Individualism and its discontents

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 27 August 2005 00:52.

The robust – I might say characteristically robust – response from a number of MR people to John’s “jolly Indian” post set me thinking about the problem of Individualism. And it is a problem for us. Not so much, perhaps, in cases such as Razib’s, who today answered a query about “the substantive difference between you (Razib) and the Majority Rights crowd” as:-

“Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights”

Now, I agree with Razib here. MR is primarily a vehicle to discuss the present and future life of Western Man, while GNXP argues for “Eastern Man’s” interests in the West and ONLY in the West by commending to us the lot of an atomised individual. (And if you are offended by that recommendation, you bloody well should be. It is offensive.)

Offensive he may be, but Razib is no evil genius. He is an uncomplicated young guy pursuing his “individual rights” in an entirely predictable way, and I don’t disdain him for that. I do disdain him, along with all GNXPers, for acting like the worst leftist and blackening our names for doing what we can to defend our group interests. But if he and we can agree that he does it in the name of a competing interest – he doesn’t want to be excluded just because we prefer our own kind – then at least we all know where we are coming from. Namely, the Salterism which GNXP’s David B so utterly failed to disprove or discredit because it can’t be disproved or discredited. It is manifestly true.

OK, then, the MR “crowd” has a mission to argue for the rights of the majority in the West. But there are plenty of perfectly thoughtful Westerners who yearn for some version of the salad bowl every bit as much as Razib does. These awkward, infuriating people are more of a “problem” to us than a clever, self-serving brown guy.

One does not have to travel very far towards the left to encounter them. There are various degrees of Conservative and libertarian who, whilst not self-haters like left-liberals, are quite obsessive about the sovereignty of the individual.

Note that I am not talking here about that gentle preference for the individual over the group which is a feature of traditional Conservatism. The Individualism at issue in this post completely smashes group interests, indeed only exists because it does so. One of the keys to understanding why people of this ilk are so obstinately set against “racial collectivism” is precisely because what they think they have would be robbed from them if group allegiance was acknowledged. They are wrong, of course. They are, frankly, fools. They have succumbed to freedom taken too far … another form of liberalism.

I myself, along with Charles Copeland, was banished over a year ago from these folks’ presence at the uber-libertarian blog Samizdata. We had, it is true, been engaged in a year-long Rushtonian educational campaign. We were not playing by their rules and they were entitled to rid themselves of us.

But believe me, these people will not accept that the individual – any and every individual - is other than a demi-god in waiting. I reckon that a good number of them, perhaps most, think this because they like to be big-shots in their own estimation. This is a second key to understanding them. One imagines they – by which I mean only the European Caucasians amongst them - are not good at humility. The beating heart of uber-libertarianism is spiritual inflation, and the blood it pumps is pure intellectual arrogance. Tell them that Man is a tragic and limited creature subject to a low-wattage version of consciousness and, therefore, a shocking inability to be and they’ll retort that you are pathetically ignorant of Popper’s promised land. Tell them why blacks tend to un-intellectuality and a fascination with groin movements, and will never make any promised land and, boy, the accusations fly. Liberals, whether of right or left, never behave nicely when their house of cards is blown down.

This strain of Individualism in Western life is not new. But in past centuries there have been opportunities for such people to go off and discover something or fight someone, practise bigamy, attend séances or just retire to live the life of an English eccentric. These are people discontented with the life of the ordinary. They crave something more for themselves. They are unconventional of heart … but not of mind. There is, unfortunately, nothing unconventional today about those who consider the defence of their own group interests illegitimate, racist etc. It has not occurred to them that the collectivism they should indeed disdain is not racial – that’s simply Nature at work in us. No, the one which offends against the human spirit is the unconscious adoption of moral attitudes … liberal sensibilities which so often go unquestioned and which cause the Individual to falsely ascribe moral superiority to himself.

As a rule it is freedom from liberal sensibilities – meaning the possession of commonsense – which really distinguishes whole men and women from these Individuals. For me, a most basic article of commonsense is family kinship and loyalty to one’s wider kin. And nothing on earth will shift me from that happy conviction.

Of course, I shall never be an Individual.

