A letter to David Davis on the occasion of his conversion to assimilationism

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 04 August 2005 01:14.

David Davis, the front-runner and bookies’ favourite to succeed Michael Howard as leader of the Conservative Party, has declared himself a liberal where it matters in “modern” Britain.

Now, I’m no longer a member of Mr Davis’ Party. Well, obviously they wouldn’t want me! So, I don’t have any kind of say in electing Howard’s successor. If I did, sadly, I would probably vote for Davis. But golly, I would like him to understand at least something about the philosophy of his own Party and of the opposition, as well as something – anything - about the land and the people he would lead.

So, I’ve written a quick draft letter to the man. You never know, he might have a mental impasse, a fast-forward, while dutifully googling for Minority Rights, and wind up here. Hi there … read on.

Dear Mr Davis,

I can’t exactly blame you for not knowing this, David old chum, but that commonality of identity which is in its essence and idiosyncrasy English – that’s your and my racial and national identity, by the by – is a unique and precious thing. In significance it’s right up there with the historic freedom of our land - what these days, when real shooting wars are fought so far afield, is known as the right not to get blown up on one’s way to work. It’s of a different order of significance to, say, how well-off we are – a trifling matter - or how much clout the Foreign Office carries in Europe or with the White House or whatever.

Normally – and by normally I mean at every moment in our island history before the disastrous election of Clement Atlee’s post-war Labour government – normally this Englishness I’m talking about would be understood by everybody. Bred in the bone. Not open to challenge. “Take your feelthy Gallic/Kraut/Spic hands of my identity, Monsieur/mein Herr/Signor, or I’ll despatch Wellington/Chopper Harris/Drake to bloody well sort you out.” Bulldogs and lions, “mad dogs and Englishmen”, Elgar, “this sceptred isle”, The Few, “Kiss me Hardy” ... A bit corny, I know. But not an untrue picture of our prior engagement with the world. We are, as a people, not fundamentally worried about treading upon other peoples’ feet. We’ve done an awful lot of it in our time. We have become extremely good at it. We have even learned to seem fair while we do it because it made our ventures sustaining, and that made us rich.

And all this stuff is more than just a cultural thing, I’m convinced of it. It’s in our biology. The life we lead is from the life we have. We are Northern Europeans – an awkward lot, probably, but industrious and inventive, restless, curious. In fact I think we are, with our southern relations who gave us the towering accomplishments of Greece and Rome, downright unique. I’m so convinced of that I really couldn’t give a monkey’s about Africa or a fig for the Far East.

Alright, I’m being a bit obtuse, David. Old chum. But you’re a Conservative. Or you must believe you are or you wouldn’t be trying to become leader of the Conservative Party. You must know something about what I’m saying. At the very least, you must know that nearly all your greatest Conservative heroes would certainly have done so. I mean Pitt the Younger, Castlereagh, Salisbury … even Margaret (though not, I think, Winnie - at least not in peace-time). To them Johnnie Foreigner was Johnnie Foreigner, and England and Englishness were not “ideas” based on “values” - meaning tolerance taken to the Nth degree.

And yet, what do I find you spouting today?

“Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society, and to reject the vile racism of the BNP and its like.

I mean, really! Do you actually believe that or did you just write it for effect? No, don’t tell me. Let me guess. You are a modern Conservative politician. You are hollow.

Very well, let’s look at what you have written here, at what it really means.

Obligations ... I am puzzled what you mean by that. I can accept an obligation based on shared interest. But I can’t get my poor head around the notion of an obligation where interests collide. What obligation do I have towards a man who displaces me from my home … my job? A man who takes my daughter for a wife - or less - and changes for eternity the genetic make-up of my ancient English family?

What obligation do I have towards him? That of a fellow citizen? Well, setting aside the non-trivial point that I am a subject, not a citizen – something any prospective Conservative leader ought surely to know - what fellowship can there be between me and this chap if he is not a sympathetic member of my own people but an unsympathetic alien and an Allah-worshipper? Will he look upon me with tolerance and a British sense of fair play if I take his daughter for a wife? Or less? Is that how Asian families – and Muslim Asian families at that – generally think of white citizens of the British Union of Racial Socialists screwing around with their daughters?

Personally, I doubt it. So excuse me while I act on that doubt, and feel towards my Muslim friend not an obligation to assimilate him into my household but a desire to hold myself aloof, to respect my identity and to be discriminatory towards his.

But let’s move on.

David, chum of old, when did you realise you had a liberalism problem? Still in denial, huh? Well, ask yourself whether “to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society” is really the sort of thing a Conservative should be recommending.

I mean, equal opportunities … really! Do you not sense just a teeny-weeny bit of New Labour marxism there. Come now, David, you are an intelligent man. You must have heard about IQ. Intelligence Quotient. Brain power. No? Well, it goes from an average of 59 for Guineans all the way up to You-Know-Who at 115. Pakistan has an average of … ooh, 89 or thereabouts. It isn’t enough to make equal opportunities a reality in a land of an average 100 IQ. You can beat the English over the head forever with lots of lovely, expensively governmental Affirmative Action but nothing will make an 89 mean IQ irrelevant to the structure of our economy. The English will simply end up being beaten for nothing, believe me. Racial Socialists will never bring themselves to recognise human difference. We are all born equal, doncha know?

So, does that sound very Conservative to you? Should a prospective Conservative leader be mouthing off the first false tennet of Racial Socialism? Possibly not.

And then you tell us that Islam has a mainstream version which we must accept as part of “society”. Ah, there it is again. Closet liberalism. What do you mean by “society”, David? No, let me tell you. You mean an amorphous, elastic mass without racial or cultural specificity and roughly centred on “values” such as tolerance and decency. That’s it, isn’t it? Pure New Labour.

But … fifty years ago we didn’t have “society”. We had a country and a people whose home that country was. It wasn’t filled up with over ninety racial and tribal groups and dozens of religions and cultures to suit. It wasn’t the sort of place that could accept the mainstream version of Islam, whatever that may be - if anything. It had no need of any version of Islam. It still doesn’t, frankly. But I realise that that discussion would be too strong a meat for you just now, with the leadership election looming.

I know you don’t like strong meat because the last bit of the paragraph I’ve picked out from your article enjoins us to “reject the vile racism of the BNP and its like.” Well, Davey, I’m “like” or, to be more grammatical, ilk. There’s no point in beating about the bush. If you are looking for ilk, I’m your man. I’m not alone in that, of course. You see, I’m a garrulous sort of chap and, although I say it myself, not half bad at sliding references to our New British Subjects into a whole host of my conversations in pubs, trains, shops … you name it, I’ll find a way to say the unsayable in it. Except a shabeen. I tend not to do shabeens.

But my point is that after thirty years of enjoyable conversation about Darkie I can report:-

1. One (that’s 1 … ONE … EIN … UNO) female employee of the Transport & General Workers Union who stormed out of my old gym club sauna in a huff – it didn’t bother me because I didn’t fancy her anyway, and she took her towel.

2. One elderly Marxist anthropologist and former Oxford University lecturer who foreswore herself the pleasures of intellectual battle and simple swore at me.

3. And one little bloke on a train the other day who didn’t seem to mind getting blown up by A-rabs. Or, as it turned it, by our New British Subjects.

All the rest, even the known liberals, have been a “Failed to Show” opposition-wise – and, of course, the vast majority couldn’t wait to share the forbidden fruit. My estimate is that 90 to 95% of Englishmen and women (and women, Fred) are scurrilously, vilely racist. And there’s not a damn thing you or New Labour can do about it, which is very wonderful.

That’s how it is, Chummy. Imperfectible, indomitable Human Nature. And it means that the BNP is closer to your own people on this great issue than you are. Is that good enough for the prospective leader of the Conservative Party? No, I don’t think so either.

I’m going to finish with a quote that will warm the cockles of a liberal heart. So if it warms yours, Mr Davis, you really have a problem.

(The report is a) work of profound compassion, commitment and cross-cultural understanding. (Its author is) critical of the blindness of the liberal democratic tradition to race, difference and other cultures, but he’s never dismissed it. He’s a genuine relativist in that he understands the world as composed of different but inter-related cultures, each with something profound to give, and he tries to form a bridge, while knowing that for us to live together there have to be over-arching institutions.

Those words are by Stuart Hall, the black intellectual who was in large part responsible for marxising the Birmingham School in the early 1970’s. He is praising Lord Bikhu Parekh. Specifically, he is praising Parekh’s Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain Report (pdf), published in 2000. It so horrified Tony Blair and then Home Secretary Jack Straw that they buried it faster than a cat hides doo-doo in a flowerbed.

Now, David, I don’t know what you were up to in lovely downtown Haltemprice in 2000. But I bet you were rubbing your hands with glee when you first leafed through the Parekh Report. Here’s what the Recommendation section has to say about “Addressing racisms”:-

There must be a sustained and fearless attack on all forms of racial injustice. Such injustice threatens the very basis of citizenship. Street racism and violent racism must be dealt with, but so also must institutional racism. Among other things, the latter is a major factor in the climate in which street racism and violent racism go unchecked. Due regard must be paid to racism’s different targets: anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism, anti-Gypsy racism, anti-Irish racism, antisemitism, and so on.

Notice anything funny there? They are all white “racisms”. That, basically, was the problem with the Parekh Report. It demanded far too much of the English majority for politicians’ tender stomachs. Of course, it was a product of the multicultural mindset, and we all know now that multiculturalism is as good as dead. Your article tells us the way forward is assimilationism. But how will that be done, Dave? Are we just going to sort of feel our way forward in a fog of uncertainty? Won’t work, will it? There will have to be another Commission like Parekh’s and another bulky report - like Parekh’s - recommending yet more anti-English actions to bring us all, supposedly, closer together.

It will not be acceptable to the English, that I can tell you. Nothing more on this road to racial hell is acceptable to the English. But right now, I’d say, you can’t do much to resist whatever the Racial Socialists write in that report. You have positioned yourself in precisely the wrong place. Bad politics for a prospective leader of the Conservative Party, don’t you think?

But you had your chance. You could have thought about the issue instead of the votes you need to win that job. You could have demonstrated leadership. And Conservatism. You could have shown not just the parliamentary party but the Tory supporters in the country and, indeed, the English people in general that you were not a creature of liberalism like the rest, that you were somebody worthy of leading us to the future we truly desire.

I suppose we’ve got to wait another four years for somebody else to try to pull the sword from the rock. You’ve already failed.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Areyoupissed? on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:07 | #

Remove this post please, I refer sensible people to this site, this post is seriously sub-standard

Are you pissed?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:20 | #

Example?

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:50 | #

GW, I enjoyed the conversational style of the piece.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:57 | #

Wiki-P says, “Born to a single mother in Yorkshire, Davis was initially brought up by his grandparents in York. His mother later married a Polish Jewish printworker, Ronald Davis, who had strong trade union links.” True?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:00 | #

The pass is sold, sunshine, 57 years ago—better get used to it. It’s no more use your trying to reverse the immigration since 1948 than it is my moaning because government spending is above above 10% of GDP or they passed the Reform Bill. In the real world, David Davis is not going to repeal the Reform Bill, restore a hereditary peerage with full veto rights, throw out several million immigrants or reduce the government to its proper Gladstonian size. However, he’s the most likely current possibility to give the system a shove in the right direction, and as such should be supported.

In the meantime, we should be nice to the immigrants we meet, pay our taxes, turn out to vote in by elections, and call the appropriate Tony’s cronies “My Lord.”

Don’t rock the boat is also an excellent Conservative precept.

Posted by john rackell on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:36 | #

It’s no more use your trying to reverse the immigration since 1948 than it is my moaning because government spending is above above 10% of GDP or they passed the Reform Bill.

Mr Hutchinson, I found this counsel that nothing can be done perplexing. In what sense can nothing be done?

Hopefully this doesn’t appear as a ‘low blow’ but I saw from your bio on GreatConservatives that you are very familiar with Croatia, having helped them establish financial markets there.

Here’s Charles Krauthammer’s description of how they solved their ‘ethnic incompatibility’ problem:
in four days of blitzkrieg by the Croatian army, 150 000 Serbs living in the Krajina region of Croatia were ethnically cleansed, sent running for their lives to Bosnia and Serbia.

They solved their problem in 4 days!! Against a people who had lived there for 500 hundred years.

Now all I hear is that Croatia is becoming the next French Riviera. OK so they had a little upheaval, now it’s clear sailing; we may get the same.

Your counsel is a tad ironic.

Posted by JW Holliday on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:51 | #

Martin: In the meantime, we should be nice to the immigrants we meet, pay our taxes, turn out to vote in by elections, and call the appropriate Tony’s cronies “My Lord. Don’t rock the boat is also an excellent Conservative precept.

Assuming Martin is not being ironic, then I have to say that this is just about as clearly opposite of what my advice would be:-

1. Increase balkanization by being as cold as possible to ‘newcomers’ as practically possible;

2. Don’t vote unless you have someone to vote for who represents your interests;

3. Don’t be respectful to the sell-out establishment, and rock the boat when you can, within whatever constraints you have to work under.

I’ll agree about the taxes, for obvious reasons. The biggest enemy to our survival is the “lesser of two evils” delusion.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:08 | #

Hutchinson is a defeatist and ought to be ignored, but he’s right about one thing: we aren’t going back from whence we came. The the ship we’ve travelled on for the last 500 years has sunk, our job is to get out of the mud. Or, we can choose to be helots - the path Hutchinson apparently would have us go - , and plead with our betters: Massuh please don’t hurt me no mo.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:09 | #

As for Croatia, I don’t see how you can have a viable tourist industry (in a small country) without putting up with foreigners all over the place in high season )

I part company with the majority view on this site when it ascribes all modern evils to immigration, either in Britain or the US. Diversity is in general a bad thing, it increases crime and reduces wage rates (the former resulting largely but not entirely from the latter). However the decline of British civilisation dates from much earlier, when they gave the working classes the vote. 1 man 1 vote inevitably results in the dominance of society by a bunch of knuckle-draggers, just as majoritarian culture results in modern TV and pop, and the decline of opera.

I refuse to be a racist, I like educated, cultured foreigners, and I am in principle just as keen for traditional Japanese people to enjoy kabuki as I am to enjoy Handel myself.

High fences make good neighbors; the fences are just as valuable to the neighbors as they are to me.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:12 | #

Martin, are you part of a mixed race marriage?

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:31 | #

Martin, my apologies if my question offended you. But this ‘easy come easy go’ attitude is quite common among many I know that are married, particularly, to Oriental women.

> I refuse to be a racist, I like educated, cultured foreigners

I would guess most of the contributors here at MR are not isolated rednecks from Oklahoma (an unfairly maligned group). I would guess, most have degrees of one sort or another, and most, I’d guess, are well travelled.

It just so happens I’ve been to many places in Asia. It is not as you might claim a lack of contact with non-whites that has stimulated my calls for race realism.

I recall what James Q. Wilson said:

The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western Culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important.

Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:32 | #

I also agree with the adage that high fences make good neighbors, though my preference would be to put up a fence around all White countries. Screw the “neighbors”.

In all seriousness Martin, your proposal would get us to where we are now in another century or so. We repatriate most of the third worlders and other immigrants except for the “educated and cultured foreigners”. They breed and grow as we know how effective they are in this regard. Just a few short years down the road when most of us racial realists are dead and buried, these model foreigners will be large enough of a group to force legal and governmental changes that favor them. Martin, it isn’t as if we haven’t seen this movie before. We are living it right now and I absolutely REFUSE to allow it to happen again after we wrestle away the “control” from the insane liberal ideologues. If your vision ever comes to pass, then we deserve our eventual extinction due to a lack of the “self-preservation gene”.

BTW, I am a racist and so are you. It appears the label is placed upon anyone who mentions race in anything other than a favorable light. So accept it and embrace it, because no leftist will ever call you anything other than “racist”, or “Nazi”, or “Hitler”, or “klansman”. No matter how articulate and verifiable your argument may be.

Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:36 | #

GW, I thoroughly enjoyed your letter. I hope he at least reads it.

Posted by Phil on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:38 | #

I part company with the majority view on this site when it ascribes all modern evils to immigration

But Martin reduces all problems to $$$$:

Diversity is in general a bad thing, it increases crime and reduces wage rates (the former resulting largely but not entirely from the latter)

And then

I refuse to be a racist

You’re against Diversity, but youre also against Racism? I can’t square that circle Martin. Please could you elaborate?

I like educated, cultured foreigners, and I am in principle just as keen for traditional Japanese people to enjoy kabuki as I am to enjoy Handel myself.

That would be like saying all Russians are great writers because I enjoy Tolstoy.

Actually I am not totally opposed to a miniscule number of foreigners in Britain if they were of the calibre of a Newton or a Bach or a Mozart and their numbers never moved beyond a miniscule number.

But what we have actually got are hordes of Negroes (at the worst end) and Chinese shopkeepers (at the better end). I can live without either of those, thank you. To say that we should be “nice” to immigrants and keep voting for the stupid Tories is basically surrender to our fate - an admission that we are washed up and finished. I might as well vote Liberal Democrat instead of voting Tory. If one has to indulge in immorality, why not get the best whore?

No, I shall remain a racist, thank you.

Posted by Phil on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:39 | #

David,

Great stuff. I hope you send it to the bugger.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:40 | #

Martin,

I am not an immoral man for wanting to secure my country for its native people. But that is morally reprehensible to a liberal. What of it?

You say, “I refuse to be a racist.” You really should not allow your sensibilities to be decided in this way by the defective mentation of liberals. Cleave instead to the sound beliefs and principles of our fathers. They are a better guide to what is right.

The issue of elitism is, again, a false determinant when viewing the grave harm that is being done to our country - I don’t know whether you still hold an English passport, but anyway “our country” is no doubt meaningful to you still. It is mostly an unknown land to the elites, the educates, the powerful. They are unaffected by the delights of Third Worldification. They think they understand it travelling to the office and back.

A few days ago I blogged here about a piece in the Telegraph by Mark Steyn. In it he wrote that 10,000 Somalis, having been due to be deported from France as illegals, have settled in Leicester ... 10,000 just like that! Our elites will not be troubled, no doubt. They can ascribe to their elitist selves the luxury of refusing to become morally reprehensible to liberals. But you may ask yourself whether the “racist” natives or the elites are the more reprehensible.

For myself, I cannot turn my back on my countrymen. My roots are in the working class. They are my racists, God bless them.

Posted by Amon on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:47 | #

Diversity…increases crime

The diversity and crime link is not as strong as you’d think—at least not here in the states. There are 29 states with higher crime rates than California, which is the most diverse state. And while the USA has been getting more and more diverse, its 2000 crime rate was the lowest that it’s been since 1972.

High crime rates are more to blame on leftist policies than anything else.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:53 | #

Amon, does your assertion contradict these findings: The Color of Crime (pdf).

Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:01 | #

As for Croatia, I don’t see how you can have a viable tourist industry (in a small country) without putting up with foreigners all over the place in high season

Tourists and permanent residents are two, completely separate issues.

Posted by Amon on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:09 | #

Geoff:

Yes, non-Asian minorities have relatively high crime rates. But the connection between diversity and crime is weak, while the connection between crime and crime policies, social norms, and demographic trends (e.g. a large increase in adolescent and young adult males per capita) is extremely strong.

The USA’s crime rate started going up in 1960 (maybe even earlier), and it has recently begun to drop, despite steadily increasing diversity.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:26 | #

Yep, authoritarianism can trump diversity’s natural tendency to increase crime.*

Yippee.

* (one wonders if that’s part of the attraction of diversity for some)

Diversity increases distrust. Ingroups naturally feel less sympathy towards outgroups, and naturally this lack of feeling contributes to crime.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:27 | #

Tourists and permanent residents are two, completely separate issues.

As are white and non-white tourists.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:40 | #

Amon,

Do you think a substantial amount of crime committed by, say, Blacks on Blacks, or Asian on Asian goes unreported in White majority nations?

If you are suggesting that homogenous white societies are more crime ridden than “diverse” societies I’d say you were full of crap. There is simply know why I’d believe that, no matter how many spreadsheets can produce.

Posted by amon on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:36 | #

Do you think a substantial amount of crime committed by, say, Blacks on Blacks, or Asian on Asian goes unreported in White majority nations?

I think that almost anyone would report a crime, regardless of the race of the person who did it. I can’t imagine a Black woman being mugged and deciding not to report the mugging just because her mugger was Black.

If you are suggesting that homogenous white societies are more crime ridden than “diverse” societies I’d say you were full of crap. There is simply know why I’d believe that, no matter how many spreadsheets can produce.

Some people say that former communist countries—many of which are homogenous—DO have some of the highest crime rates in the world. Additionally, the UK was 93% White in the 2001 Census, and has a crime rate significantly higher than the USA’s, even though the USA was 69% White in the 2000 Census. There’s probably some positive correlation between high crime rates and diversity, but it’s probably a weak one.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:55 | #

I think you are very naive, these immigrant groups, especially Mexicans and SW Asians, have a profound distrust of cops. They know cops to be venal, corrupt, and sadistic. They know too, the judicial system is rigged and exploitive. Where these people come from - only justice can be had with a bribe. C’mon, don’t be so naive.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:10 | #

In response to the “wives” question I’ve had three: Jewish South African, American Irish and Bulgarian. I might try Asian next. I also spent 3 years in Singapore as a child, and I have to say that country is far more “civilised” than either Britain or the US, with excellent classical music and TV announcers speaking in coherent sentences and beautiful educated accents. I don’t plan to go live there though, since I’m not Singaporean.

My ancesters were working class, too—not an aristocrat among them. Having worked our way out, we’ve no plans to go back.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:43 | #

Martin,

In 1986 I briefly toured Holland and Germany, and I was shocked the by the druggies and degenerates, many Morrocan but others of the local variety.

I’ve also travelled more extensively in Japan, Singapore, and Thailand. Yes, I’m often impressed by the public order in those societies (not so much Thailand).

Still, I acknowledge the declining state of my people, but my reaction is the opposite of yours - I want to pull us out of the mud.

That apparently is not on your agenda, well have a sip of champagne and cheerio, and all that.

I’m not leaving here until Mexican hordes force me out or I die.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:49 | #

“In the real world, David Davis is not going to repeal the Reform Bill, restore a hereditary peerage with full veto rights, throw out several million immigrants or reduce the government to its proper Gladstonian size. However, he’s the most likely current possibility to give the system a shove in the right direction,” (—Martin “Sunshine” Hutchinson; emphasis added)

Just so! A shove in the right direction! What movement in history didn’t start with exactly that, at its very beginnings? None! Not one! Haven’t you heard that “Little strokes fell great oaks,” Martin? Or, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step”? “Well-begun is half-done”? “Whatever can be done can be undone”? (And so on ... you can look them all up ...)

“I refuse to be a racist, I I like educated, cultured foreigners, and I am in principle just as keen for traditional Japanese people to enjoy kabuki as I am to enjoy Handel myself. High fences make good neighbors; the fences are just as valuable to the neighbors as they are to me.”

But who disputes any of that, Martin? Certainly none of the “racists” here! I don’t, and I’m sure no one does.

“Geoff: Yes, non-Asian minorities have relatively high crime rates. But the connection between diversity and crime is weak, “ (—Amon)

In other words, Amon is telling us that our choice is between being race-replaced by low-crime Chinamen and educated Hindus and Pakis on the one hand, and on the other, by high-crime Negroes, Mexicans, Moroccans, and Paki proles. That’s our choice, according to him: race-replacement by one or the other ...

Gee, I dunno which to choose, Amon—can I have more time to think about it? ...

“Amon, [...] If you are suggesting that homogenous white societies are more crime ridden than ‘diverse’ societies I’d say you were full of crap. There is simply no way I’d believe that, no matter how many spreadsheets can produce.” (—Geoff Beck)

Don’t yellows commit less crime than whites? So, I imagine Amon has a point—a previously all-Euro society that gets half-race-replaced with yellows will see its crime rate drop. But ... I think I’ll take the white crime rate and keep my community and nation-state the same, Amon—that is, if you don’ t mind ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:01 | #

“My estimate is that 90 to 95% of Englishmen and women (and women, Fred) are [realistic on racial and immigration issues].” (—from the log entry)

Point taken, GW, and thanks for correcting me if I’ve been wrong about that. I only hope they’ll start voting sensibly on this issue for a change and not just voting, but indicating in public opinion polls that the party need not veer ever more leftward on issues of race, immigration, and so on in order to attract women voters. I just hope that will be the case.

(Excellent log entry, by the way—one of your best.)

Posted by amon on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:45 | #

Jared Taylor of Amren.com was once on The Queen Latifah Show (see the video clip here). On it he said that the government called Americans and asked them if they’ve been a victim of crime, what the crime was, and the race of the person who committed the crime. As far as I remember, Taylor claimed that the survey results mirrored the actual, reported crime statistics. This is evidence, albeit weak evidence, that people do report close to all crimes.

But honestly, I think that a Mexican woman would be equally likely to report a White, Black, Mexican, or Asian criminal.

Gee, I dunno which to choose, Amon—can I have more time to think about it? ...

No—you don’t have to let in non-Whites at all. But WNs are inconsistent on IQ and crime arguments. They claim that some groups should be barred from emigrating because they have low IQs and high crime rates. Since they think low IQs and high crime rates are bad, they should also think that high IQs and low crime rates are good. Yet, WNs are also against letting in groups with high IQs and low crime rates, too! So obviously the IQ and crime arguments are rationalizations against diversity, not actual reasons.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:39 | #

Not quite, Amon. You are painting the whole house with one brush. Jews are seen by WN’s as problematic because of their ethnocentric strategies. Blacks are highly individualistic but that doesn’t mean they are welcome among WN’s. Maybe you should diversify your thinking there.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:03 | #

Surely you aren’t this stupid sir. Maybe you should go and preach diversity and multiculturalism to these societies, and work to put Jewry in charge of their mass media. Then they can invite in millions of aliens and we can all observe the effects first hand.

This kind of arrogance and stupidity is just shocking to me. This clown (you are a clown sir) actually thinks… never mind, it’s too obvious to even waste time on.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:12 | #

No—you don’t have to let in non-Whites at all. But WNs are inconsistent on IQ and crime arguments.

Many WNs have a tenuous grasp on WNism. Try arguing with our best arguments, that saves time.

We want our own space because we want our race to persist. We don’t want others in it because their presence contradicts this desire.

Simple, isn’t it?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:35 | #

Svigor, I guess you aren’t an opera fan…

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:18 | #

I’m definitely not an ad hom fan. I apologize for calling you a clown. Your behavior was clownish, but that doesn’t make you a clown.

Posted by Kubilai on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:34 | #

I think Martin is a perfect example of a man who has his heart in the right place, yet has been infected with the “there are good immigrants” meme. There are no shortage of people like him. People who want have their countries back to the way they were prior to the insanity. Yet, they still cannot see that the Apus and Wongs will devour our nations eventually, despite being “good immigrants”.

With regards to “yobs” or white trash or whatever term one uses for “undesirable” whites. I view them AS US. I do not view an Apu or Wong AS ME, despite equal IQs or socioeconomic levels.

Posted by amon on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:47 | #

With regards to “yobs” or white trash or whatever term one uses for “undesirable” whites. I view them AS US. I do not view an Apu or Wong AS ME, despite equal IQs or socioeconomic levels.

Not quite, Amon. You are painting the whole house with one brush. Jews are seen by WN’s as problematic because of their ethnocentric strategies. Blacks are highly individualistic but that doesn’t mean they are welcome among WN’s. Maybe you should diversify your thinking there.

OK, high crime rates and low IQs are a problem for some groups, but not others. But WNs should just come right out and say what Svigor said (quoted below), since it’s actually their main reason for not wanting Blacks, Arabs, Hispanics (etc) in their WN. IQ and crime seem to be of almost no concern to WNs—after all, they’re willing to let in an infinite number of the worst-of-the-worst Whites, despite their IQs and crime rate.

We want our own space because we want our race to persist. We don’t want others in it because their presence contradicts this desire.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:11 | #

after all, they’re willing to let in an infinite number of the worst-of-the-worst Whites, despite their IQs and crime rate.

Mmm, not quite. There are WNs who go in for the “white is white is white” bit, but I’m not one of them. The closer a people is to the native people in terms of genetics and culture, the better, but I’m for the preservation of intra-white groups too. I don’t see why Italians or the Swiss should have to disappear in order to save the lot.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:14 | #

Also, I’m far more concerned than the average person with the propensity of groups towards high crime and low IQ, but these aren’t my WN raison d’etre; the two (EGI and cognitive elitism) can coexist y’know.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments