Category: Liberalism & the Left

The Struggle for Struggle-Cred

by PF

White Nerd: You know, I really like rap music, because the singer is talking about his struggle. And I really identify with that. Like, I have my own struggle, you know, each of us has our own struggle.

Black security guard: Struggle? What do you know about struggle?

White Nerd: Like my struggle to fit in with my peers, find out what I want to do with my life, find companionship, get out of my parent’s control, etc.

Black security guard: You call that a struggle? How can you call that a struggle?

White Nerd: What do you mean?

Black security guard: You know what a struggle is, not having enough money to have a new pair of shoes.

White Nerd: um ...

Black: Finding out your baby sister just got knocked-up by a crack head!

White: uh ...

Black: Growing up not knowing who you’re daddy is! Thats a struggle!

White: ull ...

Black: Havin’ your mom killed by a drug dealer when you was two! Thats what a struggle is!

White: uff ...

Black: Every day hearing shots and not being sure, if your friends is out there dyin’! Thats a struggle!

White: utt ...

Black: What’choo want to tell me about a struggle? What’choo know about a struggle?

White: udd ...

Black: You means to tell me, when you’se in your pretty white house, that you sometimes ride around in your nice car, and feel sad about yourself, because you’ daddy didn’t understand you? Is you sad because your friends don’t understand you? Is that your struggle?

White: urr ...

Black: Cuz let me tell ya somethin’ son, that aint’ nothin’.

- End of fake discussion -

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, August 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (26) | Tell-a-Friend

Imprinting, upbringing, and genes for child-raising

by PF

This is a question, open-ended, for your consideration, stemming from debates with liberal friends ...

A recurring picture-argument is that of the possibility of a universal Renaissance, conditioned on the possibility that all people everywhere get a middle-class white upbringing. Essentially this scheme would graft onto the private lives of numberless ghetto-dwellers the kind of nurturing, loving, book-reading childhood enjoyed by upwardly-mobile middle class whites. This is justified because the liberal formulating the argument understands that patterns of behavior are given their first impetus by parents when the child is young. That component of non-genetic variation which is formed by imprinting in childhood is the wiggle-room they need to make everyone theoretically conformable to European standards of behavior.

A person adept at truth search would have to detect in themselves, were they to find themselves arguing in this way, the existence of a cherished hypothesis beating a hasty retreat into a shadowy corner of plausibility where its premises can evade inspection ... for the moment. Realizing that one cherished a hypothesis, which is a sin in the truth search, one would have to take steps to remedy it. But since our liberal friends might not be tainted by that degree of enthusiasm, we have to encounter this argument on its own terms and not point out how suspiciously it resembles certain things you might have learned to recognize from elsewhere ...

Its not clear which entity would ‘reach in’ at the appropriate time to prevent the inappropriate behavior while the non-whites are being upbring-ated. Who would shop for them, and choose healthy groceries? Who would prevent the Dad from drinking? Who would prevent the mother from spending 20+ hours watching television? Who would allocate the spending of money which resulted in enough money being left over for cultural events such as attending art museums? Who would attend to the thousand little details (time allotted? car keys? everyone present? enough gas? directions?) which in the absence of real motivation to go to the art museum, give birth to myriad rationalizations about why it need not happen. In the absence of the DNA-sprung desire to see art, explore and understand the world, who would explain to the children the context of what was being seen, and tie it into a larger narrative emerging from adult experience and knowledge? Who would prompt the natively-uninterested person to bring up the same issues later at the dinner table, sustaining a living interest in what had been experienced? Are government entities going to do this? Individual concerned citizens?

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 12:13 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Moral matrix expansion

by Potential Frolic

Perhaps morality consists in individual rules or Sententiae stored somewhere in the mind. These would be abstract image-calculation algorithms, where one plugs in the images of other people and things to get the result. Then again perhaps morality consists in matrices containing perspectives of other people with whom one is close. We could imagine a matrix like this:

father, mother, sister, brother, friend1, friend2, teacher, neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 ... etc, etc.

Each item in the matrix represents a perspective that one has acquired or modeled; the word ‘modeling’ reflects accurately the action but implies more consciousness than the matrix-former actually possesses. A more accurate term might be “absorbing other people’s evaluations”. Each perspective contains a list of weighted evaluations of things. Father’s evaluations of doing drugs may be -5, but friend1’s evaluation of doing drugs is +0.5 and friend2’s is 2.5, so friends may prevail with a young person to try drugs. When the young person inhabiting this matrix makes a decision about whether to try drugs, they cross-check each perspective in the matrix for evaluations and arrive at some form of weighted average, which guides their behavior.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 09:12 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith

by Alexander Baron

An obscure if somewhat bizarre murder case from the State of Texas is back in the news, and the bleeding heart liberals are banging the drum again, this time for a convicted murderess who is facing execution by lethal injection.

Surprisingly, though Linda Carty is black, her principal supporters haven’t quite played the race card; they have though overplayed their hand with an endless stream of half-truths and bland acceptance of demonstrable lies. Carty’s case has garnered a great deal of unwarranted publicity in the UK and has been endorsed uncritically by the mass media because she is said to be a British citizen, a claim that is true only in a purely technical sense. Her supporters have played a tape of her begging for her life, and a cardboard cut out of her was erected on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square during the recent innovative living artwork exhibition. Those like the current writer who have longer memories, suspicious minds and a reluctance to take the top fifty Google listings at face value, will be less than impressed.

According to an article on Reprieve’s website, to which its director, campaigning lawyer Clive Stafford Smith contributed, it’s all down to her incompetent lawyer, a flawed trial and a frame-up, if not by the authorities then by the actual perpetrators. Carty was convicted of the murder of a young mother who was bound, gagged, and stuffed in the boot of a car (that’s the trunk to US readers). The evidence shows clearly that the death of Joana Rodriguez was not an unfortunate accident – which might just have reduced it to second degree murder or even manslaughter - it was an intentional and cruel act. Unlike her, Carty’s co-defendants – whom she had tricked into the kidnapping – were interested only in stealing drugs and money from the apartment the victim shared with her common law husband and his cousin.

Sally Rowan of Reprieve wrote:

If Texas go ahead with her execution, Linda will die because she had a bad lawyer, and because the British Government was not given the chance to help her at a time when it could have made a difference.

Yes, that bad lawyer again, but why should the State of Texas allow the British Government to dictate to it how it should run its criminal justice system - even if the British Government were so minded?

So what exactly are Carty and her supporters claiming?

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 10:39 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Tell-a-Friend

A reply to Ozy

My reply on the liberal mind thread to our Guardianista OZKT29B - henceforth called Ozy courtesy of Captainchaos - grew rather long.  There is a 5,000 character limit on comments, so I thought I would make a new post of it instead.  Ozy’s last comment, to which I was responding, is here.

OZKT29B,

I was happy to follow Lord Arlen’s example and allow you to strike the very first blow.  The meat of the conversation, though, will now be on the worth of the beliefs you hold.

You write:

You are perpetuating the narrative that any thought that isn’t extremely marginal is, in fact, sheep-like and unconscious.

Our racial thoughts and instincts are the racial thoughts and instincts of the people.  They are no more marginal than is human nature itself.  But there is a powerful conflict between human nature and liberalism in the West.  Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is the controlling idea of our age.  Every person of European descent is enculturated in it, and enculturated thereby in conflict with their own racial thoughts and instincts.

Nationalist philosophy is not at all a formative factor on the psychological landscape.  To come to nationalism, then, you must, at some level, realise that your entire understanding of not just politics or even ideas, but life in general, including the acquired part of the Self, has been unconsciously absorbed, and all life long you have defended the result quite unconsciously too - just as you are defending it today.

We are not born with the power to choose the influences we absorb.  We walk out in the rain, that is all.  Freedom - the real thing, not the liberal confection - consists in recognising this unconsciousness, this power of the acquired, and turning instead towards that which is true in us.  Many of us here know this.  I think it highly unlikely that you know it.

So ... I am not “perpetuating” any narratives.  I am trying to bring you, as quickly as possible, to the beginnings of the understanding that, so far in your life, you have not owned the formative processes of your own mind.  Not only, then, are you not free but you cannot be free, regardless of the “liberty” in the liberalism you espouse.

We can discuss in detail what passes for freedom in the liberal canon later.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (123) | Tell-a-Friend

The closing of the liberal mind

These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way.  They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there.  They don’t like it, and they have their knives out.

Of course they are right.  I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend.  Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it.  And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure.  But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary.  The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago.  References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly.  The meaning of minoritisation followed.  Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too.  That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity.  The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete.  For now.  But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas.  Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing.

Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda.  There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister.  From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues.  Thou art modded.”

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 01:18 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (120) | Tell-a-Friend

An invitation to Mehdi

Mehdi Hasan is the senior political editor of New Statesman, which is an organ of the British left Establishment.  You can read an email he sent Simon Darby here and, in Britain, listen to a BBC i-player recording of Mehdi’s aggressive anti-BNP views.

Failing that, here’s a post he put up at New Statesman which offers the same rationale:

Yesterday I took part in a Radio 4 discussion about the BBC’s coverage of the BNP with the corporation’s chief adviser on politics, Ric Bailey. You can listen to it here.

Bailey seemed to me to be a decent and intelligent man performing a delicate and difficult balancing act in a high-pressure job. But I was alarmed to hear him repeat, again and again, in response to my question ("Does the BBC consider the BNP to be a normal party?"), that the BNP is a “legal, elected party”.

So? Hitler was elected.

It’s my contention that the BBC, and various other media organisations, are contributing to the “normalisation” of the BNP through soft, context-free, fact-free interviews and through the corporate and editorial repetition of this nauseating mantra: “The BNP is a legal, elected party”.

But it’s not a NORMAL party, is it?

I mean, which other political party has racist, neo-fascist and neo-Nazi roots? Which other political party can be legitimately described as a “Nazi” party, as the Standard Boards of England ruled in 2005 - it is, the Board said, “within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate”? Which other political party has a leader who is a convicted criminal and a Holocaust denier? Which other political party includes local organizers who have convictions for gang rape or racist assaults? Which other political party has, among its former members, a terrorist and convicted murder and a man convicted under the Explosives Act? Which other political party has, as its MEP, a man who began his political career in England’s National Socialist party? Which other political party believes that Islam is a “cancer” and that Jews run the media?

Does it really breach the BBC’s impartiality guidelines to simply point this out to the viewers, listeners and readers of the corporation’s output? Or do we instead have to be treated to a fawning interview with a man, Mark Collett of the BNP, who has said, “Hitler will live forever, and maybe I will.”

Thankfully, as a colleague has pointed out to me, the BNP’s electoral triumphs remain limited - check out this result at a recent council by-election in Hertfordshire.

Now, in that radio interview Mehdi not only made the point that BNP representatives should not be entertained on the airwaves, but if by some chance they were, they must be “challenged”.  But with what?  What foundational argument does Mehdi have to counter the BNP’s?

So I thought I would invite Mehdi, or any other New Statesman folk, to tell us, and posted the following remarks there:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 04:36 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Is This All the Argument They Have?

by David Hamilton

Many people outside Britain [think the British Empire was] about oppression, exploitation, violence, arrogance, slavery and racism … no less than an early Holocaust.

This is Linda Colley professor of History at Princeton and a Wolfson Prize winner; and historian, showing her prejudices in her book, Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850.

The book expresses contemporary orthodoxy.  Of today she writes:

There are those who argue, with the utmost sincerity, that were the British to remind themselves of their empire it would only further incite the racism inextinguishably associated with it.

To Colley, racism and sexism are the unforgivable crimes - that is code for attacking white males!  The British Empire was evil and its “victims” would have been perfect if it were not for us.  These themes are still the prevalent ideology now, and are re-interpreted in government policy as moral debts which the beleaguered British people are forced to pay.

Well, I thought we should see how intellectual some Caste academics are.  These people, this intelligentsia, are erudite and articulate when talking on comfortable subjects.  But when it comes to immigration and national identity they go to pieces and can not talk rationally.  They become childish or avoid an objective analysis by retreating into the past.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, September 6, 2009 at 09:36 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Hilton Hijinx

The David Irving event at the Hilton on Michigan Avenue in Chicago last Friday was much more entertaining than I anticipated. The speech was interrupted briefly by a leftist who popped in at the door of the room like a whackamole and was summarily removed in the same fashion. (This intlrod individual graces this film at 0:20.)

Posted by Søren Renner on Monday, August 3, 2009 at 05:14 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (0) | Tell-a-Friend

MARGOLIS ‘NEO-NAZI’?

By Dr KR Bolton

Eric Margolis of Canada is one of the most experienced of journalists, with a rare insight into geo-politics. He is an opponent of US global adventurism, and writes for many reputable Canadian newspapers. He has been a lecturer in military history and is widely travelled, a real veteran in international journalism.

Margolis is not afraid to air controversial opinions, albeit ones backed up by deep insights, first-hand experiences, and perspectives of history normally lacking in journalism. On his blogsite Margolis tackled the question of World War II after the comments of Pres. Obama in France marking the Normandy invasion. Writing in a column for 8 June, Margolis states in part:

“METZ, FRANCE June 08, 2009

“President Barack Obama’s visit to Normandy to commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day makes us think about the entire course of World War II, and the lingering propaganda or myths that still becloud it …

“World War II was not a good and evil struggle between `western democracies’ and `totalitarian powers,’ as we are still wrongly taught.

“It was a world conflict over land and resources pitting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the entire globe, the French Empire, Dutch Empire, and Belgian Empire, and, later, the US imperium (Philippines, Pacific possessions, Cuba, Central America), against the Italian and Japanese empires.  The Soviet Union was an empire unto itself …”

When I wrote a few years back “An Open Letter to the War Generation” in response to an unsolicited letter that was sent to me, I expressed a largely cynical view of WWII, its origins, purposes and outcomes. Similar opinions have been expressed in addition to Margolis, by Pat Buchanan, and even by the pre-eminent WWII historian Prof. A J P Taylor in his “Origins of the Second World War”.

My “Open Letter” which was aimed at trying to get a veteran to THINK about how they’d been betrayed (in keeping with the opinions I used to hear from NZ vets who were the mainstay of the New Zealand Right when I was a lad first getting interested in politics) was taken up by Australian Dr Toben, an alleged ‘holocaust denier’, and placed at one time of his website for the Adelaide Institute. With much ado, several oddities from the Left, who have the ear of journalists in trying to carve a cheap and easy career for themselves as ‘anti-Nazi crusaders’, have paraded this article – which they never attempt to critique historically – as proof that I am a neo-Nazi etc. In particular Mat Henderson from Australia, whose favourite sport he states is ‘body surfing into fat kids and making them cry’, who has a phobia about ‘fat chicks’ (sic) and who had a really sicko fantasy about Alexander Downer that I’ll not describe here, has referred to this “Open Letter” as proof of my ‘neo-Nazism’. Another oddity, self-described ‘stupid drunk’ Trotskyite Dr Scott Hamilton of Auckland, who has graduated from smearing and threatening fellow communists with trying to establish a name for himself as an ‘expert’ on the pervasive neo-Nazi threat in NZ (like fellow sociologist Dr Paul Spoonley a few decades previously) has stated on such a basis that I work “closely with Toben” (sic); reminiscent of the semiliterate nonsense about me on Wikipedia, which among other things states that I am “a [sic’] associate of the Adelaide Institute.”

Are the likes of Mat Henderson, and Dr Scott Hamilton,– his having a doctorate perhaps again attesting to the poor standards of tertiary education? – now going to rant that Eric Margolis, whom I understand is of Jewish descent, is a ‘neo-Nazi’, a ‘holocaust denier’ etc.? Well, on second thoughts, yes… they probably would… but at least I’d be in good company.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 11:42 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

What a University of California professor knows about fascism

William I Robinson is a sociology professor at University of California, and a specialist in globalisation, particularly in a Latin American context.  However, on 28th January this year he gave a more general talk titled The Crisis in Global Capitalism.  He’s a pretty long way left, but he thinks he knows a thing or two about the great enemy ... “fascism”.