Tags: Libertarianism

Comments:

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:44 | #

The summery is great, the Ethnic groups are not interested in the Kin ship of western Nations, just what they can take from that nation, and how best to manipulate the system to serve their own interests and purposes. The inevertable problem is the very nature of ethnic communities is they all function in different ways, so One culture becomes a few hundred and all are moving in different directions, so then the Western Nations, lets face it WHITE ANGLO, end up being fractured, disloyal citizens that have no tie to or Kinship or contributed gang up and “Bang”, It is gone. Is this the Third World Reich, and then what? Sure, Liberals will eventually become the victims of their own bastard child, a bit late then is it not.

Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:52 | #

I probably should do a separate post on this but the response to my last one was disappointing. I expected far more furious cries of rage than I got. Even Fred was penitent!

I just want to point out that respect for the individual does NOT go with denial of group differences. I was pointing to the lower average IQ of negroes before some people here were born.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:22 | #

Indeed. I can supply one interesting example of this (forgive the length of the post but I think it’s worth reading).

In 1828 Elizabeth Fenton sailed from India to join her ex-Army husband in Tasmania.

She set sail in an Arab ship. Whilst discussing the captain she wrote,

“He has one European on board who holds the office of chief mate. He makes me quite melancholy.

“He is English by name and complexion, but his tastes, manners, and his scruples, not to say his religion, are Arab.

“He is the son of a Scotch clergyman, but for many years has been leading his present life, trading between Muscat and Mozambique.

“His taste seems to lie in laying bare the unsightly movements of the human heart and crushing its better feelings, or dwelling on them with bitterness and ridicule.

“His converse turns on murders, executions, shipwrecks, his reading is the works of Voltaire and Paine, of which he has just read enough to unsettle his own belief.

“Poor fellow! though it always makes me nervous to hear him speak, I pity him too; he may not always have been what he now is; has he been made this [way] by disappointment or alienation from the humanising relationships of life?”

England was fortunate, was she not, to lose this particular individual to a life on the high seas in 1828.

Much better to have the delightful Mrs Fenton come to settle Tasmania and to leave the Painite clergyman’s son on board the Arab trader.

Posted by Mrs. Blessed on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:29 | #

Great post, GW. I think most of these people suffer less from an inflated ego than from a disappointing family life. They don’t get along with their parents or siblings, and they know they prefer the company of strangers to their own kin, so they think that racial interests are silly, since their own immediate blood ties are so fraught with pain.

White parents must start raising their kids to love each other. Sibling respect and agreement is a habit like all others, but it is one that Western men seem to have forgotten.

These types of people worship the individual, because they feel they are self-made men, and they are probably right. They are the products of day orphanages and alientating public schools. From their earliest memory they have been shunted into age-segregated groups and there they take their comfort—not from family and hearth and home. Why would they have any interest in Whites as a general group when the Whites from their own family are so alien to them?

I have been meaning to write more about this issue, since I do think this is the root of the problem. Whites are ambivalent about their race because they are ambivalent about their families. Perhaps one day I will take the time. Probably not, since I don’t want my daughter to spend too much time away from me.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:33 | #

If it’s OK to commit genocide against white Euros in the interest of putting individual rights above group rights as Razib phrases it, it must be OK to do to everyone else, no? So ... when’s China opening up one of its provinces to unlimited white-Euro immigration with the goal of race-replacement? Will that be soon? I expect so, since fair’s fair and white race-replacement is already so far along ... And not only opening up one of their provinces to unlimited white immigration, but putting legally-mandated racial preferences into effect which blatantly favor whites over the native Chinamen in that province for jobs and so on, while at the same time muzzling any native Chinamen who wish to openly question what’s going on, by means of hate-speech laws and skillful propaganda techniques involving demonizing them as racists for merely questioning it. When’s all that gonna happen? Which race, which nationality specifically, is next on the list for replacement? I want to know. I demand to know. Notice how the other side never answers that question. Jason Soon? GC? David B? Arcane? Anyone? They won’t answer because the name of the game here is white race-replacement while every other race keeps itself intact.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:43 | #

“Even Fred was penitent!”

Not penitent. Exhausted. Ten months of putting up with your going round and round in your damned infernal circles would drain anybody, John.

Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:53 | #

My apologies Fred.
But I will convert you yet!

LOL

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:11 | #

I just want to point out that respect for the individual does NOT go with denial of group differences.

What’s the point?

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:26 | #

More B.S. from Razib

I disagree with Razib in regard to the major distinction between MR and GNXP alleged to be one of “Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights.” Strong support for individual rights is most extensively a Northwestern European trait, and the best guarantor of continued strong population-level support for individual rights is to ensure a predominant white majority in the West.

Razib has himself pointed out repeatedly that a number of Moslem terrorists/terrorist sympathizers are well-educated and even hold professional degrees, i.e., even limiting Moslem migrants to Europe to those who are educated on par with European whites is to undermine public-level support for individual rights, given the nature of Islam. Additionally, few would dispute that the Japanese or Chinese are more ethnocentric than whites, and greater ethnocentrism tends to correspond to a less individualistic perspective. I hardly need to say anything about the not-well-educated or low-IQ non-whites in this regard. In other words, promoting the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests of whites also simultaneously promotes/promises to maximally uphold strong public-level support for individual rights, whereas promoting the interests of non-whites in the sense of allowing large numbers of them to take advantage of the better living condition in the West undermines the strength of public-level support for individual rights in the West.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 08:20 | #

Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights

That formulation can be traced to the ideas of third rate writers like John Stuart Mill in the 19th century and fifth rate writers like Rand in the 20th century.

Rand is a sort of cult-hero for these “individualists”. Here is a good summary of Randism from a professor at the University of Chicago[1]:

There is always a girl who mentions Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead”, a book, although hardly literature, which with its sub-Nietzschean assertiveness excites somewhat eccentric youngsters to a new way of life.

This isn’t freedom in the sense of the freedom of a great people. This is Razib’s freedom to watch porn in the dark without government interference. A mixture of an opinion of security and licence to do as you please – so long as you don’t hurt anyone.

This, the “educated” Razib Khan will tell us is the greatest accomplishment of the West.

Education has a hit a real low in the West, hasn’t it?

[1] Closing of the American Mind

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 08:24 | #

“Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights”

Disingenuous. He pretends never to have heard of Hamilton.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:42 | #

The right not to be forced to endure the imposed change of one’s unconsulted, unwilling community’s or nation’s race is an individual right, not a group right. That that right hasn’t been explicitly mentioned in the U.N.‘s documents isn’t surprising considering who some of the people were who wrote those documents—people like Prof. Ashley Montagu, a Jew suffering from the Jewish Race-Denial Disease (a disease that strikes gentiles as well but in the Jewish ethnic group is endemic—virtually universal among them—and takes on an intensity not seen in its gentile sufferers, the intensity of a fanatical religion actually) who was denying race as early as the 1930s, wrote a book calling race a dangerous fallacy in 1942, and authored the U.N.‘s policy on race in 1950—small wonder if certain individual rights in regard to the race of communities didn’t find their way into the U.N.‘s founding documents ...).

Try going to GnXp, by the way, and questioning the group rights of the Chinese or Subcons. See what kind of reception you get ... That’s group rights, not individual rights ... Try it some time ...

Posted by Phil on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:47 | #

Fred,

Race replacement will never be an issue in the Third World because people will never want to move to those wretched hell-holes. The movement of people will always be in only one direction - towards the West.

Therefore, trying to pin the GNXP types on this issue is pointless because it will only ever arise hypothetically. It won’t ever arise in reality.

And in the limited (and very small) parts of Asia where people might want to move in large numbers - like Japan, South Korea, Sinagpore or Hong Kong, moving is probably harder than breaking into a Prussian fortress.

Posted by sr on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:34 | #

Bravo, GW. Now, why can’t I write like that? Unconventional of heart, but not of mind—clever connexion with British eccentricity—where did I read the story of the man in the London suburbs whose house was surrounded by a moat? It was something literary.

Posted by sr on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:47 | #

Oh, and Phil? Rand is a terrible writer and no kind of intellectual, but did you have to quote Alan Bloom? I mean, which two people would you add to Bloom and Rand if you rewrote “Huit Clos”? Read Bellow’s “Ravelstein” if you don’t know what Bloom was really like.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:07 | #

Sr,

I know that Bloom was Homosexual if that’s what you are referring to.

Posted by razib on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:09 | #

Disingenuous. He pretends never to have heard of Hamilton.

TOC, why do you prattle on about hamilton so much while posting on this blog but fail to divulge to people that you are han chinese? we did a trace on your IP and it is clearly in china and we also matched it another commenter who identified himself as chinese.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:51 | #

*tsk* *tsk*, you show up and poke your head out just for that? For an ad hom?

I for one don’t mind non-whites supporting racial nationalism. Why should I? One of my few universal beliefs is racial nationalism.

This is a consistent strawman of the GnXp crowd, how we’re somehow “hypocrites” for wanting to even speak to non-whites.

Talk about totally missing the point. I guess that’s inevitable when one ignores a group of people and censors them, rather than engaging them under traditional rules; one ends up knowing nothing about them.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:54 | #

Personally, I am disappointed in ToC (assuming you’re telling the truth), but only because we had to learn this from you (or are we just learning this?), now.

If he is Han, I think that’s great!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:22 | #

Whether or not you’re right about TOC, Razib, there are Chinamen and Subcons out there who are fair. You, for example, always showed me fairness (though others here say they had different experiences). “BC,” a U.S. Subcon of Hindu family background (or, he has Hindu first and last names, at any rate) who used to post at the Poe Forum, was an extremely fair person, fair to both whites and Subcons. The second and last time your colleague banned me from GnXp in what can only be described as a psychotic outburst on his part, I was defended by a semi-regular poster there with a Hindu pen name, who posted a comment saying, “Godless, why was Unadorned’s reply to you deleted? Please restore it and respond to it.” There are some people who are capable of seeing and acknowledging the legitimate interests of races different from their own and sticking up for them—though of course they would and should stick up for their own the most. I personally would certainly acknowledge and stick up for the rights of yellow and Subcon nationalities if they were being immigrationed-to-death demographically as whites are being in the West right now. I’d be outraged by it on their behalf. There are certainly yellows and browns out there who are in complete sympathy with the views broadly expressed at MR.com. (Your colleague GC will never be in that category.)

If ToC is Han maybe he learned to hate government race-manipulators as a result of the Nanking University riots which were touched off by student unrest over Leviathan’s forcing them to accept African Negro exchange students sleeping with Chinese girls. Maybe he was impressed by the fact that the Tien An Men riots in Peking were an outgrowth of the unrest at Nanking a few months perviously—the student-age Han race had had enough of their government telling them they were forbidden to make so much as a peep of protest over the behavior of thousands of African students vis-à-vis the Han women students on campus. That sounds like a pretty good reason for someone to be mad at Leviathan.

Posted by Commenter on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:40 | #

Razib expects us to be stunned that someone posting here may be non-white. My guess is that he thinks we are neo-Nazis. In reality, we want to be left alone and to be able to shape our own future.

If we are Nazis, then the vast majority of people in the non-white world are Nazis too because they also look out for their own kind and don’t want to be invaded. It is the mass murder of the Nazis that made them terrible, not being ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is found in virtually all countries and is very likely a natural tendency of man.

Just as loving one’s own family is natural and healthy so is having a fondness for one’s own people.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:45 | #

Yeah Scroob, the real cause of the Tianenmen square events is definitely an eye-opener.

It’s an eye-opener simply because we’re not allowed to know the facts, because us kiddies apparently can’t handle the truth.

The infamous Tokyo subway sarin attacks have a similar pedigree; they were committed by an anti-Semitic cult that believed in a Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

The fact that this is hidden from us doesn’t make certain folks look very good. Jews normally screech anti-Semitism from the mountaintops, even when it isn’t true, but here they suffer in silence. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that this is due to the potential cognitive dissonace that arises from Japanese anti-Semitism. There’s a big “wtf?” factor there that they’d rather not address.

Posted by razib on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:08 | #

Razib expects us to be stunned that someone posting here may be non-white.

not necessarily. we get racial nationalists of all sorts at GNXP, though the non-whites who express such views no doubt do not identify as such because their views are not held in such opprobrium as whites. it was simply brought to my attention by GC (who TOC has previously claimed personal communication with on this blog from what i recall, quite falsely) that there were semantic similarities between TOC and another poster who was chinese. we simply traced the IP when TOC posted on our blog under that name.

i am aware there are non-whites who post here regularly. TOC might be one of them, but why does he do so in a crypto fashion in a forum where personal racial identification is held to be highly salient?

i wouldn’t have brought this up, but TOC has previously claimed that GC left GNXP because he understood the implications of hamilton’s inclusive fitness (salter’s ideas specifically) and communicated that via personal email. that’s not true on either point. whether it is or isn’t relevant to you that TOC might be han chinese doesn’t matter to me, i’m sure GW can check the IP himself and see if it is a chinese one.

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:07 | #

Razib,

Boy, am I glad to see you respond at MR! However, please do a better job of defending yourself against criticism of your ideas, especially the idea that got this thread started by GW. Besides, your belief that “personal racial identification is held to be highly salient” at MR is not at all true for a number of MR bloggers/commentators. Personally, I am usually uninterested in what race my critic belongs to; my main interest is in the contents of the criticism. I would also like to add that it appears that both you and Godless Capitalist read MR in some detail, which pleases me. There is plenty of good reading material at MR, isn’t it?

I checked the IP records of some postings by TOC, and he has used different IP addresses, all of them originating in China. Does this necessarily imply that TOC is Han Chinese? I don’t think so. Some whites live in China. Alternatively, TOC could simply be using Chinese proxies to disguise his real IP address. If TOC is really a Han Chinese, I would be very interested in getting to know more about his psychology. Judging by his postings, if his postings express his true sentiments and he happens to be non-white, then it could be said that he is interested in the welfare of whites, even if being pro-white undermines the interests of non-whites to some extent. This attitude goes beyond the mere acknowledgement on the part of some non-whites that whites—just like other ethnic groups—have a right to work toward improving their welfare. Now, I know of some whites who collude with non-whites to undermine the interests of whites, but I have never encountered a non-white equivalent of such whites, and this should explain why I am interested in the psychology of TOC if indeed he is non-white and his postings have expressed his true feelings. TOC, you should comment on this issue.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:50 | #

Mr. Khan must concede his quote is a *disingenuous* call for those whom oppose his interests to engage in unilateral (and irrational) disarmament. No response shall be interpreted as a total concession (which anyway would be the final result in a fair debate).

GNXP’s false or misleading positions on immigration, miscegenation, group/kin selection, JQ, deserve universal criticism (white or otherwise)- just can’t do it over there. Less a science site on those topics than lie amplifier.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:05 | #

JR:

Regarding psychology, there is nothing to it. Simply, when in Rome(or on MR), do as… -that sums it up. Why MR? Becuz it’s like GNXP (HBD realism), plus realism on kinship dynamics. As we know GNXP is not truthful on matters regarding the latter.

Posted by just asking on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:22 | #

But, are a Han Chinese?

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:36 | #

TOC,

I suppose your comments above are an indirect confirmation that you are Han Chinese. If so, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised. Since you mention “while in Rome, do as Romans do,” I need to point out that you do not have to agree with everything at MR. If you encounter any unfair portrayal of Asians on my part in the future, feel free to critique it.

Razib,

I especially thank you for your comments above because you have embarrassed Godless Capitalist even more. I have previously pointed out that Godless Capitalist took part of a comment by TOC out of context to portray MR as a Nazi blog. Guess what? In addition to GC’s malfeasance in the form of taking the passage out of context, it turns out that TOC is not white and unintentionally gave fodder to GC due to his limited English proficiency, whereby instead of writing to the effect of the need of the hour being to carry out or execute non-criminal plans, TOC wrote:

We know what we have to do, it now comes down to executing, not debating nonwhites.

Thank you again, Razib!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:54 | #

“then it could be said that he is interested in the welfare of whites, even if being pro-white undermines the interests of non-whites to some extent.” (—J. Richards)

I definitely don’t see it that way. Wouldn’t that be like saying being pro-law-and-order undermines the interests of those who want to commit crime? Being pro-law-and-order protects everyone. It undermines no one. We’re all protected from crime. Being pro-white in the sense J. Richards means here—defending legitimate white-race interests even if you’re not white, as, let’s say, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell do—is the same as being anti-street-pickpocket: it defends everyone from getting his pocket picked. The same yellow who defends legitimate white interests will presumably defend legitimate yellow ones all the more vigorously. What’s wrong with the way GC runs GnXp is it takes the position that “We’re against browns and yellows getting their pockets picked by pickpockets as they walk down the street but we’re in favor of whites getting theirs picked and if any whites dare come here to protest that we’ll treat them like scum for so doing.” What I would say would be “I don’t think browns, yellows, or whites should be subjected to getting their pockets picked,” and there are yellows and browns who agree with that—maybe TOC, if he’s yellow, is one. They know that the law that protects us protects them. It’s called being principled, something GC knows nothing about and never will.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:13 | #

“We know what we have to do, it now comes down to executing, not debating nonwhites.”

Yes, I remember reading that when it was first posted and to me, who am a native English speaker, it didn’t occur to me for an instant it meant other than executing “what we know we have to do,” i.e., executing our plans. Furthermore, ToC recently came here to affirm that was his meaning. Finally, if you go back through the GnXp archives with a fine-tooth comb you’ll find plenty there which was the equivalent of the interpretation GC wrongly put on those words, only directed against whites and perhaps using lightly-disguised language. I’d seen plenty of it up to the point where I stopped reading that site a couple of years ago (if they’ve cleaned up their act since, I wouldn’t know)—which was OK with me: I can take it, I have a very thick skin, and it was a rough-and-tumble site where all opinions could be expressed. But what hit me like a ton of bricks on the occasion of my second and sickest banning by GC was that GC identified with non-whites against whites in this racial war that’s going on—he was not at least neutral. Once that hit me—once I saw that GC intended GnXp to be a site for anti-white non-whites, at which whites were forbidden to defend themselves—I left that site and never looked at it again. Whites who blog there like the openly-race-denying David B., the extreme radical leftist Randy MacDonald, and the extended phenotype Birch Barlow, are, as I just characterized them, all either explicit race-deniers, extreme radical leftists, or extended phenotypes.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:25 | #

“*tsk* *tsk*, you show up and poke your head out just for that? For an ad hom?”

Why are you surprised? This is exactly how they operate, i.e. without honour.

GC, arguably the biggest piece of shit floating around in cyberspace, even went so far as to make public (and on another forum than gnxp) a private email that I foolishly wrote to him.

To expect a different sort of behaviour from the above specimens is not to know them well enough or long enough.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:47 | #

“GC, arguably the biggest piece of shit floating around in cyberspace,”

I agree with this.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:14 | #

I need to point out that you do not have to agree with everything at MR.

I consider most of the analysis at MR to be theoretically sound, or at least close enough to the mark. The only exception is JJR’s irritatingly leftist position on immigration. Theoretically speaking a healthy nation imports few or even zero people. By immigration I am referring to the grant of citizenship only- temporary and potentially mutually beneficial flow of tourists, businessmen and researchers is normal and ok.

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:32 | #

Fred Scrooby,

When I mentioned “…even if being pro-white undermines the interests of non-whites to some extent,” I didn’t have law and order in mind; I was thinking of non-white immigration to the West from the perspective of non-whites who live in non-Western societies and would like to reside in the West. Large-scale non-white immigration to the West undermines the interests of whites but generally benefits many non-whites because of the better living conditions in Western societies and the availability of welfare benefits.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:52 | #

Large-scale non-white immigration to the West undermines the interests of whites but generally benefits many non-whites

But it is not accidental, like some malfunctioning ATM that spits out free cash- in which case it might be odd to complain. If one believes KMD its part of a global agenda, in which case it is better for most ethnic groups that it is 1) identified, becoming part of public knowledge, and thus 2) stopped. Those benefits far exceed any marginal gains from immigration into other nations.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments