Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:20 | #

I haven’t read everything here, but the photos again recall for me a long-simmering question.

Graham Lister et al like to criticize America’s hyper-individualism in contrast to the UK’s deep rootedness, millenia of shared history on the same sacred soil (we’ll forget intramural bloodshed between Saxons and Picts, or Welsh and English, Scots and English, etc.), and greater ontological ‘wholeness’, if I may interpret various vague assertions in that way.

OK, one would expect that to be the case.

So why do ordinary Britons do no more than us rootless and individualized Middle Americans to resist this I presume mostly unwanted alien invasion? On an island the size of Louisiana, with deep, resonant history attached to so many places (unlike in the US), why aren’t the British masses voting BNP in droves? Or at least registering massive anti-immigration sentiments (recall my adventure in July with the UK police chatroom - just pointing out that the UK looters were mostly black got me banned - this from a law and order online community!!!!), even if BNP is considered too fascist, and the Tories too austerity-oriented, to get everyone’s votes?

I think that Europeans have nearly as little shared ethno-consciousness as white Americans.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:43 | #

Cool post. I’m ashamed to say I appreciate the way these human cockroaches live. They survive any how they can, like gypsies and Mexicans. While white women are refusing to breed or gouging men in courts, Jose and Rajesh and Boiko’s gals are turning out young Ford-style and wiring up their hovel with a/c and basic cable. I can’t even do that!

I’ll never forget looking down on Mexico City from a plane. Looked exactly like Bombay there, and as far into the distance as I could see.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:47 | #

(we’ll forget intramural bloodshed between Saxons and Picts, or Welsh and English, Scots and English, etc.)

lozzoozlzlzozozozz

Aaaaalll in the past.

I think that Europeans have nearly as little shared ethno-consciousness as white Americans.

Yep. No amount of idealism can disguise that. It lives in subtle ways among English and French, but it doesn’t ramify up to political viability. Aaaaand that’s because it was formed before Europeans were met with the super-normal stimuli presented by mass immigration and demographic obsolescence.

Posted by LC on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:34 | #

The photograph of Mumbai looks like it could be of the planet “Trantor” from jew Asimov’s Foundation trilogy.  Trantor was supposed to have been built over, every inch.

But I don’t recall the buildings as having been shanties.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:00 | #

Trantor was covered with metal buildings save for 100 square miles (or something) of the Imperial Palace Gardens. Reading the books - that made me think of NYC and Central Park.

The more nerdy amongst us may have realised that Coruscant in the Star Wars films was clearly based on Trantor.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:31 | #

So why do ordinary Britons do no more than us

The tyranny of modern nationalism. The definition of the modern nation is this…

:^ “Nation”. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged (10th ed.). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nation Retri.eved 17 June 2011. “1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc, organized into a single state: the Australian nation”

and not this…

Nationalism is the politics of who you are … in technical terms, the politics of genetic interests

(which is excellent commentary).

The question is why? It appears to be the enduring conundrum outlined by Adam Smith and probably many before him, of the interplay of sympathy and self-interest.

Behind enemy lines two years ago on a foreboding mountaintop in
Afghanistan, four Navy SEALs were confronted with a critical moral dilemma. They
had been sent behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban leader who controlled
between 150 to 200 fighters. However, they had just been discovered by three
unarmed Afghan goat herders. Their discovery by these three Afghani goat herders
jeopardized the Navy SEALs’ mission, and furthermore put their lives at stake.1 With
no reliable way of guarding these goat herders, what should these Navy SEALs do?
To sympathize with these goat herders and let them go would be to risk their lives if
these goat herders were colluding with the enemy. To act in their self-interest would
be to terminate three potentially innocent lives but, if their act were discovered, bring
on domestic and international media attention which could potentially lead to criminal
charges and/or political and diplomatic consequences for their country. Therefore,
considering these circumstances, what action should the Navy SEALs take and how
would we justify that action?

It appears that every action of self-interest brings a potential reaction of sympathy. If an action is taken that conforms to the tenets of liberty it has the potential to be seen as hateful, ugly and hypocritical. This will generate an equal and opposite reaction of sympathy by some group or groups somewhere which will eventually in some fashion retard liberty and self-interest. It’s implicit in the above statement that if nationalism is the politics of who you are that you should be free as an individual to pursue those political ends. But, of course, you are not because it’s an appalling, grotesque and loathsome sentiment, just as the killing of the goat herders by the Seals would be a monstrous, repugnant and repelling action.

Posted by anon / uh on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:08 | #

One must wonder how a mountaintop forebodes. What became of the goatherds?

I like the angle you’re working. A web of conflicting self-interests. A professional force like the SEALs is less free to do as it would, illustrating Caesar’s maxim — In maxuma fortuna minuma licentia est. Whereas the Taliban, or even the goatherds had they been armed, care fuck all for public opinion and could behead the filthy Amriki occupiers.

If a note of sanguine pleasure crept into that last, I do apologize.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:04 | #

Yes and both shaped by centuries of biocultural evolution, or social conditioning to borrow GT’s theme. The Seals a product of Comitatus, a band of brothers bound by oath or allegiance, a form of non-kinship based reciprocity and the goat herders bound by a blood oath to their family, an extended kinship form of reciprocity. And the Seals are trapped by the morality of their oath but the goat herders are free to act for the good of their blood. The goat herders unable to conceive of a nation, let alone instigate it and the Seals are the full blossoming flower of their centuries old oath to a band of strangers. Strange the twist and turns that the forces of evolution take and still serve the basic human instinct of self-interest.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:27 | #

Britain’s housing.  On the other hand let’s do it properly, leave it to the experts.

Britain’s crony capitalism is gearing itself for the Battle of Britain’s green and pleasant land.  Never will so much profit be made by so few.  Mass immigration demographic is the only remaining engine for economic growth.

The Telegraph says, Hands Off Our Land: the ‘huge’ lobbying war chest behind the builders…

Property developers have mounted a “huge” lobbying campaign backed by the rich and powerful to alter radically planning laws in favour of development, the head of the National Trust has said.

Sir Simon Jenkins, the organisation’s chairman, said the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the reforms, which campaigners say will give developers carte blanche to build on large parts of rural England.

“We are up against some very rich and powerful people,” he told MPs on a Commons committee investigating the planning reforms. His comments come amid growing concerns about the influence of lobbyists and business figures on ministers and government policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8833016/Hands-Off-Our-Land-the-huge-lobbying-war-chest-behind-the-builders.html

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:13 | #

Property developers have mounted a “huge” lobbying campaign backed by the rich and powerful to alter radically planning laws in favour of development, the head of the National Trust has said.

“We are up against some very rich and powerful people,” he told MPs on a Commons committee investigating the planning reforms. His comments come amid growing concerns about the influence of lobbyists and business figures on ministers and government policy. (Bill)

———————————————————

This is exactly the type of “capitalism” I oppose. It is what gives the best economic system a bad name.

There is absolutely nothing violative of capitalist norms in regulating immigration, or in regulating the extent of property development - provided that property exists in an original (undeveloped) state. There would be something wrong with a govt telling the owner of a building that he cannot demolish it, or cannot internally decorate it in accordance with his own choosing, or cannot rent or sell it, etc.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:43 | #

I despair as on the hour of each successive day as the news rolls out.

Inflation today hits 5.2%.  Month on month the media’s talking heads are wheeled out to explain things away.  Always jam tomorrow.

A prominent cabinet minister has been forced to resign for dodgy behaviour involving his best friend masquerading as his advisor at crony gatherings around the world.  Corruption runs through the establishment elites like a stick of seaside rock.

The BBC are working overtime to massage and placate the stupid people on the other end of their cameras.  Hugh Pym, Stephenie Flanders, Robert Peston, Mark (poison) Easton, same old, same old.

The BBC are giving the owswers the Breivik treatment - blankety blank.  I suspect this world wide movement is taxing the BBC’s creativity to its limits.

Government political correctness allied to liberal corruption is propelling this nation to failed state status.  (Which is what it is all about I suppose.)

British police are hog-tied by liberal correctness and can no longer function as an instrument of law and order.

Globalism is trotted out by the BBC as an excuse for every ill from the economic crisis to the soaring cost of energy. (LOL)

Due to elite’s wholesale corruption from politicians to Town Hall bosses the people of this country have joined in, they no longer subscribe to the once held views of honesty, integrity and moral values.

Insurance companies blame lawless motorists motorists for racking up the cost of insurance.  False claims are at an all time high.  By whom?

NHS hospitals can no longer function due to filthy conditions and an indifferent nursing culture. 

The liberal destruction of our country is complete.

Rant over.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:57 | #

This was going on the Wall Street thread but overlaps with this one.

Someone on another thread mentioned the slavery issue in US history – a prime case of both intra and inter-generational ‘free-riding’ and socio-cultural dumping/externalities, yes?

Counter-factual historiography quickly veers into the fatuous and wish-fulfilment but how different would US history and culture have been in the absence of slavery? Certainly one potent source of politically exploitable ‘guilt’ would be absent – but then again does any nation have more Holocaust museums/memorials?

Look the USA isn’t going to fail so badly that it ceases to exist, unless we all experience some genuinely global catastrophe, but it’s future increasingly looks very Brazilian and as such distinctly non-Western. As the primary colonial adventure of Europeans in the modern period it would have fairly short life compared to our ancient European nations. Mark Steyn, who can be very sharp and witty but is a very superficial writer might have got his hypothesis from “.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)” entirely the wrong way around. After all no Western society is so near to seeing its former majority ethnic group reduced to the status of simply being the largest plurality. In the long run is it possible for a non-European society (Euros as a non-majoritarian group) to remain truly Western?

Perhaps it is America alone that is uniquely vulnerable to the toxicity of hyper-liberalism. If my admittedly underdeveloped hypothesis is accurate there is probably no single mono-causal explanation as to why this is true but rather a series of interacting factors that together will precipitate the relative failure of the most ambitious colonial project of Europeans in the modern period.

Even if some form of societal shock was to strike the US such that some radically different form of politics actually gained traction is it likely that any new political form would likely wrap itself in the language of the Constitution, American Patriotism, vulgar ‘televangelist’ Christianity and colour-blindness. We in Europe have some dangerous and daunting challenges but in my guts I just feel we are better equipped to genuinely resist and overcome those challenges.

One reason for this asymmetry might be that, however attenuated and exhausted the contemporary political imagination is in our post-modern times, the European political imagination and memory really does have a wider set of horizons – both the possible and the actual has outstripped liberalism. For good and bad, we Europeans have not simply been a set of nations which define themselves primarily by their liberal foundations. However regrettable much of it might have been we do have the historical-cultural memory of non-liberal social orders/hierarchy and even in the living memory the direct experience of politically potent non-liberal ideologies and regimes.  Liberal theory defines the American politico-cultural ‘event horizon’ in a way that no European society can quite match.

Secondly, we recently discussed that Dutch survey which found a very large percentage of Dutch people openly admitted that mass migration had been the worst mistake in Dutch history.  This is interesting as the Dutch like to think of themselves as very tolerant liberal people. Yet many can happily admit to such a non-liberal sentiment. Why? It might be that as an organic long-standing culture and society the Dutch, as some level, implicitly feel they form a ‘natural’ collective group. The sentiment that mass migration is a mistake in the Dutch context doesn’t necessary have to be couched in ‘racist’ terms. After all it could be millions of Poles or little green men they would still be unhappy/worried. Hence the ‘psychological costs’ of the position seem to be lower than one might observe in American culture.

The difference in American cultural politics is that the objection to mass migration etc., cannot easily be couched in the implicit assumptions of an organic ‘natural’ ethno-cultural group which is in situ in a genuine homeland. Obviously every Euro-American is an immigrant or the product of immigration. Very obviously so in fact. Hence any objection to other forms of immigration is, ipso facto, a harder sell. The discourse does have a higher ‘psychological cost’ associated with it. Even the Jared Taylor homogeneity stuff, in the American context, has this higher politico-emotional barrier to entry.

The American ideological background is generally not, intra-societally, to think in collective or group terms so the first barrier to Mr Average is “isn’t this ‘narrow’ group-identity stuff all un-American and a remnant of our worst history not our best?” Next as an immigrant nation, the deeply and proudly inorganic ‘propositional nation’, a non-racist objection to non-Europeans becoming ‘Americans’ is also hard to sell. Can recent invaders reasonably and coherently object to more invaders?

Returning specifically to Jared Taylor and his self-styled ‘highbrow’ homogeneity stuff and it being a difficult sell. After all Mr. Average might ponder that these quite different, culturally heterogeneous, Europeans ‘integrated’ nicely with each other so why should the story be quite different with non-Europeans? The discourse in America then has to be more or less obviously ‘racist’ in that it is all about a distinction between whites and non-whites. What Taylor implicitly discusses is a generic and conceptually ‘thin’ racially imagined homogeneity, with the implicit ‘racism’ very near to the surface.  In a more organic society an ethnocentric focus can be far more easily articulated in a less obviously ‘racist’ manner (in ‘thick’ cultural terms), or even in genuinely non-racist way (in that socially damaging differentiation/fragmentation/inter-group rivalry is the issue not inferiority/superiority per se); hence lowering the associated ‘psychological costs’ for Mr. Average.

The Dutch can reasonably think of themselves as a ‘natural’ group – the psychological costs to this thought are not that high – in contrast it is harder for American Euros to as easily think of themselves as such a ‘natural’ group. Scratch below the surface and very few Dutch people really think an African living in the Netherlands is truly Dutch in anything other than the most superficial sense. Incidentally Dutch patriotism is very much in a passive-aggressive mode in my experience but still relatively robust and certainly offers a ‘potential space’ for ethnocentric politics.

Can Euro-Americans as easily and comfortably dismiss the claims of other types of Americans? Could a poll in the USA really have a sizeable segment of the population openly in agreement with the idea that mass immigration per se was the worse mistake in the history of the nation? Hardly, after all in some way, they would be objecting to the very genesis and idea of America itself.

Most normal people don’t wish to think of themselves as hate-filled crude racists, yet in the American context that is what Taylor (let alone Linder) is asking of them, as the narratives (superiority/inferiority) they offer go against so much of the grain of American cultural-ideas and history.

Another factor is based on the strength of in-group/out-group formation and language. In part due its geography and other factors America is a very self-contained, isolated and parochial culture. This feeds into the more general theme of being both the ‘universal’ nation and curiously also the ‘exceptional’ nation (American the universal exception or the exceptional universal?). And to this add the linguistic factor of English becoming a new linga franca then we have several reasons why authentic ‘natural’ ethno-cultural in-group/out-group formation is so weak. After all American identity is at the level of popular discourse least as much about accepting certain values as it is about a specific ethno-linguistic/cultural cleavages. I have even read American ‘full-on’ conservatives saying America is about ‘WASP values’ not specifically ‘WASP people’.

Contrast this with, for example, the Dutch. History teaches the Dutch they are a very small nation surrounded by ‘out-groups’ to their ‘in-group’. Equally language helps strengthen the in-group/out-group distinction. Dutch is spoken by a few million people. Speaking, in global terms, a minority language implicitly undermines any pretension to being the ‘universal’ nation – one is always as one speaks Dutch part of a particular nation and specific local culture.

Part of why England is so culturally degraded is that we are particularly vulnerable, due to our common tongue, to the worst of American values and culture – that’s not the whole story but it is I feel part of it. There are certain parts of modern England that look very generically American – perhaps most obviously in our wholesale adoption of a rancid, sub-American, version of ‘mall culture’ (we call them shopping centres). And they really do bring alive the question of ‘philosophical zombies’ if you have to visit one of them.

As for the BNP people don’t support them because the national voting system works against small parties in the UK plus the generally repulsive and incompetent public face that it projects and the appalling crude political rhetoric employed by it all count against them (they really aren’t very clever, let alone sophisticated, political operators). Contrast this with, for all their faults, Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, who if nothing else, demonstrate that the fairly simple message of “can’t Holland simply be Holland - this multiculturalism business has gone to far and must stop” has widespread appeal if presented by someone that looks like a semi-normal, reasonably articulate, human being. Part of the challenge in the UK is to ‘detoxify’ ethnocentric discourse/politics as a brand. For example ‘green-washing’ could be one method. Droning on endlessly in public about the Jews (even if true or partly true) is probably not part of a detoxification strategy.

Believe me when I say if one spends a couple of weeks, for example, in Rome, you are under no illusion that you could be in America, or indeed England. One is intensely and joyfully aware that you are in a far more robustly local and particularist cultural landscape. Rise up against the tyranny of McDonald’s, Burger King and Starbucks! Personally, I always feel more culturally comfortable, as a European, when in Italy, et al., than in modern Britain.

Let us authentic Europeans gather together in the struggle to be ‘at home’ in the world and to be beloved once more. Who knows perhaps in fifty years time Americans will be flooding back to their old homelands? And we might let the less barbaric ones in (that was a joke - honestly).

P.S. 

As a Rangers sympathiser may I commit a ‘thought-crime’?  Fuck the Pope and hang him on an orange rope!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:12 | #

a prime case of both intra and inter-generational ‘free-riding’ and socio-cultural dumping/externalities, yes?

How so?

Certainly one potent source of politically exploitable ‘guilt’ would be absent – but then again does any nation have more Holocaust museums/memorials?

Strangely enough the South, as a region, was the greatest supporter of Britain’s efforts to destroy Germany.

very Brazilian and as such distinctly non-Western.

Distinctly non-Western possibly but Brazilian not if the current patterns of assortative mating hold. The UK has the highest percentage of mixed relationships in the world.

fairly short life compared to our ancient European nations.

European nations are not ancient by any measure…Germany, Italy, Austria or Hungary.

Hence the ‘psychological costs’ of the position seem to be lower than one might observe in American culture.

The Dutch nor Britain nor France have anything even remotely resembling the Alabama law.

I have even read American ‘full-on’ conservatives saying America is about ‘WASP values’ not specifically ‘WASP people’.

Read Stoddart or Grant. Read about the second Klan. Nothing in the last century in the UK has even approached this level of consciousness of the link between values, nation and a founding people.

the worst of American values and culture

Only the worst? Why not the best? They don’t speak that language?. LOL

Believe me when I say if one spends a couple of weeks, for example, in Rome, you are under no illusion that you could be in America

No doubt why so many Italian Americans are flocking back to Italy.

Who knows perhaps in fifty years time Americans will be flooding back to their old homelands?

In 50 years there maybe no homeland to ‘flood’ back to.

Fuck the Pope and hang him on an orange rope!

Brave words posted on a website hosted on the train wreck that is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that is so much more resilient in protecting speech than the land of the Grand Tartanissimo.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:15 | #

Bill,

Would you be prepared to support an authoritarian conservative or neo-fascist coup in Britain, with lots of mass arrests, immigrant deportations, secret executions of leftists, etc? Some deus ex machina act like that seems to be the only hope for UK renewal.

As I’ve said many times, none of us should be under the slightest illusion that the Occident (esp in its Anglo-Saxon realm) can be saved absent serious violence. Once I get past my Catholic Thought studies basic requirements, I’m going to try to focus my later studies on issues pertaining to the theology of war, combat and resistance to oppression. I do not believe that the true line of Church thinking requires moral men to be as passive and politically resigned as the contemporary Church would have us all believe.

Posted by Raymond Baura on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:20 | #

uh huh, Americans “flooding back to Italy” except after they tire of tepid showers and baths, mind boggling bureaucracy (oh US government haters wait until you deal with getting a “permit” in the third world, Italy, or Russia….)and things not coming together in the efficient ways they do in the US (Oh US haters, wait till you try and get something done in India, Italy or Russia….) You will seriously, seriously wonder if you did the right thing and ponder often on how maybe things just weren’t as bad as you thought they were.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:46 | #

What is “green-washing”? And which “Rangers” were you referring to, Dr. Lister?

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:03 | #

I’m going to try to respond later this evening to Dr. Lister’s lengthy comment. 

One issue he doesn’t address is the one I broached in the first comment on this thread: if Europeans have such deep rootedness, why have they succumbed to anti-racist/anti-nationalist and diversitarian nonsense so easily? This is a question my mother has been asking for decades (my dad and uncle both think Europeans born after the war are all “faggots”, and that that simple explanation is all that’s needed). My mother is fluent in French, is a francophile, and is just constantly flabbergasted whenever she hears or reads about some Muslim or African problem in France. She sounds rather like Lister, actually. She says she can understand sort of why Americans are so passive racially, but how can the Europeans surrender their deep Christian and Western cultural heritage so readily as to allow esp Muslims (Muslims??!!!) into their societies? Of course, being a staunch Catholic, she attributes this surrender to both the scandalous decline of Christianity in Europe, as well as the liberal ideological pollution of the modern Church. It hardly needs be said I think she’s right.

Anyway, the deeper point is that an ethnocommunitarian past is obviously, in and of itself, an insufficient bulwark against the ideological force of anti-racism, which itself represents an evolutionary defect in the psyche of white race (ie, that there is something wrong with us that so many whites are susceptible to such blatantly destructive nonsense).

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:25 | #

Glasgow Rangers, allegedly representative of Scotland’s Protestant football fans.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/page/Home

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:57 | #

As a Rangers sympathiser may I commit a ‘thought-crime’?  Fuck the Pope and hang him on an orange rope!

I don’t understand the Orange/Ranger correlation, but it reminds me of this kilt and this tune, and I like them both.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:20 | #

I don’t understand the Orange/Ranger correlation

William of Orange, the Dutch protestant King who was placed upon the English throne and more particularly was victorious over his rival, the Catholic King James, at the Battle of the Boyne.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:33 | #

Graham Lister has put his finger upon an important difference between Europe and America.

Americans have, historically and in the aggregate, collectively embraced and continue to embrace the ‘Melting Pot’ approach to the assimilation of foreigners, on the assumption that anyone who can make his way under their own steam to the Land of the Free is essentially a refugee from those benighted places where the American Way does not hold total sway, and is therefore fully deserving of his new-found status as a trainee American. Europeans don’t share this worldview and, historically and in the aggregate, would prefer that foreigners stayed at home no matter how much admiration they express for our Way of Life.

The attitude of the elites and putative opinion-formers is of course practically identical on both sides of the Atlantic, but that merely serves to obscure the radical difference between their respective populations with respect to the intrinsic value of admitting foreigners into their (national) living space.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:21 | #

but that merely serves to obscure the radical difference between their respective populations with respect to the intrinsic value of admitting foreigners into their (national) living space.

That’s pure bullshit, Dare.  How do I know that?  Because not more than a negligible number of Brit-voters will pull the lever for the BNP in a secret ballot.  So, either most Brits actually don’t care enough to put forth even the most minimal, cost-free effort to keep out foreigners or their native ethnocentrism has been browbeaten and brainwashed down to the implicit level just like their White American counterparts.

Krauts offered you a square deal, America took you to the cleaner’s.  And in its wake, “Hitler’s revenge”.  Stop being butthurt about all that Lend-Lease shit; and stop letting your butthurt do the thinking for you.  LOL

Posted by Silver on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:41 | #

Dan Dare,

Graham Lister has put his finger upon an important difference between Europe and America.

No, he hasn’t.  He’s put his finger on a trivial difference. 

Americans have, historically and in the aggregate, collectively embraced and continue to embrace the ‘Melting Pot’ approach to the assimilation of foreigners, on the assumption that anyone who can make his way under their own steam to the Land of the Free is essentially a refugee from those benighted places where the American Way does not hold total sway, and is therefore fully deserving of his new-found status as a trainee American. Europeans don’t share this worldview and, historically and in the aggregate, would prefer that foreigners stayed at home no matter how much admiration they express for our Way of Life.,

Thus does a consensus of idiots form. 

Look, this is exactly the sort of superficial explanation any chump off the street (or a frustrated WN at his wit’s end) would invent.  There’s no penetrating insight here, no deeper analysis of the processes in play, nothing that allows any fuller appreciation of the historical context; just a bunch of cartoonish, bumbling, happy-go-lucky American Melting Potters blindly marching off to their doom.

If Americans were so keen on the ‘melting pot’ why did it take a Jew to invent and Jews to popularize the term?  Why was immigration successfully restricted on a specifically racial basis? 

What does it matter, anyway?  The point isn’t to merely “control” immigration or delimit a proper noun (Englishman, Frenchman, American etc); it’s to achieve territorial racial exclusivity, which is something that Dan Dare seems determined not to understand.  No, instead his proposed solution is to hand out “certificates” granting leave to remain to the foreign contingent.  But not citizenships, mind you.  He puts his foot down at citizenships, does Dan.  He’s no one’s fool!

(If you’re wondering why I care, Dan, well, the truth is I don’t.  Not really.  Or not as much as you.  Thing is, I need you fuckers to get your act together, else where’s the impetus for…call it ‘racial reform’ going to come from? In the US, Mexican irredentists maybe, but I doubt it.  Elsewhere, it’s Britishers or bust, and we’ll all—all of us—have to put up with living these ridiculous (albeit livable) mass multiracial lives amid eventual hordes of vicious nigras, sing-songy, incomprehensible hindoos and mad, mad muzzies; and even if they prove not-that-bad (which they well might) it’s still an alienating, uninspiring, rather depressing business, and why go through with it when there’s such an obviously superior alternative available?)

CC,

So, either most Brits actually don’t care enough to put forth even the most minimal, cost-free effort to keep out foreigners or their native ethnocentrism has been browbeaten and brainwashed down to the implicit level just like their White American counterparts.

But they don’t believe it’s cost-free.  Psychologically, it exacts a heavy toll on them.  They think they’re crossing the Rubicon—phew, done the deed, ‘real’ racist now, I am.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:45 | #

Dare stated here before that Britain should have exited WWII in a timely fashion, leaving unstated that it would have been better to give Krauts their pound of Slavic flesh than suffer the consequences to Britain which have befallen her in the last 70 years.  I could respect English Moralism if racially conscious Englishmen were actually willing to fall on their swords for it.  But they are not willing.  They will throw under the bus their fellow Europeans as they deem expedient for their ethnic interests, just as they excoriate Krauts for doing.  Now, it is the turn of White Americans - as the thrust of Brit-rhetoric here clearly indicates.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:08 | #

Phooey, Silver.  I wrote:

or their [British voters] native ethnocentrism has been browbeaten and brainwashed down to the implicit level

Certainly not, as you contend I claim, psychologically cost-free.  That is what I believe is the state of the British people regarding their ethnocentrism.  I only made the rhetorical contrast to flesh out the obvious stupidity (and/or dishonesty) of what Dare claims is a “radical difference” between White Americans’ and Britishers’ reaction to muds filling up their countries.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:21 | #

Stop being perfidious, Albion, you suck at it!  LOL

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:42 | #

Well my observations might be ‘trivial’ but why the obsession over the inadequate performance of the BNP?

Small parties do very badly under a national system of first past the post (FPTP) a highly non-proportional system in which a vote for a small party is thought by most to be a wasted vote. In UK Euro (EU) elections which use a proportional system smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP do a lot better, and even the moribund BNP did rather well last time out. Which signals that if people think their vote matters then there is a desire for something different to the mainstream parties.

But England isn’t the whole of Europe. Anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism political formations are finding a voice in such ‘liberal’ societies as the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland etc. The situation is fluid and the last rites for Europeans are a little premature.

I really don’t know why people are in such a state of abnegation regarding popular ideological conceptions of American identity. You might not like the ‘propositional nation’, ‘the melting pot’, the mix of ignorance and hubris that thinks the American way of life is uniquely appealing to everyone else etc., but please these ideas ARE part and parcel of the cultural milieu of America.

But carry on doing whatever it is you all do as it really is working excellently in preventing your rapid demographic shift to non-majority status. Even better vote for an excellent and patriotic ‘conservative’ Republican that somehow will be very unfortunately ‘duped’ in signing an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. We all know that shit will happen at some point.

My previous post was, in part, promoted by Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone”. It might be possible that America is the last ‘Western’ nation left standing but I have my doubts about the cogency of his hypothesis.

Take some recent history - the break up of Yugoslavia in which in Europe there was a military conflict deeply tied up with ethno-cultural differences. The Czechs and the Slovaks split, rather more peaceably, over essentially issues of identity. Could such events occur in contemporary America? Vermont goes to war for freedom from the Union? Again I have my doubts. Which part of America culturally rejects American identity in say the way the Québécois dislike anglophone Canada?

And flying the ‘Stars & Bars’ at a NASCAR event doesn’t count, m’kay.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:00 | #

Which part of America culturally rejects American identity in say the way the Québécois dislike anglophone Canada?

The Scots ‘dislike’ the English in the same fashion and possibly even more intensely than Quebecers dislike English Canada. When is the Scottish referendum scheduled? When will the Scots take back their homeland from the English invader and reject this culturally nasty Britishness? The reason there is no demographic decline, except intellectually (mean IQ 97)in Scotland is because so many of the smart people immigrated to to N. America leaving Scotland an economic and cultural wasteland. When will the ghosts of Wallace’s Heelanders whisper the immortal words into the ear or the Grand Tartanissimo…freeeedom. LOL

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:29 | #

@Captainchaos

Geez there goes the ‘mud’ language. Mr. Average would obviously think you’re a really well-balanced, nice decent chap I’m sure.

The difference is this - we had millions of Poles enter the UK and most people were pissed off with that development. We can coherently argue they don’t belong here, regardless if it was Poles, Pakistanis, or Little Green Men from Mars. There is a real and substantive ethno-cultural cleavage.

However in America if say a couple of million Poles turned up could you all, with anything like the same basic coherency, say the don’t belong in America? After all the newly arrived Poles could turn and ask Fred Wysocki of Illinois along with the estimated 10 million Americans of Polish descent “where are you all originally from?” Furthermore the new Poles could ask: “you all ‘became’ Americans - why can’t we?” And Fred Wysocki of Illinois will answer…?

The only real difference between Fred Wysocki of Illinois and his new Polish neighbours of that of time NOT of kind. American identity is a profoundly and openly diachronic phenomenon in a way that isn’t quite the same in many European nations. Stay long enough and everyone has, at the level of everyday ‘cultural ideology’, a very legitimate claim to be an American. Ask both whites and blacks in France if the blacks are really French and you will find most of the Africans state that they are African let alone the honest response of many of the native French!

How can, say the slave-derived black population of America, be thought of as non-American? Why or how are they less authentically American than my imaginary example of Fred Wysocki or even the real-life Charles Bronson (born Charles Dennis Buchinsky), Abe Foxman or George Soros to name but three prominent Americans with Slavic origins?

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:51 | #

The Cap’n seems to be unaware of the various polls that demonstrate conclusively how much more popular the BNP’s political platform, especially with regard to immigration and citizenship, is than the party itself. And this even at the zenith of the BNP’s electoral success a couple of years ago. He seems able to recall earlier statements at will, especially any that concern his beloved Krauts, but appears not to have remembered my other comments about the BNP being merely a placeholder for something yet to come, but only once matters have become much, much worse.

Silver exhorts us to racial solidarity, a concept which may have some purchase in the white settler countries where persons of European descent have historically been only too happy to cast off from their ethnic moorings, shedding their identity like an unwanted carapace in order to embrace a shiny new one, but it is a concept which fails to resonate at all with Europeans. And why should it? A Frenchman knows who and what he is, and where he came from , which he knows is not Senegal or Morocco, as does a German or a Nederlander, not to mention a Pole. Even the English are beginning to stir from their centuries-long immersion in ‘Britishness’ and asserting their Englishness in forms that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Ethnicity’s where’s it at mate. And all this despite - or maybe because of - sixty years of European ‘Union’.

I know that New Worlders find this hurtful, but we don’t want your stinkin’ White Nationalism, it means nothing to us. You can stick it up your jumper.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:25 | #

Thank you Dasein, I’ve missed it although I’m sure the sentiment is not reciprocated on the part of some other posters!

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:41 | #

I know that New Worlders find this hurtful, but we don’t want your stinkin’ White Nationalism, it means nothing to us. You can stick it up your jumper.

We don’t need it in America.  Americans self-segregate by race anyway, and are generally culturally conservative outside of the large urban areas.  The main things we would like to see (e.g. an end to open-borders for low-skill workers, end to liberal egalitarianism in academia, popular culture, etc) have the support of most Americans.  The main hurdle is not that these things have no support but that the government refuses to put them into action.

What’s more, I doubt if there is any immediate political solution to this situation but WN is a perpetual non-starter for obvious reasons.  No one here would want to be subjected to the rule of VNNF types, but it’s absurd to even entertain the possibility.  They are not numerically or intellectually advantaged enough to ever implement their vision (or should I say fantasy).

I’ve missed it although I’m sure the sentiment is not reciprocated on the part of some other posters!

Most people here probably recognize that you’ve made good contributions in the past.  Welcome back.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:05 | #

I second Dasein’s comment of October 19, 2011, 12:39 PM.  It’s good to see you back, Dan.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:41 | #

On the subject of American identity CC asked the following killer question on the Perry de Havilland thread:

If “Dasein” is indeed a specific psychological state which can be experienced by European-derived people within the context of their extant neurology, then what are its salient subjective features?

I will translate.

Assuming that a state of (at least some) consciousness of being is attainable in a modern European population, even in the face of that loss of self which is so psychologically insistent and perpetual, and so marked today all across the European world, what would be its characteristics?

And the answer:

Foundation and belonging (as a member of the group and, then, as a group in the world), ethnic self-interest, discrimination, reciprocity, trust, etc.  Everything, in fact, that marks the (re)turn to self.  Now, I don’t doubt that this is a more straightforward prospect for Europeans in Europe than in America or Canada.  But the fact remains that such a turn will necessarily bring the latter to their own house irrespective of what that house is, because this is its only possible action.

Whether that is enough, given the North American circumstance, neither I nor any man can say.

Posted by anon / uh on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:04 | #

Foundation and belonging (as a member of the group and, then, as a group in the world), ethnic self-interest, discrimination, reciprocity, trust, etc.  Everything, in fact, that marks the (re)turn to self.

Seems to me it marks a return to the local — if all those studies tracking degrees of kinship / relatedness and their correlation with levels of trust / cooperation / etc. are right. I dunno from whom he cadged the line, but Soren is right: Love is local. I am probably wrong somehow, but this invocation of a return to “self” sounds adventitious, or, as we say here, Afro-engineered. I fear that Wandrin and I are ultimately a righter right than you rightists: salvation is of the inbred. It was the breakdown of Roman infrastructure that led to the isolation of European communities and the formation of what would become unique national identities. The universal became again the discrete through a process of introversion.

There is an analogy from pathophysiology that I believe ramifies at to the level of sociey-wide processes. This is that what I have just called introversion, and is basically a morbid state of the organism; for example in autoimmune diseases where the body fails to produce sufficient antibodies to tolerate self-antigens, thus attacking the autoimmune system. Now in one body this is tragic and fatal, but in a nucleated society it establishes kin-selected identity through close spatial introversion, one facet of which is inbreeding.

There is further analogy in immunology with regard to group dynamics:

“Accordingly, self/non-self discrimination recedes as a governing principle when immunity
is appreciated as both outer-directed against the deleterious, and inner-directed in an
on-going communicative system of internal homeostasis. From this dual perspective, immune
function falls on a continuum of reactivity, where the character of the immune object is
determined by the context in which it appears, not by its character as “foreign” per se.
(For review of contending theories see Anderson and Matzinger 2000a; 2000b.)”

— Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ““Biological Notion of Self and Non-Self”

“Self” ought not to be understood or employed apart from group identity. Whitey’s horror at the thought of inbreeding, and his use of it as ad hominem against perceived enemies, is symptomatic of the very thing that renders him fatally weak anent other races: higher inbreeding coefficient and consequent ethnic solidarity. With the rise of the rest, whitey’s philosophic superiority is useless.

turn33

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:52 | #

Well apparently Americans of different backgrounds are not quite so ‘self-segregating’ as some here seem to think.

2008 Pew Research Center Report (U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey)

The study found that in 2008:[12]

A record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another. This compares to 8.0% of all current marriages regardless of when they occurred. This includes marriages between a Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race) as well as marriages between spouses of different races – be they white, black, Asian, American Indian or those who identify as being of multiple races or some other race.

Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9% of whites, 16% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 31% of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

Among all newlyweds in 2008, intermarried pairings were primarily White-Hispanic (41%) as compared to White-Asian (15%), White-Black (11%), and Other Combinations (33%). Other combinations consists of pairings between different minority groups, multi-racial people, and American Indians.

Among all newlyweds in 2008, Native-Born Hispanics and Asians were far more likely to intermarry than Foreign-Born Hispanics and Asians: 41.3% of Native-Born Hispanic men out-married compared to 11.3% of Foreign-Born Hispanic men; 37.4% of Native-Born Hispanic women out-married compared to 12.2% of Foreign-Born Hispanic women; 41.7% of Native-Born Asian men out-married compared to 11.7% of Foreign-Born Asian men; 50.8% of Native-Born Asian women out-married compared to 36.8% of Foreign-Born Asian women. Foreign-Born excludes immigrants who arrived married.

Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. Some 22% of all black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. Some 40% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2008, compared with just 20% of Asian male newlyweds. Among whites and Hispanics, by contrast, there are no gender differences in intermarriage rates.

Rates of intermarriages among newlyweds in the U.S. more than doubled between 1980 (6.7%) and 2008 (14.6%). However, different groups experienced different trends. Rates more than doubled among whites and nearly tripled among blacks. But for both Hispanics and Asians, rates were nearly identical in 2008 and 1980.

These seemingly contradictory trends were driven by the heavy, ongoing Hispanic and Asian immigration wave of the past four decades. For whites and blacks, these immigrants (and, increasingly, their U.S.-born children who are now of marrying age) have enlarged the pool of potential spouses for out-marriage. But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has also enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marriage.

There is a strong regional pattern to intermarriage. Among all new marriages in 2008, 22% in the West were interracial or interethnic, compared with 13% in both the South and Northeast and 11% in the Midwest.

Most Americans say they approve of racial or ethnic intermarriage – not just in the abstract, but in their own families. More than six-in-ten say it would be fine with them if a family member told them they were going to marry someone from any of three major race/ethnic groups other than their own.

More than a third of adults (35%) say they have a family member who is married to someone of a different race. Blacks say this at higher rates than do whites; younger adults at higher rates than older adults; and Westerners at higher rates than people living in other regions of the country.[13]

And of course many couples do not marry so the figures reported above are likely to be underestimates.

The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement.

“Cohabitation is here to stay,” says .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), a Rutgers sociology professor and report co-author. “I don’t think it’s good news, especially for children,” he says. “As society shifts from marriage to cohabitation — which is what’s happening — you have an increase in family instability.”

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:13 | #

[I note some responses directed to me over at the “Octopi” thread, but I want to reply to Lister et al here first. The discussion at Octopi is starting to get academic, and I dislike such, mainly because I have neither inclination nor especially time (I’m in a full-time rigorous doctoral program now; also, I still work 15-20 hard hours for pay per week, in addition to other activities, like hitting the gym, monitoring investments, unfortunately extensive commuting, etc) to summarize huge tracts of theory and/or research written by established scholars; eg, I’m not going to correct all the errors of GenoType, when he ought to read, say, Rothbard, Man, Economy and State, for himself. On the other hand, Lister’s comment here is more in the way of strategic prognostication, and in those matters, there can be only debate and proposals - ie, there are no easily discernible correct answers to how our race ought to proceed. Such an open-ended, ‘opinionated’ discussion is obviously to be preferred by someone operating under increasingly severe time constraints.] LH

————————————————————-
Part I

From Lister (my responses interpolated):

Look the USA isn’t going to fail so badly that it ceases to exist, unless we all experience some genuinely global catastrophe, but it’s future increasingly looks very Brazilian and as such distinctly non-Western.

This is an old hypothesis, going back at least to the early 90s, which I personally can remember. Back then many of us were debating whether the future of the US would be Bosnia or Brazil (ie, civil race war v increasing racial amalgamation + lower quality of life and material economic success). I always opted for the Brazil thesis, mainly because I think whites have now been so enervated or weakened that they wish always to avoid conflict at all costs. If conflict is forced upon us, some portion of white Americans will fight back (in this unlike their even feebler European counterparts - during the recent UK riots, how many real English, as opposed to non-black alien communities, actually fought back against the negroid hooligans? And when the Mohammedans were running riot in France in 2005, where were the native-born vigilantes?). But white Americans will never en masse initiate racial conflict, and my suspicion (which may prove incorrect; no one can foresee this type of event) is that the ‘managerial state’ will always be able to quell local insurgencies. Never forget: most whites, being productive and decent persons, have a stake in the functioning of the basic mechanisms of society, even if those mechanisms have now been conquered by race traitors and enemies, and are being utilized, over the long term, to dispossess and destroy white America. In the long run, an extirpatory conflict might be just what Middle America requires to survive, but as one of modern history’s greatest charlatans once put it (in the only true phrase he ever uttered), “In the long run we’re all dead”. Race war might be great for young whites, who will have the time to rebuild society (assuming victory shall be ours - something I expect, but which cannot at the outset be assured), but what about those without the time to rebuild their lives, properties, portfolios, etc? Which generation sticks its head on the chopping block?

No, going the way of Brazil is so much easier, and therefore most likely.

As the primary colonial adventure of Europeans in the modern period it would have fairly short life compared to our ancient European nations. Mark Steyn, who can be very sharp and witty but is a very superficial writer might have got his hypothesis from “America Alone” entirely the wrong way around. After all no Western society is so near to seeing its former majority ethnic group reduced to the status of simply being the largest plurality. In the long run is it possible for a non-European society (Euros as a non-majoritarian group) to remain truly Western?

I read the excellent America Alone in 2007, if memory serves. I can’t remember the whole of his indictment, but it was persuasively damning in its portrayal of complete European spinelessness in the face of the immigration invasion + Muslim jihadism, and depressing in its reiteration of the data pertaining to European fertility declines. I understand, if cannot condone, the collapse in Euro births due to Western female careerism. But I still cannot account for what I asked at the outset, which was a serious question: why are Europeans so cowardly about defending their homelands? Lister is somewhat correct about a certain type of contemporary American (by no means the only or majority type, however) who idiotically thinks that anyone not actually Amerindian is an “immigrant”, and thus that it is meanspirited to try to keep our nation white by restricting further immigration. This type does seem to predominate in the usual opinion-forming circles (abetted there, of course, by Jews pursuing of their own agenda). But with Europe’s ancient history and “thick” culture, why do they ape us?

Of course, America will no longer be Western once whites are no longer the majority. The more interesting question is how long whites will survive at all as a distinct minority community? From my experiences living at different points across the entirety of CA (the OC, Sacramento, and San Francisco,  as well as in other places, like NYC), that is, in a state where whites are already a mere plurality, and within the decade will not even be that, Hispanics having captured that ‘honor’, what I have seen over the past decade is an unbelievable increase in interracial dating, marriage and miscgenation among whites. Our real enemy seems less to be extermination, than peaceful extinction via miscegenation.

Moreover, this is becoming a national phenomenon among the young. My university publishes an alumni quarterly bulletin (for ultimate fundraising purposes obviously, it being a private institution), with, inter alia, a section devoted to wedding announcements and often accompanying photos. What I have seen in those pages just in the past 10 years has been shocking. It seems like every other wedding photo with a white bride in it has a nonwhite (and often incredibly UGLY Oriental or Subcon) groom. Over and over, I ask, WTF?! What can some of these not at all unattractive white females, Ivy grads with real futures ahead of them, possibly want with some greasy little (or sometimes tubby) Asian?! Note for emphasis: these women are not always (or even mostly) ugly themselves, and thus presumably without better prospects. No, they are choosing ugly, greasy Asiatic mates. I have argued elsewhere that this is a function of the loss of sexual status of white men, which in turn is a function of our loss of racial status, woman being always in essence a little whore who will try to ‘marry up’, if at all possible (trust me, I know about these matters). Clearly, for some of the most academically elite young women in America, marrying ‘up’ means marrying ‘out’. 

Perhaps it is America alone that is uniquely vulnerable to the toxicity of hyper-liberalism. If my admittedly underdeveloped hypothesis is accurate there is probably no single mono-causal explanation as to why this is true but rather a series of interacting factors that together will precipitate the relative failure of the most ambitious colonial project of Europeans in the modern period.

But this isn’t true empirically. The virus of liberalism seemingly has infected every European society, which is why we all succumb to the same anti-racist lies and legislative hysteria. Even South African whites voted 2-1 in 1992 to destroy their own living space (how I recall reading in the Wall Street Journal at the time about that fateful measure for all-race elections, and being filled with much foreboding). While there probably is indeed no monocausal explanation (as I have been known to say here at MR) for the collapse in white pride and confidence, surely there will be a strong genetic component to any ultimately successful hypothesis. 

Even if some form of societal shock was to strike the US such that some radically different form of politics actually gained traction is it likely that any new political form would likely wrap itself in the language of the Constitution, American Patriotism, vulgar ‘televangelist’ Christianity and colour-blindness. We in Europe have some dangerous and daunting challenges but in my guts I just feel we are better equipped to genuinely resist and overcome those challenges.

I don’t know. I perceive this to be a race against time. White consciousness among conservative types is increasing; on the other hand, even vestigial traces of that consciousness among liberal types (of the kind that as recently as the 80s would have instinctively prevented elite white females from realistically contemplating marrying nonwhites) have now all but evaporated. Thus the white population is gradually psychologically bifurcating into those with no innate desire to miscegenate, and those potentially oriented that way, for whom the social and psychological ‘costs’ of doing so are no longer prohibitive.

Those whites who are naturally racially weak face no obstacles to being reproductively disloyal, and therefore their racially defective genomes are gradually being removed from the ranks of the racially pure white population. Conversely, those whites who are naturally more inclined towards race loyalty are also gradually being culturally awakened, thanks to the ongoing and accelerating rise of racial knowledge and experience which contradicts official propaganda.

The end result is an ever shrinking pure-blood white population, which, however, will also be ever more racially aware and innately race-patriotic. I think those aspects of modern ‘conservatism’ in the US that Lister finds repulsive or useless are attractive now, but will become less so in the future. By then, American patriotism will very much overlap with white patriotism. 

——————————————————————————————————

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:58 | #

Note to Dr. Lister…Hispanic is not a race.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:54 | #

Part II

From Lister (my comments interpolated):

One reason for this asymmetry might be that, however attenuated and exhausted the contemporary political imagination is in our post-modern times, the European political imagination and memory really does have a wider set of horizons – both the possible and the actual has outstripped liberalism. For good and bad, we Europeans have not simply been a set of nations which define themselves primarily by their liberal foundations. However regrettable much of it might have been we do have the historical-cultural memory of non-liberal social orders/hierarchy and even in the living memory the direct experience of politically potent non-liberal ideologies and regimes.  Liberal theory defines the American politico-cultural ‘event horizon’ in a way that no European society can quite match.

True, but then why are Europeans so monolithically left-wing? Where are your successful, governing parties of the Far Right? Your collective memories of non-liberal orders are all relentlessly hostile!

I think we’re coming back to my hypothesis re White Zion. Most whites everywhere are race liberals. Some may be pro-capitalist; others pro-socialist. But as majorities they unite around opposition to (white) racism. watchu gonna do? The white race, as I argued at great length here at MR earlier this year, is headed towards extinction. The only solution is to have a reservation (nation-state) of our own, one where the majority is like us (absent a global catastrophe, like a virulent contagion situation, which forces different countries to hermetically seal themselves; of course, that still does not negate the internal miscegenation problem).

The UK and other European societies are simply now playing catch-up to white American dispossession. Every trend destroying the US is also accelerating in the UK and Europe.

Finally, ‘liberal theory’ in the US, even assuming Lister’s assessment is accurate (itself highly debatable, and derived from shallow post-modern critiques of America’s alleged hyper-liberalism; the American Burkean Russell Kirk’s famous The Conservative Mind rather decisively challenges this notion of America as an “experiment” in Enlightenment liberalism), always has had a racialist component to it. Jefferson, the preeminent classical liberal among the Founders, was nevertheless an explicit racist and ethnochauvinist when it came to both Negro integration and immigration. As I’ve mentioned previously, the Founders thought it perfectly acceptable to discuss the “rights of man”, the glories of liberty, the benefits of what were coming to be recognized as ‘free markets’, etc, on the one hand, and Negroid inferiority and the desirability of extirpating the Indian savages, on the other.

So I still remain to be convinced why the best of liberal individualism, so clearly coincident with our race, cannot be harmonized with race realism. Why must a belief in liberty entail a rejection of racial honesty? 

Secondly, we recently discussed that Dutch survey which found a very large percentage of Dutch people openly admitted that mass migration had been the worst mistake in Dutch history.  This is interesting as the Dutch like to think of themselves as very tolerant liberal people. Yet many can happily admit to such a non-liberal sentiment. Why? It might be that as an organic long-standing culture and society the Dutch, as some level, implicitly feel they form a ‘natural’ collective group. The sentiment that mass migration is a mistake in the Dutch context doesn’t necessary have to be couched in ‘racist’ terms. After all it could be millions of Poles or little green men they would still be unhappy/worried. Hence the ‘psychological costs’ of the position seem to be lower than one might observe in American culture.

The difference in American cultural politics is that the objection to mass migration etc., cannot easily be couched in the implicit assumptions of an organic ‘natural’ ethno-cultural group which is in situ in a genuine homeland. Obviously every Euro-American is an immigrant or the product of immigration. Very obviously so in fact. Hence any objection to other forms of immigration is, ipso facto, a harder sell. The discourse does have a higher ‘psychological cost’ associated with it. Even the Jared Taylor homogeneity stuff, in the American context, has this higher politico-emotional barrier to entry.

Again, Lister is describing modern, already mixed white-ethnicity and highly multiracialized America. Not too many decades ago (I know, because I know the views of my parents and many others of their generation: they are neither WNs, nor integrationists or multiculturalists), most whites did not find it much of a psychological barrier to say that the US is a white nation, and ought to be kept that way. It is harder today because America is now a highly mixed society. But this has been a product of my own politically conscious lifetime! When I began high school (in a foreign country) in 1979, no one thought of the US as other than a white nation, though by the time I graduated college in 1987, joyous paeans to ‘diversity’ were heard throughout the Ivy League (and were seeping into non-academic discourse). I clearly remember the adults talking amongst themselves in the 70s about the “Mexican invasion” (also “Cambodian dog-eaters” were an issue) and how immigrants were ruining the state, and I also remember how excited everybody was when Reagan won in 1980, in part because they assumed he was going to put troops on the border (to the younger readers: this is true; Reagan, the asshole who passed a major, 4-million Mexican amnesty in 1986 - which directly set the stage for our present, 30-million illegal alien nightmare - had campaigned on stricter border control, among other issues).

Moreover, and this may come as a surprise to Lister as much as to the multiculturalists he’s ‘channeling’, but most white Americans do NOT see themselves as ‘immigrants’. Those who do are usually either immigrants in fact, or else either leftists or Jewish neocons (or their sycophantic supporters). Most white Americans also do not see themselves as “European-Americans”, a label which I use in writing sometimes, but generally eschew, as it seems to connote naturalized Europeans (like some of my parents’ friends, who variously come from Germany, Britain, Poland, Italy, etc - and sound like it!). Most white Americans have sufficiently deep roots here that we see ourselves as just plain ‘Americans’, or, in this multiculti age, ‘white Americans’. If such real Americans feel uncomfortable with racialist appeals, it is because of the general cultural bias against discussing and acting on white EGI (which has its ultimate origin in misconceived morality - again, I am now studying Catholic moral theology because I feel the ultimate problem for the West is ethical; to wit, that we have been brainwashed into thinking that taking stands in defense of white preservation is somehow immoral, unChristian, etc).

What Graham Lister is really doing here is superimposing his own beliefs about white Americans onto us, and then issuing a critique based on such hypothesized beliefs. 

The American ideological background is generally not, intra-societally, to think in collective or group terms so the first barrier to Mr Average is “isn’t this ‘narrow’ group-identity stuff all un-American and a remnant of our worst history not our best?” Next as an immigrant nation, the deeply and proudly inorganic ‘propositional nation’, a non-racist objection to non-Europeans becoming ‘Americans’ is also hard to sell. Can recent invaders reasonably and coherently object to more invaders?

Some truth here, but a lot more ‘buying into’ PC discourse. First, it’s only white Americans who are predisposed to thinking in strictly individualist terms, and more and more whites are coming to see this. Second, American history was traditionally not all that ethno-individualist, even wrt whites themselves. The great immigration restriction of 1924 was directed at non-Nordics, Asian immigration having been ended by the late 1880s. No American majority was ever predisposed to liking immigration (as the excellent Kevin MacDonald elucidated in his now classic article in Population and Environment on Jews and immigration, the ‘chosen’ were long the only group in America strongly supportive of mass immigration; this remains the case to some extent even today). Third, this “America as propositional nation” hogwash is purely a contemporary, ex post facto neocon attempt to define an inclusive Americanism for a mixed-race age. I don’t speak that language; neither do my friends, family, their friends, etc. And fourth, isn’t your own homeland starting to define itself (nb: that is already a treasonous act: nations don’t ‘define themselves’ according to some external standard; they just are) in terms other than ‘blood and soil’ descent? So clearly, actually being an ancient blood-and-soil nation is no defense against multicultural assault.   

Posted by anon / uh on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:27 | #

What Graham Lister is really doing here is superimposing his own beliefs about white Americans onto us, and then issuing a critique based on such hypothesized beliefs.

Well done. I ought to have said that, lozzllzlolozzloozozz.

Third, this “America as propositional nation” hogwash is purely a contemporary, ex post facto neocon attempt to define an inclusive Americanism for a mixed-race age.

neocon butthezzinxng lozozoz
we will define u assesssswsss out of exixtstsence !!!!Loozozozozoz
ghraaahmmy wammy tkakaes his cues
straight from da jews
n lotsa cocka for da ladieizz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the fialuure in this is emphasis yoooo   as i say, none of da founding babydaddys wudda known dafuck u mean by “proppazishin nayshin” n dass cuz dey wont no LIBRULZ daaaaawg l;oozozozozozz according to grhhaammy wamammy’s theryo all da whitreys who eva lefft enfgerland wuz traituhz 2 dey blod ozozozlzlzozoozozozzzzz like englihsmen spokke of bloooood back then lozozozoz dey wuz 2 busy spillin ‘at shit to worryry about “EGI”!!!! ozozozolzzzloozozoz

Posted by Silver on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:10 | #

Dan,

Silver exhorts us to racial solidarity, a concept which may have some purchase in the white settler countries where persons of European descent have historically been only too happy to cast off from their ethnic moorings, shedding their identity like an unwanted carapace in order to embrace a shiny new one, but it is a concept which fails to resonate at all with Europeans. And why should it? A Frenchman knows who and what he is, and where he came from , which he knows is not Senegal or Morocco, as does a German or a Nederlander, not to mention a Pole. Even the English are beginning to stir from their centuries-long immersion in ‘Britishness’ and asserting their Englishness in forms that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Ethnicity’s where’s it at mate. And all this despite - or maybe because of - sixty years of European ‘Union’.

You’ve misunderstood me completely. 

My point is that it doesn’t matter how well a Frenchman (or whatever) knows (or thinks he knows) himself unless he’s willing to acknowledge what the long-term requirement for perpetual group (race/sub-race/ethnicity whatever) existence actually is—which is territorial exclusivity.  I bring that up to you personally because as secure and confident in your ethnic identity as I’m sure you are (for some reason I envision George and Mildred’s neighbour when I read your posts), when pressed, your proposed solution to the race issue was to issue certificates granting right to abode (hence my snide but not citizenships! remark).  If that’s your actual solution, well, in the long run, that’s no solution at all. 

I’d certainly agree that a heightened sense of ethnic identity and an attitude of intolerance towards assaults on it would be an excellent and necessary first step, but by itself, all it can do is buy time.  Potentially it can buy centuries.  Look at Romania.  They’ve had gippos living among them for over five hundred years without mixing with them to any appreciable degree (to this day it’s basically social death).  In time, though, the expectation has to be amalgamation. 

Thus the reason I regard this pinpointing of differences between America and Europe (or Britain and Canada/Aus or whatever) a consensus of idiots is that it wholly misses the main point.  In a thousand years surely the pertinent point will be that whites mixed themselves out of existence, not that Americans did it for reasons x, y and z, while Britons, defiant to the bitter end, eventually did so for reasons p, q and r.  Knowing what those reasons are, perhaps contrary to what may be thought, really doesn’t do very much to effect the sort of change necessary unless one is aware of what that change needs to be.  Imagine you attain perfect historical understanding of the attitudinal differences between America and Britian; that’s great, but what must you now do differently as a result?  Nothing!  Either the objective remains the same or all the historical understanding in the world is for naught.  From what I’ve been able to make out, all the endless history chatter achieves is to leave people all dressed up and nowhere to go.  Follow me?

Lastly, I wasn’t exhorting ‘us’ to racial unity.  I was exhorting you to acknowledge and accept what your long-term objective should properly be.  Why?  Because though, like you, I’m no ‘WN,’ I think the direction things are traveling is disastrous (still not so bad for now, but the destination certainly is).  The only force I think that stands a chance of resisting and reversing it is a white (meaning British, mostly) racial ‘awakening’ (I dislike that term but can’t think of a suitable replacement).  My assumption is that that will reignite ethno-racial feeling among my own kind here, which has perceptibly waned even over just the last ten years.  (I’ve lost one cousin to a gook and another to a nigger—both, tragically, with children—and the sense I often get when I pipe up about it is that I’m the bad guy.)  That’s pretty much the extent of my interest in anything ‘WN.’

Just last week I was talking to this very, very English sort of Australian guy (the kind you’d never mistake for any other sort of white) in his forties.  The conversation was unrelated to race but at one point he interjected, “Well, you know, back in those days it used to be wogs vs aussies…er, I mean, you’re Italian, right?”  No, I said, I’m not [if I had a dollar…] but I know what you mean.  I’m a few years older than I look, I told him (34 but easily pass as 25, occasionally get ‘22’), and it was still very much the case when I was growing up (in a country town).  You know what, I said, I think it was better that way; not ‘better’ in the sense of being in people’s faces about it, just ‘better’ in the sense that you knew who you were, we knew who we were and you’d basically live your life around your own kind and it was just better that way.  Nowadays…well, you know, with all these other people… (I motioned with my head around the room, packed with all manner of God only knows what).  This was his response, spoken in a slow, deliberate tone that drunks often take on when they get philosophical: “Naaaahh, mate. You see, I don’t see it that way.  I’ve got no expectations of other people, so their ways don’t surprise me.”  I thought to myself you blithering fucking retard, who said anything about “expectations”? But I just nodded and changed the subject because a fruitloop like that isn’t worth wasting time picking on.  But you, Dan Dare, seem like a reasonable sort of chap, and you are worth wasting time picking on, so pick on you I shall (rather, your missteps, not ‘you’ personally). 

I understand that this perspective may seem a bit unusual. It’s not the sort of thing one comes across on these boards.  Truth is, I’m a bit of an idealist.  I very much want to believe that a fair and reasonable solution can be found to the race issue.  If all I had to rely on were the rantings of the lunatics who wade into these discussions with pistols drawn (not so much on MR) then I think I should want to wish death on every nazi scum bastard on the planet.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  While you’d be well within your rights to be ferociously upset at being put in a position of having to surrender your existence to a bunch of people who do not even appear to like you very much, it’s better to channel that rage into a program that stands a realistic chance of winning over both your own compatriots and the understanding of (perhaps even a measure of support from) the rest of the world who’d similarly like to be able to secure a future for their own.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:37 | #

Both sides of the Atlantic are in the same boat. It’s ridiculous to try and one-up each other in a “my country/continent is not as f*&$ed up as your is, yet” contest.

We can call America ‘North-Brazil’ just as much as we can (and many already do) refer to modern Europe as ‘Eurabia’.

They are both, unfortunately, true.

The census info I could find on England reports that a 2009 estimate put the percentage of English People at 82%.

Around 12%+ of England’s population was non-White. And 5% were of various European ethnics.

So basically England today looks like America did when ‘Star Wars’ was released back in 1977.

And like the rest of Europe, England has a dire fertility-rate which has been described as a demographic cliff.

.
.
.
As far as the effect stronger roots might have on events,

I think we Americans take it for granted that the British know much about America’s history. I would point out that America was created by Englishmen at the very beginning, predominantly peopled by Englishmen from the very beginning and up until the early 20th century the majority of Americans were of British descent.

In fact the narrative impetus behind the “cultural tolerance” motif here in America has been to bring up how mean us Anglo-Saxons were to the Irish, German, Italian, etc… minorities in the past.

So,
the cause of our current predicament is something other. It hit both sides of the Atlantic at the same time.

The real question is, ‘Why are we allowing this all to happen?”

...

Posted by danielj on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:49 | #

Geez there goes the ‘mud’ language. Mr. Average would obviously think you’re a really well-balanced, nice decent chap I’m sure.

Amongst ourselves we must utilize this language. It is an essential part of drawing boundaries; of demarcation. It is essential that dehumanize the other (if only half-heartedly) to undo the damage that excessive universalism has wrought.

The difference is this - we had millions of Poles enter the UK and most people were pissed off with that development. We can coherently argue they don’t belong here, regardless if it was Poles, Pakistanis, or Little Green Men from Mars. There is a real and substantive ethno-cultural cleavage.

Sure. We can coherently argue that a massive influx of Poles into the USA wouldn’t be acceptable either. We could coherently argue the same about a massive influx of English folks too. Do you need me to line it out for you?

However in America if say a couple of million Poles turned up could you all, with anything like the same basic coherency, say the don’t belong in America? After all the newly arrived Poles could turn and ask Fred Wysocki of Illinois along with the estimated 10 million Americans of Polish descent “where are you all originally from?” Furthermore the new Poles could ask: “you all ‘became’ Americans - why can’t we?” And Fred Wysocki of Illinois will answer…?

They couldn’t ask without a horrifically marred English.

The only real difference between Fred Wysocki of Illinois and his new Polish neighbours of that of time NOT of kind.

The only real difference?

American identity is a profoundly and openly diachronic phenomenon in a way that isn’t quite the same in many European nations.

Yes. You and Benjamin Disraeli are radically different.

Stay long enough and everyone has, at the level of everyday ‘cultural ideology’, a very legitimate claim to be an American.

It is the same exact thing in England.

Ask both whites and blacks in France if the blacks are really French and you will find most of the Africans state that they are African let alone the honest response of many of the native French!

You’re using the French to make your point? They aren’t interested in assimilation in the way the “British” are.

How can, say the slave-derived black population of America, be thought of as non-American?

They are Americans but they aren’t identical with White Americans.

Why or how are they less authentically American than my imaginary example of Fred Wysocki or even the real-life Charles Bronson (born Charles Dennis Buchinsky), Abe Foxman or George Soros to name but three prominent Americans with Slavic origins?

Do we really need to go over this?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:53 | #

Hey don’t shoot the messenger! It is hardly my fault that American identity has a much higher degree of permeability and plasticity than other older and more organically grounded ethno-cultural identities.

After all is American identity not the most ‘thinly’ conceived one in the Western world? The most radically and openly diachronic? Simply stay for a generation and one is American - as American as Fred Whatastupidslavicname in Algonquin Illinois (or whoever).

Yes an American could pragmatically and in practical terms against the extra million Poles but he could not coherently argue in principle against the prospect of them being putative Americans.

This low barrier to entry does pose unique problems for Americans, and if not totally unique then perhaps quantitatively and qualitatively a different and more difficult order of problems.

I’m only attempting to be helpful. If one doesn’t understand fully the size, shape, and contours of a problem or series of problems how can one ever to fully and satisfactorily deal with them? Wishful thinking and the holding of illusions do not generally help to solve a crisis.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:08 | #

The fact that there are low barriers of entry to white American status for a million Poles is surely less important than the similar low barriers for Arab muslims, mestizos etc

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:13 | #

Does it ever occur to people that we are up against great forces in the world; that the tide of history is moving inexorably against white survival?

I really think our race perished in WW2, and just hasn’t yet realized it. Clearly, if you look at Roman Imperial history, at the time at which it is clear to us that Rome had begun her decline it wasn’t at all apparent for many decades (even arguably centuries) to the people then living. I suspect the future will say that about WNs in this period.

I could offer a couple more paragraphs in response to Lister’s long comment, but the basic point is this: we are in a new situation, and the past is dead. Every trend is running against white survival. If we are to survive, it will involve totally new ways of thinking (eg White Zion), even if I find value (racial value) in a return to racially renovated forms of our civilization (like a Christianity that places ontological and moral value on cultural preservation, including Occidental cultures). There has been some fundamental disconnect with our own past. The fact that America’s is shorter and thinner than England’s or France’s may be immaterial. All white nations have been transformed into historical orphans (dare I say ‘Americanized?), and so we’re all pretty much in the same situation. If patriotic appeals to St George or Henry V or “their finest hour” haven’t been sufficient to awaken the British to what they are losing (have already lost?), and spurred them to defend it, then what does it matter that once upon a time the UK’s sense of ‘togetherness’ may have been ‘thicker’ than America’s? Multiply ten by zero, you get zero. Multiply a hundred by zero ...

I think increasingly all that the white peoples have left are bare or base appeals to racial differences and racial fear. That it will be bad to allow one’s own people to become a defenseless minority in one’s own country; that other races are simply less ethical and sheerly behaviourly pleasant than our own; that most other peoples are less intelligent than we are, and thus more of an economic drag, esp in non-laissez-faire societies; and that peoples are generally most contented when living among genetically similar others.

Those arguments are timeless and universal, and enable us to avoid pointless and distracting intraracial quarrels.

Posted by anon / uh on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:33 | #

Hey don’t shoot the messenger! It is hardly my fault that American identity has a much higher degree of permeability and plasticity than other older and more organically grounded ethno-cultural identities.

You repeat this word “organic” each time you refer to Europeans. It’s begot an image in my mind of the European nations all lined up in boxes at an organic fruit market. Here’s a real, fresh, “organic” Frenchman, distinct from the freezer-packed and transatlantic Frenchman of Quebec or Vermont, who has lost nutrients and flavor on the voyage and three months sitting on some warehouse shelf. Over here, a plump, pink organic German, ready to burst with juice and seed upon peeling; quite superior to the warmed-over self-forgotten generic American varietal of the Midwest. (Bomber Harris, gleich noch mal, aber mit Nachdruck!) And have a look at these long smooth yummy Italians, all ripened in the warm sun of Naples, completely unlike the soggy colorless things growing in New Jersey. And of course, what organic fruit stand would be complete without a genuine heirloom English cockerel, crowing at everyone of its high-breeding and pride at being an English cockerel!