He talked about it for a little under five minutes in his presentation, starting at 46.24 on the slider.  The idea was to answer the question: “What is the ability of the popular classes to resist this transfer of the cost of the crisis onto their shoulders?” Robinson came up with five answers, one of which was the rise of “fascism”.  As he says:-

A crisis also opens up space for social forces from below, and collective agency, to influence the course of history in ways that are not possible in times of equilibrium and stability.

Now, what follows tells us nothing at all about “fascism” but quite a lot about the pitiful ignorance of himself and the left in general.  The thing is, they don’t want knowledge.  They don’t want to penetrate beyond the usual “resentment and fear” level of analysis of our motivations.  They think that’s enough.  They are happy with that.

Nonetheless, Robinson feels empowered to pass judgement on us.  Here he is doing just that:-

A fourth thing that we can imagine taking place here, or a fourth response to the global crisis - and, again, I’m not saying this is taking place and this is not predicted - is what I call a 21st century fascism.

The confusion here when I raise this with colleagues and with critics is when I say the term “fascism” they imagine it has to look like 20th century fascism.  And not in the least.  Not at all.  We don‘t go backwards in history.  We are not going to see a new Nazism or Mussolinnism.  21st century fascism would look very different - it‘s already looking very different.  There are signs of this as a response, as a project.

Well, alright.  This seems like it might be new and interesting.  Whatcha got?

Certainly, there were signs of the beginnings of an articulation of a 21st century fascist project with Bush and the neocons and the defeated McCain wing of the Republican platform.  But also around the world we see in Bolivia, we see in Columbia, we see in Venezuela, we see in Austria, we see in Germany, we see in many parts around the world the articulation of a fascist response.

Germany?  Would that be the Germany.  Next to Austria?  Nah, can’t be.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, April 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (38) | Tell-a-Friend

Weakening resistance on the liberal-left?

Michael White, a very senior Guardian journalist of 30 years standing, wrote two successive pieces covering immigration and the BNP in two days ... here and here.  He must be appalled by the number of stout-hearted pro-BNPers posting to his threads - though it’s the same pretty well everywhere these days.

The anti-racist shriek tactic that has served the left so well down the years is scarcely evident now.  Similarly, there are no intellectually powerful respondees to drive home the postmodern dictat.  Why don’t the leftist academics pitch in anymore?  Someone posting on both Guardian threads as “stjohnwithout” has noticed that, without them, these arguments are a push-over.  It is almost as though the liberal-left, which has dominated political debate for the last half-a-century, has suffered a crisic of confidence.  It cannot find the energy to prosecute its Weltanshuuang on its own sacred turf.  The balance of power is shifting - at least on the MSM threads.  I find myself wondering where it will go from here.

Obviously, there can be no question of a fightback by the other side.  The nativist memes will become more and more embedded in readers’ consciousness.  The only question is if and when those memes will provoke said readers to think past their learned negative response.  If the staggering injustice of what is being done to our people can be communicated sufficiently forcefully, pretty quickly, I would say.  I’ve always maintained that it takes years to change a man’s mind.  But sea-changes among the suggestible - and the vast majority of liberals are, by definition, suggestible conformists - don’t obey the same laws.  There is a sea-change happening.

Our friend Silver would disagree, insisting that only a highly selective discourse and a special sensitivity for the work can produce results.  But under present conditions, which I confess are favourable, I think that force and clarity of opinion, justice of cause, and absence of malice are enough.

These are good times to be a political renegade.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 01:38 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (198) | Tell-a-Friend

American Exceptionalism: You’re All Americans Now!

By The Narrator

This is the final part of my anti-Universalist trilogy, earlier articles being Charity and the savage and The Unnecessary Faith

American Exceptionalism.  If you are unfamiliar with the phrase you’ll at least recognize it’s definition.  Essentially, it is the general belief amongst the declining demographic known as White American Patriots that everybody on planet Earth not only wants to be a White American Patriot, but can and should become White American Patriots.

This is the self delusional philosophy that the average (non-elite) White American conservative clings to in order to justify Imperial America’s foreign military adventurism. And, more importantly, to convince themselves that the massive non-White migration currently flooding America will end with Jamal, Ping, Pedro and Abdullah all speaking colloquial American English, loving John Wayne films, adoring Country music, voting Republican every four years and (magically) never making up more than 5% of small town America’s population.

As you might expect, they are completely insane.  Of all the hypocrisies in the world, theirs is uniquely obtuse in that they believe that everyone, everywhere, should voluntarily conform to an obligatory creed of self-reliant independence and rugged individuality.  They believe that only fools or terrorists wouldn’t aspire to be exactly like them.

Their most profound conviction is that people with convictions are obstacles to the state funded and government regulated consumerist lifestyle that props up the self-worshiping ideology of Individualism which they believe is inherent to all living beings.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, February 20, 2009 at 11:41 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

The Unnecessary Faith

By The Narrator

There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality.  For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself.  From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears.

All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality.  Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm.  Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry.

Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group.  We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly.  We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness.  Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences.

Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles.  Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind.

And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it.  If the races are equal, then it is unfair that some live in squalor while others live in skyscrapers.  If men and women are equal, then it is unfair that women do not hold as many positions of power as men.  If all men are equal, then it is unfair that some live longer, healthier lives than others.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, February 1, 2009 at 11:32 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Charity and the savage

By The Narrator

There is an old, outdated saying that goes, “Charity begins at home”. I say outdated because, obviously, today charity begins at least a thousand miles from home. Whether it is flying half-way around the world to bring their self-righteous selves to the savages or just simply bringing the savages back home, the missionaries and charitable types love to seek out those who are least like themselves and take the opportunity to bask in their own benevolence.

And to note, I use the word “savage” in the true spirit of these people who travel about the globe and dazzle various primitives with their presence.  After all, charity automatically requires one person to be in a superior position and another to be in an inferior position.

No wonder then that the most charitable people often strike us as the most arrogant and pompous.  So referring to the beneficiaries of such self-aggrandizing types as savages or primitives is only done in deference to the social vantage point the aggrandizers enjoy.

Actually, this kind of super-charity (as opposed to the kind that flows naturally back and forth between peoples of similar racial, social and cultural standings) finds its greatest acts of giving through indirect compulsory sacrifice on the part of others.  For example, if you and your church/charity arrange to bring a savage into America, you are, through force and cohesion, compelling other members of your community into giving as well.  Their taxes and resources will be automatically re-distributed to the savage through healthcare, education, housing and so on.  This also happens when tax dollars are sent abroad for charitable purposes.

This, then, is not the community giving but rather the charitable taking.  Thus charity has now become an act of aggression which ultimately leads to the despoiling and plundering of communities and (eventually) nations.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 01:51 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

The BBC’s favourite race-denier of the 1990s says negrification is utopia

A decade or so ago, one of the frequent frustrations of my life as a school-run parent was catching Steve Jones, a geneticist who has specialised in Bosnian snails, on Radio 4’s Today programme. The BBC of the 90s had a particularly strong penchant for race denial, and here was an “expert” geneticist who talked the mitochondrial talk, and gave them what they wanted to hear.

It wasn’t what I, sitting in my car, wanted to hear.  But it was to bury the “racism” and “oppression” of people like me - white people, in other words - that the whole charade was played out.  And pretty much played out it is, now, in the era of micro-array analysis.  But that doesn’t stop Steve Jones from splurging his same old nonsense at us, when he’s given the chance.  Today the Telegraph has done just that.

Jones’s headline argument is that there are not enough older fathers to drive the evolutionary process in European Man - older fathers being the key producers of genetic mutation in their spermatazoa.  Somewhere along the line the confused Telegraph sub-eds have widened the claim to a complete halting of the process in Mankind, which is obviously silly because Jones says:-

Today’s men start late, but stop early. In Cameroon, almost half the fathers are over 50, in Pakistan about a fifth, and in France only about one in twenty.

So evolution marches on everywhere else but among us, it seems.  But towards the end of the article it becomes plain that when Jones says “evolution” in respect to Cameroonians and Pakistanis he actually means “European race-replacement”:-

As Darwin himself realised, evolution’s third ingredient is isolation. Humans are 10,000 times more common than any other mammal of their size, and without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.

People are dense, and on the move. No man (or woman) is an island nowadays, for the world is becoming a single genetic continent. History has always been made in bed, but the beds are getting closer together.

Once, we stayed close to where we were born and populations could build their own identity. Now, we no longer have to marry the girl or boy next door but can hop onto a plane and find a mate from miles away.

How far was your birthplace from that of your partner and how far apart were your mother and father, and your grandmother and grandfather on each side, born? In almost every case the distance has increased and continues to do so (my wife and I first saw the light 3,000 miles apart, my mother and father ten; and, as my students say, it shows).

Everywhere, the biological frontiers are getting leakier. A grand averaging is slowing evolution’s power. One British marriage in fifty is between partners from different ethnic groups and many more cohabit.

Afro-Caribbean males are half as likely again to marry a white female than are black women to find a white husband, while among Chinese those preferences are reversed. Britain is among the most sexually open nations in the world.

People choose mates almost as much by level of education as by skin colour. Other countries are going the same way and Homo sapiens will soon be a lot more uniform than it was.

Health, birth control and the healing power of lust all conspire to tell us that, at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, evolution is over. So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, cheer up - you are living in it now.

All this describes the European genocide quite well.  It is only when, at the very end, Jones comes to the values to be ascribed to it that we realise what being a devoted Labour Party supporter does to the scientific mind.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 06:56 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (94) | Tell-a-Friend

The irrational hatred of the Jewish extended phenotype

Rick Lyons is the crime correspondent for the never knowingly thoughtful Daily Star.  But he has escaped its customary nubile delights long enough to pen a piece for that organ of the irrational left, The Guardian.  It was titled, “Antifa’s gift to the BNP”, and was a leftist hack’s cri de coeur that the violent left was stuck in the past, and needed to understand that physical confrontation was counter-productive.

Lyons delivered himself of a number of other insights of a nature and quality than need not detain us.  But his comment thread was interesting on one count, at least.  At 11.11 am, a commenter styled gheymears explained his own shameful past in the violent left:-

I was heavily involved in AFA, a forerunner of Antifa, during the early 1990’s. What we did at the time, when I was younger and more politically naive, shocks me now. We operated pretty much along similar lines as a football firm - driving around in a transit looking to ‘spot’ fascists when they had a rally organised. Every other person would be armed and our reasoning was that by terrorizing the BNP they’d be forced to meet in secret and lose contact with the voting public. I wouldn’t be to dismissive of the violence either, this was groups of experienced street fighters, linked to football clubs like Celtic and Man United, along with people from groups such as Red Action that had links with the IRA - not to mention the ties with animal rights groups and the ALF.

The violence was pretty disgraceful and led to numerous people being hospitalised, and after I left, to a number of anti-fascists being jailed. I met people who had used axes, iron bars, smoke bombs, cs gas etc. We also got into a number of spontaneous confrontations when people bumped into BNP members in pubs or even out shopping. It wasn’t uncommon at the time to see a skinhead wearing a bunch of nazi badges out in town with a bag full of groceries. On more than one occasion telephone calls were made and a couple of anti-fascists would come into town and catch the skinhead away from CCTV and assault them with iron bars, bottles etc. Members of AFA over the years were jailed for kidnapping fascists and in one famous incident for throwing a well-known fascist in front of a bus.

The reason I’ve went into detail about this violence is because I had never been one for fighting before joining the anti-fascist movement, and I haven’t since I left either. We had a strict authoritarian ideology that insisted that violence was required to win control of the streets to create a political vacuum that could then be filled by the left. Ideas about democracy and freedom didn’t even enter the equation, so sure were we that left wing politics were correct and everything else should be opposed.

Looking back, having matured both politically and intellectually, I’m appalled by what AFA were prepared to do. What is maybe worse is that after the BNP announced its decision to stop marching so as to avoid streetfights (which effectively killed AFA), another group has sprang up purely to try and draw them in to violence. Still nobody on the left has started a credible group to argue with them politically, and the real worry for me is that the left don’t and never will have an answer as in parts the BNP are asking the tough questions and in some policies supplying an answer that people are comfortable with. The left fear a debate with the far-right, and turn things into a physical confrontation exactly because they won’t win any arguments about immigration or crime - yet somehow manage to see themselves as defenders of freedom, and not the destroyers of it.

It needs to be understood that for twenty-five years up to the early 90’s there was a subterranean war between the violent left and, first, the National Front and then John Tyndall’s homosexual-free British National Party.  The aggressor, by and large, was the violent left.  It was not politics, of course.  It was a lifestyle choice, and a social pathology with its roots, ultimately, in the street battles of Cable Street and thence Weimar Munich.  But anyone who, today, encounters the perfectly brainless throwing around of epithets by the left in place of real argument - and we all do - has touched upon remnants, however distant, of that extraordinary and totemic world.

It is encouraging to learn that gheymears has extricated himself from anti-fascism, and gained a proper moral perspective on it.  There must be many like him.  But then, he says he was never violently-inclined except in his anti-fascism.  He fell under the sway of something more powerful than himself, and lost his moral compass.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 01:36 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend

A conversation with a fellow nationalist.  So he says.

Paul Kingsnorth is an unusual journalist by Guardian standards.  He claims to be a nationalist.  Well, obviously, he’s not a BNP candidate for the parliamentary seat of I’m-Mad-As-Hell south.  But he has written critically about Gordon Brown and Britishness and British “identity”, and even what it means to be English.

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.

You would be half right.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (71) | Tell-a-Friend

A further conversation with my pal Lester … updated 30th June

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:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 11:13 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (31) | Tell-a-Friend

The Ten Commandments of Race and Genetics.  Not.

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.

But, golly, you can see that it’s not happy.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 09:32 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

Sixty-Eighters

BY Tomislav Sunic, and first published in Chronicles in March 1999

From Italy to France, from Germany to England, the post-World War II generation is now running the show. They have traded in their jeans and sneakers for political power. Thirty years ago, they rocked the boat at Berkeley, in Paris, and in Berlin; they marched against American imperialism in Vietnam, and supported the Yugoslav dictator, Josip Broz Tito, and his “socialism with a human face.” They made pilgrimages to Hanoi, Havana, and Belgrade, and many of them dressed in the Vietcong’s garb, or Mao’s clothes. A certain Bimbo named Jane Fonda even paid a courtesy visit to North Vietnam and posed for a photo-op with her rear on a communist howitzer. This generation protested against their wealthy parents, yet they used their fathers’ money to destroy their own welfare state. A burning joint passed from hand to hand, as Bob Dylan croaked the words that defined a generation: “Everybody must get stoned.”

This was a time which the youth in communist countries experienced quite differently. Prison camps were still alive, deportations were the order of the day from the Baltics to the Balkans, and the communist secret police--the Yugoslav UDBA, the Romanian Securitate, the East German Stasi, and the Soviet KGB--had their hands full. European 68ers did not know anything about their plight, and they simply ignored the communist topography of horror.

Back then, the 68ers had cultural power in their hands, controlling the best universities and spreading their permissive sensibility. Students were obliged to bow down to the unholy trinity of Marx, Freud, and Sartre, and the humanities curriculum showed the first signs of anti-Europeanism. Conservatives concentrated all of their attention on economic growth, naively believing that eliminating poverty and strengthening the middle class would bring about the renaissance of the conservative gospel.

Today, the 68ers (or “neo-liberals” or social democrats") have grown up, and they have changed not only their name, but also their habitat and their discourse. Their time has come: Now they hold both cultural and political power. From Buenos Aires to Quai d’Orsay, from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 10 Downing Street, they sit in air-conditioned executive offices or in ministerial cabinets, and they behave as if nothing has changed. Perfectly recycled in stylish Gucci suits, wearing expensive Bally shoes, sporting fine mascara, the 68ers pontificate about the global free market. They have embraced their former foe, capitalist entrepreneurship, and have added to it the fake humanistic facade of socialist philanthropy.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 08:07 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Enemies of the state

By David Hamilton

Slowly, and the elites hope imperceptibly, we are being brought under repressive state control operated by not only the police but also bureaucrats.  It goes largely unnoticed because the new laws and regulations seem unconnected, and journalists and opposition politicians are part of the same ruling caste.  But if you look at the new laws and regulations as a trend rather than independent Acts it becomes clear.

“Your papers please” is a phrase associated with Hitler’s Gestapo at a time when people without papers were taken to detention centres.  But it is beginning here. The Daily Mail of 21st March 2007:-

British citizens will be quizzed on up to 200 different pieces of personal information in a 30 minute grilling when they apply for a passport.  Those who fail to convince the bureaucrats they are who they say will be denied a travel document or face a full investigation by anti-fraud experts.  There is no formal appeal process.

Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, once said: “We are now entering the post-democratic age.” To put it more directly: an era of the totalitarian control of people by the state.  Politically, w are in the grip of a narrow ruling elite, an “Ideological Caste” that admits only those into power with the same views, and expels in disgrace any who dissent, as in the public humiliation and sacking of leading scientist Dr.James Watson.

The Ideological Caste is the emergent elite of the Cultural Marxist era.  They do very well out of it … earning vast sums of money, living in the best areas, sending their children to the best schools.  But impose equality on the rest of us.  They claim to be correcting centuries of unfairness.  But they police our thoughts and oppress us if our views different from theirs.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 09:17 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

Ripples under the White ice

As a (supposed) product of white working class trauma, the BBC’s White season may be no better than one would expect from the liberal mind.  At least, it seems not to have caught the untermenschen’s imagination.  But it is firing up the liberal media in some entertaining ways.

Tim Lott wrote a piece in the Indendent bravely titled White, working class – and threatened with extinction.  He identified a series of political decisions which have contributed to the present awfulness over the last thirty or forty years.  The destruction of grammar schools is top of his list.  But multiculturalism comes in second.  And third is:-

… the WLMC [white liberal middle class] determination to stamp out nationalism – at least if you were English. If you were Scottish, Welsh or Irish, of course, you could celebrate your flag and your culture as loudly and proudly as you liked. But if you were native WWC, to celebrate St George and the English flag was racist.

At the breakfast tables of Hampstead the muesli must have flown.  But Lott was not finished:-

The WLMC know that the WWC hate “The Other” – the blacks, the Asians, the Muslims. But it does not occur to them that they themselves are the greatest Other-haters of all, in their revulsion of the WWC who are too close to themselves for comfort, and whom they use to project upon their own sins, their own real and reverse racism.

This is truth-speaking of an order I have not seen before in the liberal media.  And it has only taken a few BBC interviews of working men in a club in the North of England and a few shots of Enoch Powell’s steel-cold blue eyes to trigger it.  There are those of us - which is the majority here - who have noted down the years that debating liberals employ much moral stigmatisation but little or no substantive argument.  But the White experience also suggests that the political ice is very thin.  Lott’s prompt adoption of an Anglo-centric, indeed almost racialist analysis shows just how thin that ice might be.

Elsewhere in the Indy our old Ugandan Asian mucker, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, has been trying to respond to “White” by playing the Nazi-Powell card.  This is almost as priceless as Lott’s piece.

A Jewish friend prompted this column. She said to me: “I condemn Israeli politics and some things British Jews are up to. But when anti-Semitism seeps through the land, unseen, unacknowledged, I must stand up for my people. You must too. It is your duty. Powell’s ghost is awake, Racism is everywhere. I can feel it. Can’t you?”

Why yes, dear hypocrite.  You are anti-English, and I am pro-English - which is the same thing as anti-Semitism to you.  Only England is my land, my home, and no right attaches to you, as an immigrant, to besmirch my ethnic interest here.

Yasmin and her Jewish friend are still the favoured group, of course.  But the lesson to draw from “White” and it’s reverberation among the said WLMC is surely that the advocacy of English rights and interest, frozen solid since Powell was silenced, is starting to thaw.  And it may prove very difficult to stop among people who bear much blame for the permafrost and possess a strong predeliction for guilt.

Some interesting questions flow from that:-

If we are, as seems quite likely, to have a Conservative government in 2009 under David Cameron, will he feel able to impart further momentum to the process by repealing some of the wholly unConservative anti-majority legislation?

Or will the present movement towards a total state - a panopticon monster grasping for a biometric database - carry him onward?

If there is a thaw in the ability of ordinary Englishman to speak, but no change in the attitudes of the ruling class, will the morally-flawed BNP be in any position to profit?  And if they are, will we then see Cameron attempting to triangulate them a la Sarkozy?

My answers today are:

a) Able certainly, but that isn’t the same willing.

b) One more Muslim bomb will do it.

c) MI5 will relieve Cameron of any need to triangulate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 12:39 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (15) | Tell-a-Friend

Leviathan rising

At the beginning of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine called on his fellow colonists to forge a new society where power was dispersed among the citizens. “Let the crown … be demolished,” he urged, “and scattered among the people whose right it is.”

This sentence is taken from a speech on Saturday to the Fabian Society conference ‘Change the World’ by David Milliband, Britain’s Jewish Foreign Secretary.  Paines’ words resonate strangely in the nationalist mind.  For who, exactly, are “the people whose right” sovereignty is?

But, of course, the Fabian Society is the senior left-liberal and one-time socialist political movement in Britain, and none of its company think as we do.  Its company thinks in ways that would alarm not only us, but any normal Briton were these thoughts not coated in electoral blandness and the appearance of the bien pensant before they are uttered.

This is how Miliband continues his speech:-

Today Paine’s world is coming into view. Around the world there is what I call a ‘civilian surge’. Born of the death of deference in the North and West, the collapse of communism in the East, the spread of democracy in the South. Everywhere it is the rise of the better educated and if not better educated better informed citizen who knows, in real time, about how other people, often far away, live their lives; who is more distrustful of traditional sources of authority; who is yearning for greater freedom and power; who is more able through technology to produce and distribute information, more able to hold power to account.

... This civilian surge embodies the ideal of progressive politics, for what is progressive politics if not the desire to see more people as actors rather than spectators in life’s dramas?

But alongside the rising tide of human rights and democratic values there is the reality of growing insecurity. There are the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships, but the global threats of climate change, financial instability, and transnational terrorism are potent and invasive.

Freedom and security have always been the twin aims of progressive politics. The unique fact about the present time is that people feel more free but less secure.

What a humbling statement for a High Priest of progressivism to make to a Progressive Church.  And yet to the nationalist mind nothing could have been more predictable than the destructiveness of the politics of anti-nation, anti-family, anti-Nature.

Miliband draws attention to the two “not incompatible” but never quite “reconciled” left-traditions of radical liberalism and social democracy.  But it is as if “the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships” have punched huge holes in radical-liberal confidence.  Nowhere in his speech does he raise his eyes to the distant horizon of new and inspiring individual freedoms.  There are none.  So the level of it is “more power to neighbourhoods to shape local services and own assets, with more power for citizens through direct payment and personal budgets in health and social care.” The freedom train rattles and lurches on, blindly, shamelessly, but quite purposelessness now, and for the most part translated onto a stage that is too mundanely depersonalised to carry meaning for the personal life as, indeed, the great, freeing cult of the individual was meant to carry meaning.

As a political movement social democracy is unquestionably more intact, though that, too, has been assailed by doubt.  Dench and Gavron, David Goodhart and Robert Putnam have all quietly, inconveniently pointed to the confounding of social justice in and by the MultiCult.

So all that will remain, after homosexual adoption, transsexual equality, religious hate speech legislation ... after the anti-majoritarianism, the racial dispossession, the dissolution of nationhood ... all that will remain is the burgeoning size and power of the state.  And out of that, with the force of inevitability, will flow a matching appetite for legislation and for control.  How but through these things will a state machine that sows chaos for freedom, and has no further democratic raison d’etre, hold on to its monopoly of power?  Leviathan will rise in a last desperate, totalitarian attempt to maintain the unmaintainable status quo.

If we care to look we can see it rising already.

For example, a domestic application of naked power, however honeyed by political skills, will necessarily excuse itself with a foreign fig-leaf or two - what Miliband calls “values”, but is simply a coercive internationalism.  And he duly addresses UK foreign policy issues further on in his speech:-

… We are required to ask big questions about what we are willing to do to extend individual rights around the world

... Universal values are real and popular. They raise really hard questions about how they are spread, but let’s not be ashamed to talk about them. They are part of our tradition, not a neocon invention.

... In the 19th and 20th centuries foreign policy and progressive values were often uncomfortable partners. Interests predominated over values. The new context holds out huge opportunities for progressive politics.

... In the 21st century, we need to apply both the social democratic and liberal traditions to maximise the opportunities from globalisation and manage the risks.

Tom Paine the English radical, Tom Paine the American revolutionary, Tome Paine the member of the French National Convention might, I suppose, have admired such apparently humanistic objectives.  But they mean nothing whatsoever to the true peoples of Britain.  They would garner scarcely a vote at election time.  They quite wonderfully depict the detachment into domestic policy blandness and irrelevance, and the shift to action abroad, that doubtless must afflict a destroyer of nationhood.  This Leviathan’s public allegiance will be to peoples far away who have absolutely no allegiance to it.  If that sounds laughable, even crazy, it’s because that’s what a politics of spreading the Western social democratic and economic model is.

The only question is whether we the people can survive long enough to strike the blow that brings Leviathan down.  Pray that we can, and that for our children’s sake it is a political one

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 02:14 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

The Human Rights Fraud

by Dr Tom Sunic

No verbal construct is so powerful and disarms so fully its critics as the expression “human rights.” Ever since the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, not a single government on Earth and not a single freedom loving academic has ever shunned this expression when raving about world improvement, or when wishing to improve his own lot.  And yet, since the adoption of this human rights clause there has been a blatant increase in the violation of human rights.

The answer to that is simple and does not represent a contradiction in terms. The lexical construct “human rights” is the most expedient tool for covering up abuses against specific rights of people. Today it has become a badge of honor for liberal plutocracy and its left-leaning scribes in search of a moral alibi for their military adventures or for their media mendacity. Upon closer grammatical scrutiny the lexical acrobatics of the “human rights” expression denote an abstract legal field that lends itself to a myriad of different definitions. Its generic nature precludes concrete rights of a given people, a nation, a race, a tribe, or a social group. The expression “human rights” is custom-designed for an uprooted and nameless individual or a dumbed-down consumer with no historical memory, and oblivious of his race and culture. It is a self-serving expression with different meanings in different social and historical contexts. For a Palestinian fellah living in a refugee camp on the West Bank, human rights have a different meaning from that of a neighboring Jewish-American settler whose long-distant cousins disappeared in Europe during World War II. For a Serb peasant human rights have one meaning; for a neighboring Albanian farmer yet another. For a DC pundit or a politician, human rights have a different resonance than for a poor white Oklahoma farmer who has been downsized, outsourced, or who has lost his job to illegal immigrants.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend