Prologue to a déjà vu?

Ian Jobling needs little or no introduction. He’s known as an anti-anti-Semite whose mission is to make WN safe for Jews. My first direct experience with Jobling was in response to his post on Genetic Similarity Theory. After publishing some of my comments, he refused to publish another. I suspect it was either because he was having problems defending his position (which didn’t impress many of the regulars), or he was upset that I made a reference to his avoiding the JQ (which might have made it through moderation because initially he did not seem to understand the point).

Is it even worth talking about him? Prozium has recently made a number of excellent posts critiquing the ‘moderate’ race realists. Most of us already know why Jobling is wrong. But Jobling has now made it official that he wants to develop his own version of a political philosophy for the pro-White movement (PWM). This is a good opportunity to understand exactly what it is that Jobling wants. Pointing out the flaws in his thinking will also help draw those new to the PWM away from moderate positions that compromise White interests.

Jobling says that he wrote this, what he calls the prologue to a series of essays on pro-White political philosophy, because his attempts to create a manifesto for a new political party earlier in the year were hampered by his not understanding what its foundational political philosophy would be. He says that the PWM “is mired in confusion, teeming with knotty contradictions, unexamined premises, and dubious logic”. Is this true? Certainly there are competing positions (particularly with regards to the role of Jews in the PWM). Perhaps this is Jobling being honest about contradictions in his own position that he has not addressed adequately. In this essay, he seeks to outline the issues and questions that will be addressed by a coherent, consistent pro-White political philosophy.

Justification for the pro-White Movement

Jobling provides two possible answers as to why Whites are justified to organize politically.

The first is what he calls “racial (or ethnic) interests”, based on extended kin selection (EGI). He describes it as “almost always based on genetic similarity theory,” which is not true. GST explains the behaviour of people who share a degree of relatedness, but it’s not the fundamental reason that Whites should be concerned about their extended kin. In fact, what Jobling is doing here is misrepresenting the rationale for racial preservation as love of phenotype. He’s gotten a bit ahead of himself, because that is his second answer. (Jobling is somewhat obsessed with GST because he believes that if he can discredit it, he can deny that ethnocentrism has an inherent basis.)

The second answer is what Jobling calls “racial differences”. This is the position he has favoured in the past. He provides the example of a race of ‘blues’ who are “physically and genetically different from whites but behaved in exactly the same way as whites do”. He says that “[s]upporters of the racial interests philosophy would want blues to be treated as a threat to white interests, just as other races were. However, supporters of the racial differences philosophy would take the view that, because the blues differed in no relevant respect from whites, blues should be treated in the same way that whites were.”. For Jobling to even present this as a serious argument suggests he believes that the physical traits of Whites are not worth preserving. For him it is all about collective behavioural phenotype- Western civilization.

This behavioural phenotype position becomes a tar pit for anyone wanting to argue why Whites should survive as a distinct race. If someone from another race is within some number of standard deviations for some quantifiable behavioural trait, they are, for all intents and purposes, ‘White’. And how do you determine what is a “relevant respect”? If they are disease-free, like classical music, and have an IQ of 95, is that ok? Phenotypes (especially behaviour) can be malleable, and may become more so due to advances in gene therapy. Another problem is defining civilization. Is Hollywood Western? The civilization -based defence of the West is popular among Jews, who dominate the commanding heights of culture and media.

The fundamental problem with Jobling is that he is a racial nihilist. Why Whites should exist is a question that shouldn’t even be answered. To answer the question is to grant the possibility that your answer is wrong. The right answer is to reject the question.

Maybe Jobling really does have an open mind here and may adopt a position that incorporates EGI. But it seems unlikely. His description of the “racial interests” position looks like boilerplate anti-anti-Semitism, complete with a link to one of his critiques of MacDonald.

Labels and Questions

Jobling wants to re-label liberal values as ‘consensus Western political principles’, or ‘consensus principles’ because they are shared by all the mainstream parties.

Among Western populations today, there exists a strong consensus on some political principles. Westerners believe in mass “one man, one vote” democracy, in a suite of inalienable rights—including the right to free speech, free worship, free choice of a lawful occupation, and so forth—, and in non-discrimination by race, religion, and national origin. In the United States, while liberals and conservatives disagree about the meaning of the principles and their application to particular cases, there is no meaningful resistance to any of the principles themselves. Though in some cases they do not act on them, all of the mainstream parties in Europe and the English-speaking world at least pay lip-service to these principles. …

These commonly accepted principles are often called “liberal,” but this name is inappropriate as it confuses consensus beliefs with those of a particular political faction—the term “liberal” is normally used in contrast with “conservative,” not to designate the principles that liberals and conservatives share. Consequently, these principles will be called here “consensus Western political principles,” or “consensus principles” for short.

I’m not sure that we need a new name for these values, but Jobling has a point that the distinction between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ has become hopelessly blurred. I think, however, that Jobling is wrong to suggest that these principles have broad appeal. Given the choice between discriminating about who moves into your neighbourhood and White flight, I think most Whites would choose to discriminate. And many, especially Christians, would rather that gays did not have the right to marry or adopt.

Jobling says:

Profound outrage greets any challenge to the Western consensus. Nationalist politicians and activists in Europe have been treated as pariahs and even as criminals for rejecting these principles.

This profound outrage, however, typically comes from the media and the mainstream parties. In the link Jobling provides (about the Vlams Blok being criminalized), it states that the VB was still popular with the Flemish people. The party eventually reformed with a new name and enjoys popular support. Jobling is right that the brainwashed state of many Whites needs to be taken into consideration. But the masses will always take their cues from elites. Replacing liberal philosophy should be a goal of the PWM.

The rest of the essay asks a number of questions about whether a pro-White political philosophy could justify discrimination against non-Whites, and under which conditions. The basic issue here is how does one deal with multi-racialism in the absence of an ethnostate. Again, this is a contradiction that is easily resolved, but which requires a ‘radical’ solution. Is Jobling willing to be radical? For him, the answer will almost certainly depend on how it impacts Jews.

Jobling has asked some good questions, but he’s missed many others that need to be addressed before he can hope to escape the confusion that riddles his vision of the PWM:

What is the White phenotype? Can it be shared? Is there any inherent value in being White?

Does ethnocentrism have any innate, hereditary basis? If it doesn’t, how do you explain the findings on implicit racial bias?.

Even if one were to assume that Jews are no more ethnocentric than any other group (or that there is insufficient data to prove this), does that have much effect on the thesis of The Culture of Critique?

If organized Jewry is hostile to White interests, what sense does it make to seek an alliance? What are the advantages of having Jews in a White ethnostate? Would it not be better to support ethno-nationalist Jews?

If Jews distorted the conservative movement, will they distort the PWM?

It will be interesting to follow Jobling’s thinking as he spells out his vision of a pro-White political philosophy. I suspect, though, that his philosophy will simply be a reformulation or synthesis what he has said so far. His discussion of justifications for the PWM strongly suggests this. And it’s at this early step that, unless he is willing to re-evaluate his current philosophy, his project will fail. Although often criticized for it, the issue of Jewish involvement in the PWM is not the main problem with Jobling’s philosophy. It’s merely a consequence of the fundamental problem: his unwillingness to defend the inherent worth of Whites. Any philosophy that ignores the ontological foundations of our racial identity is bound to fail.

Posted by Dasein on Friday, July 10, 2009 at 08:35 AM in Political Philosophy, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Comments (19) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Don on July 10, 2009, 10:43 AM | #

The best way to deal with Ian Jobling is to note his role in the spectrum of thought about the diverse white American & European peoples, and move on. It is clear that he is more of a “culturalist” than a “racialist” and, as such, occupies a niche that we are all familiar with. He shares his perch with Sailer, Auster, Steyn, and many others.

If there is apprehension that his moderation (and inclusion of Jews) will disrupt the movement toward a defensive white political identity, that is unlikely because many of us had to move through that phase to get to where we are now. That he might claim to speak for all of us is just that—a claim that can be read about and studied, and then moved beyond.

In a way, Jobling represents the phenomenon of the threshold of understanding. Some get here by starting out as Afro-centric (disliking black Americans makes them the center of your thought as much as loving black Americans) or as Latino-centric. Jobling posts for the world to see his Judeo-centric thought patterns, but he may get here eventually—nothing he says pushes people away from a full awakening. It’s difficult to work one’s way to Euro-centricity, and takes time and a commitment to your authentic self.

He was featured on American Renaissance recently as a teller of his historical path to his current position. Apparently he received an extraordinarily heavy imprint of Judeo-centrism at university which he has not been able to shake yet.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/07/how_i_saw_the_l.php

See item five.

Personally, I’m not impressed by Big Ideas. I’d like to hear about how ideas-in-action work in communities to awaken the diverse white peoples.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 10, 2009, 01:04 PM | #

These commonly accepted principles are often called “liberal,” but this name is inappropriate as it confuses consensus beliefs with those of a particular political faction—the term “liberal” is normally used in contrast with “conservative,” not to designate the principles that liberals and conservatives share.

This is silly. The division between philosophy and politics allows for the appropriation of philosophical terminology by political interests. And, anyway, it’s not simply a leftist appropriation. What about the neoliberalism of the right?

That aside, Dasein, does Jobling actually say he is looking to philosophy for “justifications”? That’s not at all a productive approach, though I could believe it of someone who thinks evolutionary psychology and race-realism are foundational, and saving Western civ is the end-product.

Posted by Dasein on July 10, 2009, 05:03 PM | #

It will be the foundation of his political philosophy. How he justifies his choice of justification, I’m curious.

Posted by Rand on July 10, 2009, 06:07 PM | #

Kevin MacDonald has written extensively about genetic similarity theory. According to him, the theory is backed up by an extensive amount of evidence despite what Jobling would have you believe. Here’s what MacDonald wrote about GST in his article “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism:”

Of the mechanisms reviewed here, Rushton’s genetic similarity theory has the most unequivocal empirical support. As indicated above, this mechanism is likely responsible for implicit white communities discussed in the body of this paper.

The fact is that ethnic conflict has been a human universal since the dawn of man. Everywhere in the world that there are diverse populations of people living together there is always ethnic conflict. Therefore, much of ethnocentrism must be innate. It is irrational to suggest - as Jobling does - that social and cultural factors can explain all ethnic conflict everywhere in the world since the beginning of history.

Incidentally, Pat Buchanan has a new article about the enduring power of ethnonationalism at VDARE.com:

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090709_ethnonationalism.htm

Also, Ian Jobling always says that contemporary Whites exhibit no ethnocentrism. This is not true. Ethnocentrism is alive in today’s Whites, it’s just broken down. I have met many Whites in America who are proud of their heritage and deeply resent changing demographics. In addition, the vast majority of Whites still strongly prefer to associate with other Whites - there is a large amount of self-segregation.

Dasein said:

The first is what he calls “racial (or ethnic) interests”, based on extended kin selection (EGI). He describes it as “almost always based on genetic similarity theory,” which is not true.

Indeed. To my knowledge the theory of ethnic nepotism as proposed by Pierre L. van den Berghe, Tatu Vanhanen, Steve Sailer, Frank Salter, W.D. Hamilton, etc. is completely independent of genetic similarity theory. This raises the very real possibility that Jobling is being purposely deceptive on this issue.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 10, 2009, 07:17 PM | #

Rand: there is a large amount of self-segregation.

From today’s Times

Report: ‘White flight’ causes growing school segregation

White parents are pulling their children out of schools where they are outnumbered by ethnic minority pupils, according to a report that paints a picture of growing segregation in schools in some parts of England.

The Institute of Community Cohesion studied 13 local areas and questioned parents from places such as Bristol, Bolton, Sunderland, Oldham and Blackburn.

It found that where schools were more mono-cultural parents of all ethnicities preferred to send their children to the school where pupils were most like them.

“We heard strong evidence of ‘white flight’ in some areas,” the report said.

Middle class parents – who tend to be white – were also removing their children from schools with growing ethnic minority populations because they didn’t want them to stand out, the reports authors said.

The report concluded: “Despite the fact that most people we spoke to in focus groups wanted their children to have a mixed education. Parental choice tended to push people to what they saw as the safe option, where children with similar backgrounds went.”

Nick Johnston, one of the authors of the report and a policy director at the iCoCo said parents didn’t want their child to be the odd ones out. “People don’t mind a diverse school but what they do mind is their kid being in a visible minority in a school. This trend has increased in the last few years.”

Councils should consider using lotteries to increase school diversity, he added.

ICoCo was set up in 2005 to promote community relations and research cohesion.

In one school in Blackburn, once the number of non-white pupils rose above 60 per cent, white parents began saying they did not want their children to feel different.

At another unnamed school 85 per cent of the pupils were white British at the end of 2005. During the next two terms pupils from 15 to 20 Somali families joined.

“Many white parents reacted negatively, arguing that their children were being disadvantaged by large numbers of non-English speakers. By September 2006, 60 white children had been removed from the school ... and the percentage of black and minority ethnic pupils rose to 45 per cent. But many white families stayed,” the report said.

Researchers found evidence of pupils of different ethnicities not socialising even when sharing classrooms and playgrounds.

Posted by Q on July 10, 2009, 09:12 PM | #

Although I’m more in the camp of Fred Scrooby when it comes to the JQ ... I also think Dr. Jobling is, on balance, a definite plus for the white preservationist cause. He may not measure up to the standards of the most radical “White Nationalists”, however, he is team player on our side. Something he should be commended for, don’t you think?

Posted by borgo on July 11, 2009, 01:42 AM | #

These two statements should go together:

“He shares his perch with Sailer, Auster, Steyn, and many others.”

“I also think Dr. Jobling is, on balance, a definite plus for the white preservationist cause.”

Anyone satisfied sharing a perch with Jew, Jew, Jew and many other Jews, has a critically short threshold of understanding. A pro-white movement is anti-Jew or it is nothing, just another receptacle for the endless ideological permutation of Jews. Do you want to be part of a “movement” whose intellectuals sound together like a law firm representing the filth of which you’d see your nation cleansed? Let those whom Jobling can lead to a keener view be led, yet the majority will stagnate, and a “movement” of Jew-suckers is the movement of a hamster on its wheel.

Posted by borgo on July 11, 2009, 01:49 AM | #

“If Jews distorted the conservative movement, will they distort the PWM?”

That this question is asked is proof they already have. Anyone engaging Jews on this matter has still too much unracial goodwill. I know it’s fun to debate, but this door should be slammed in their faces, without hesitation. A “pro-white movement” that still caters to the Jews’ feelings, worries itself about giving them a place in it ..... brilliant.

“Would it not be better to support ethno-nationalist Jews?”

Seems to me the Israelis have no need for the “support” of a few thousand powerless internet eggheads spread over two continents. It’s up to WNs to prove that they’re justified in speaking of “supporting” anyone. What do you want to do—make more websites, hang balloons on your mailbox? “Support” is meaningless and Jews, Israelis, do not care about you or what you think about them.

Back to Linder: No Jews. Just right.

Posted by Sacco on July 11, 2009, 02:08 PM | #

Another one of those false ” apostles” . Intellectual vanity, arrogance married to malicious vendetta. Why re- invent the wheel ? An excellent racial basis already exists in the German’s racial nomenclature of the third reich. A clever visionary take hold of those rooted concepts and builds upon it. What is this charting a ” new road”.? Where is this “new road heading ?. Straight to nowhere. That is why they -germans-were destroyed in the 2WW; as possesors and holders of the enlightenement, the key to racial survival; modern day Prometheus’s which brought light to a benighted race, as Prometheus stole the fire from Zeus hearthen and brought it to the mortals. Now we have legions of Joblings, each one marketing his own flavor of package, ostensibly for the salvation of the dispossesed and destitute white race, but in reality adding confusion and chaos in the minds of the dispossesed and spiralling them further down the precipice of oblivion.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 04:22 PM | #

The Problem of Nihilism, or of struggle not directed towards Ultimate Value need be addressed. So the question then is, What is of Ultimate Value? The perception of what is of Ultimate Value, our EGI, is experienced as fondness of fellowship with our fellows and the erotic interaction between European Man and European Woman, which begets European children whom are raised with love, in love, for love of our people, so that this love will never end - the quale of Ultimate Value, yet not the thing itself. So, subject(s) experience love, and act lovingly towards, object; only the object is actually the subject(s) itself. A never ending virtuous circle of love.

Gee, that was a toughie. Fuck you Jobling. Of course I went into all that shit at Takimag, yet faileos allege all I did was rant about Nazis and reconquest. Fuck you faileocons.

Posted by Kunthjol on July 11, 2009, 11:29 PM | #

An excellent racial basis already exists in the German’s racial nomenclature of the third reich.

Yes! Everything good has already been thought up already!

All that is needed is to put White Nationalist/ National Socialist Ideology into practice!

Forget Jobling and his Jews and their fools errand!

Posted by Nuts on July 12, 2009, 08:39 PM | #

Now we have legions of Joblings, each one marketing his own flavor of package, ostensibly for the salvation of the dispossesed and destitute white race, but in reality adding confusion and chaos in the minds of the dispossesed and spiralling them further down the precipice of oblivion.

Yes, there is too much confusion and chaos.

Hail Linder!

No Jews. Just right!

Easier than thinking, itz!

You’ve convinced me.

I’m ready to die for my race at Linder’s whim.

Hail Linder!

Posted by GenoType on July 12, 2009, 08:44 PM | #

All that is needed is to put White Nationalist/ National Socialist Ideology into practice!

You wouldn’t know what National Socialism was if it bit you on the ass.

Posted by Kunthjol on July 12, 2009, 11:09 PM | #

You wouldn’t know what National Socialism was if it bit you on the ass.

I find that comment rather humorous given that I am of Germanic back-ground and many of my ancestors were in fact National Socialists!! IT IS IN MY ARYAN BLOOD! ANCESTRAL MEMORY!!!!

There is a new Friedrich Braun (Civic Platform version) in town!!!

Posted by Lurker on July 13, 2009, 05:22 AM | #

Is FB going to restart the CP? He said there were problems but it seems odd that it went belly up just at the same time he has undergone some sort of transformation. Is the FB we are hearing from now even the same person?

Posted by Kunthjol on July 13, 2009, 05:34 AM | #

Is the FB we are hearing from now even the same person?

Don’t know but man I would love to have the Judenfrei site delve into this issue!

Also there is another ‘internet personality’ out there known as Dr. Brandt (a Hardened National Socialist and worker for the German NPD party) and I would be greatly interested in hearing what Dr. Brandt thinks of Brauns transmorgification!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2009, 04:28 PM | #

In a log entry posted yesterday titled “Kevin MacDonald is Still Confused,” English major Ian Jobling, who’s never published a single journal article on the subject matter in question, concludes that he’s bested Prof. MacDonald in debate on this subject, one on which the latter is a recognized academic expert (see the last two sentences here below):

”If MacDonald’s theory of ethnicity has changed since 2001, when he published ‘Evolutionary Perspective,’ or if that article does not clearly convey what he intends to say, he should write a new article. Generally speaking, MacDonald’s post is dishonest and evasive. He makes no effort accurately to represent my arguments against him and adopts a bullying, blustering tone, complete with insults and appeals to authority, that is meant to intimidate me. Moreover, he revises his position on many of the issues addressed in ‘Evolutionary Perspective’ and then acts as though these had been his arguments all along. The post to which MacDonald is responding was not arrogant, hostile, or childish. Rather, it was objective and sharp. If MacDonald squarely and honestly confronts the single issue that I raise in this post, I will go on debating him. If not, I will consider the matter settled in my favor.”

[ http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/kevin_macdonald_is_still_confused/ ]

I can’t follow these arguments, knowing zero about the subject, so can’t tell who won from reading the exchanges, but I’d be very surprised if Jobling isn’t making a fool of himself.

Ian, have you also bested Ted Sallis in the debate you had with him? (Or is it that you’re imagining things again and your arrogance simply needs to be taken down a notch?)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2009, 04:41 PM | #

Jobling’s going to paint himself right into non-racial non-genetic corner and end up basically no different from FJ, Baron Oddity, Conservative Swede, and that whole “race-replacement’s fine, just no Moslems please” crowd — or maybe he already is no different from them?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 05, 2010, 02:16 AM | #

I just saw this: Jobling’s farewell:

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/valedictory/ .

I won’t miss him: he did way to much attacking of guys who are on our side, and he did it too viciously.

Next entry: The Stealth Amnesty

Previous entry: Betrayal, self-help and civil disobedience

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa