t perform well on shooting expeditions is seatist and against the all-conquering morality of Seat Rights. Intolerance of any design of seat is intolerable. And will not be tolerated. Obviously.
Well, I’m sorry to be flippant. But, really, how is one to react when ten learned men and women adumbrate for months over their supposedly seminal and morally Olympian task and come up with … that trash. Frankly, I am embarrassed even to have to take it seriously for the purposes of this response. There is no ethics here, just tenured Nazoid fantasy.
The simple response to give, of course, would be to state that equal treatment under the law is all any person or group requires or deserves. Oh yes, and maybe make it clear that equality is not a moral value at all, never mind an unquestionable one. It is, in this present context, a rank refusal to measure Man, made for the purposes of maintaining a political deception.
First impressions have turned out to be right, and bioethics is revealed precisely as the deceitful, faux-moral left inveigling itself into the scientific process to still-birth inconvenient findings. But no matter. Knowledge is far superior to, say, wealth redistribution or culture war, and this garbage is nothing better than anti-science.
In 1927 Carl Schmitt wrote in The Concept of the Political “Ethical or moral pathos and materialist economic reality combine in every typical liberal manifestation and give every political concept a double face.” For “economic“ substitute “racial”, and observe the two-faces of liberalism - the claimant to high principle and the wilful wrecker of our European life.
Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.
Well, thank you very much. I think! But let’s get it out in the open, shall we? Do two Icelanders have more DNA in common with yeast than with each other? Perhaps. But it doesn’t matter, because Icelanders are Icelanders and yeast is yeast. What matters genetically is what makes one an Icelander and the other only yeast. Or Han. Or Bantu. Difference is what matters. Difference is what we value and understand, and live to advance. Difference is the product of adaptivity, without which there would be no science, nor would there be Man, nor life.
Evolution and reproduction, and the combination of the two in natural selection, are the great tricks by which life arose and clung on in the margins. Who can say how many hundreds of thousands of times it was generated, only to disappear again before these tricks were incorporated within? Denying their value, and the value of the distinctiveness which they engender, is more than anti-science. It is anti-human, anti-life. Until recently, the scientific Marxoid left did exactly that. But now it has to admit that it can’t get away with it any more.