It’s the European organic fruit stand against the three-acre American supermarket of post-peoples. Europe is all ideals, essences, purity, a free range ahnenerbe to America’s dungeon coops of rancid ethnic bastardy & confusion.

I’m only attempting to be helpful

.

Nah, you’re just being a bigot, nursing your native Scottish pluck on the jaundiced anti-‘Murrcan narrative of the Continent. This is why people leave Glasgow. You’re all a bunch of cocksure bullies. Chide Americans here for the growing prevalence of mixed cohabitation in the same month as Daily Mail gleefully reports that British half-castes now number in the millions.

America was not an “Enlightenment project”. That is plain retrojection. The merging of European identities into one “organic” super-identity was not an unworthy political project in itself. It went wrong owing to some patently modern English ways. But you don’t care about that. You are so busy writing us off that you haven’t time to ponder more how English sociobiology in itself ruined its own living space, as it has done here and in the motherland.

All I concede is that there is a stronger undercurrent of ethnic identity in England and Europe than here. That is incontestable. At the end of the day, “I’m American” has not the depth or accuracy of ethnic reporting as “I am English” or “I am Italian”; it could not have, as the latter populations are closer to their points of origin in place and perspective. American identity had certain safeguards against innovation or, in judiciary terms, Non-Originalism. As PF noted long ago, the extension of identity to blacks had precedent in the extension of identity to Germans, Italians, Poles, Greeks and Irish. Yet this ought to not obscure the biopolitical fact that American identity was for three centuries covertly “English” or “British”, to embrace the other islanders.

In the end it’s the same franchise collapse that washed blacks up on your shores. The American break-away allows you the freedom of perspective to bash the colonies for abrogating their identity. Yet it was your, pardon our, people’s own opportunism that brought all this about. But I don’t hold this against them; it was the height of white dominance of the world, so it’s not as though we can charge them with not taking a defensive posture with respect to their identity. It wasn’t needed. Good old English bigotry was quite enough to see them through the business of occupying other biospheres and extorting resources. Now you, in the great age of contraction, focus on the abrogation of European identity by Americans as a unique local evil inspired by “the Enlightenment”. Yet the tragedy is due not merely to an innovation of ethnic identity, but to the ethnic overextension that made it possible — which made possible the narratives (victimology, universalism, capitalism) that excuse what has been done back in the motherland.

Posted by anon / uh on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:48 | #

Does it ever occur to people that we are up against great forces in the world; that the tide of history is moving inexorably against white survival?

Did you see those big photos at the top?

No one here really hates the other for being American or Scottish. I don’t hate Listerine for swishing with Continental rhetoric. I know he doesn’t hate me for being an American wog.

I really think our race perished in WW2, and just hasn’t yet realized it. Clearly, if you look at Roman Imperial history, at the time at which it is clear to us that Rome had begun her decline it wasn’t at all apparent for many decades (even arguably centuries) to the people then living.

Yes. Big complex things take a very long time to fully drain of life. Like light from distant stars and rotting trees. Emile Cioran wrote, sometime in the ‘40s I think, that Europe was nothing but a rotten, sweet-smelling corpse. We are living in a stage of advanced decay of our own imploding ethnic franchise.

As a prophylactic to tearing at each other, why don’t we all agree to a hate-fest upon Canadians? Seriously, fuck those supercilious snowbunnies. They’re like the Finns of America.

But you know wot? It may be worth our while to turn our attention briefly to Canada as a counterpoint to this sub-topic of American identity as the root of all evil. For no one will accuse the Canadians of having totally abandoned their English identity, yet they are doing the same kak in their yard as America did centuries ago, and England decades ago. Why? They are palpably implicit Englishmen. You won’t hear “I’m just Canadian” half as often as one hears “I’m just American”. They will mutter like Englishman, “Well, erm, I am English by descent, of course.” And so on. And yet, and yet — they’re fucking themselves just the same with importations of Pakis, Russkis, chinkies and whatever else. So ... is it still Americanism to blame?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:33 | #

Listerine for swishing with Continental rhetoric…

That sounds like fun…now if I only had a couple of leggy and blonde Nordic beauties to jump in with me.

Seriously I don’t hate American people. When I was there the Euro-Americans I interacted with were all pretty decent with many social virtues (apart from some fairly harmless but tiresome ‘creationists’). That’s ‘Minnesota nice’ for you I guess.

But one can dislike the regime of a society, its ideological commitments and illusions and so on. Let’s face it that most people in the West don’t seriously think about anything that is not part of their immediate personal concerns. So is it any wonder they spout banalities?

I recall a sweet middle-aged, middle-class, American lady that asked me why people from aboard seemingly disliked George W. Bush so much. I was incredulous (how can someone not know?) She explained that she wasn’t really ‘political’ and supported the President no matter who it was as they are all ‘good people’ that ‘try their best for the nation’. Naive doesn’t cover it really. Personally I’m from the ‘shit floats’ school of political judgements.

But I guess if you have a relatively comfortable and secure life why not be ‘rationally ignorant’ and only concerned with personal minutiae. Man is a political animal with a small p - it is a tiny minority that are political animals with a capital P.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:15 | #

I have neither inclination nor especially time (I’m in a full-time rigorous doctoral program now; also, I still work 15-20 hard hours for pay per week, in addition to other activities, like hitting the gym, monitoring investments, unfortunately extensive commuting, etc)

I am awed.  And you were even so modest you left out organizing your 2012 Victory Program whereby a movement inspired by you will capture control of the executive branch, 2/3s of both houses of Congress and 3/4s of the state legislatures.  This is so you can enact your National Libertarian Program without hindrance from a retromingent judiciary.

Leon, you truly are a continent-straddling colossus. 

Everyone note the time stamp and link to Leon’s post.  M-R has had its very own “Atlas Shrugged” moment in real time.  Leon Haller has dropped our collective useless weight from the titanic load he bears.

monitoring investments

I had privately suspected that your real definition of “capital” was your net balance on your brokerage statements.  Thanks for confirming this.

Posted by fast on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:08 | #

I recall a sweet middle-aged, middle-class, American lady that asked me why people from aboard seemingly disliked George W. Bush so much. I was incredulous (how can someone not know?) She explained that she wasn’t really ‘political’ and supported the President no matter who it was as they are all ‘good people’ that ‘try their best for the nation’. Naive doesn’t cover it really. Personally I’m from the ‘shit floats’ school of political judgements.

Indeed, but that’s diseased thinking on the part of Americans. They think Barney Frank, Elaine Kagan, Chuck Schumer and the like are ‘‘Americans just like me’‘, but that some Mujuhadeen who wants Israel to stop massacring his friends and relatives, doesn’t like American troops stomping around Islamic holy sites, and resents the fact that the same troops at some point probably asked his baby sister if she wants to fuck is ‘‘evil’‘. These clowns won’t even criticize Jews in public yet they find it cathartic to cheer on the killing of Arabs who haven’t done anything to them.

What is even more offensive is the Texan, redneck, or flyover country denizen who thinks ‘‘9/11’’ had anything to do with him and who loudly laments the fact that Jewish oppression of their sectarian enemies leads inevitably to attacks on NYC.

Nothing was/is stranger than seeing some Bible Belt mouthbreather clamoring for vengeance against Arabs for attacking people who utterly despise him. Stockholm Syndrome writ large.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38 | #

To Silver, a brief response:

You’ve misunderstood me completely.

It would seem to have been the case.

... If that’s your actual solution, well, in the long run, that’s no solution at all.

This is probably not the time or the place for yet another recitation of my ‘actual solution’ (posts passim refer), suffice to say that your interpretation of it is a gross over-simplification, verging on caricature.

Thus the reason I regard this pinpointing of differences between America and Europe (or Britain and Canada/Aus or whatever) a consensus of idiots is that it wholly misses the main point.  In a thousand years surely the pertinent point will be that whites mixed themselves out of existence, ...

The pinpointing of differences is important for the simple reason that, although all liberal democracies are travelling along the same trajectory, and headed for oblivion, their reasons for being on it, and their position along the curve, vary wildly. If we don’t understand how and why we got into this pickle in the first place there will be little prospect of us ever getting out of it. It hardly bears repeating that the experiences of the white settler countries and countries in Western Europe, some of which have only very recently become recipients of enrichment by Afro-Asians, could hardly have been more different. There is no ‘white’ solution to what is essentially a localised problem.

Lastly, I wasn’t exhorting ‘us’ to racial unity.  I was exhorting you to acknowledge and accept what your long-term objective should properly be

Which appears to amount to ...

Why?  Because though, like you, I’m no ‘WN,’ I think the direction things are traveling is disastrous (still not so bad for now, but the destination certainly is).  The only force I think that stands a chance of resisting and reversing it is a white (meaning British, mostly) racial ‘awakening’ (I dislike that term but can’t think of a suitable replacement).  My assumption is that that will reignite ethno-racial feeling among my own kind here, which has perceptibly waned even over just the last ten years.  (I’ve lost one cousin to a gook and another to a nigger—both, tragically, with children—and the sense I often get when I pipe up about it is that I’m the bad guy.)  That’s pretty much the extent of my interest in anything ‘WN.’

Now I get it. Your clarion call to white solidarity isn’t based upon any overarching regard for the ‘race’ but instead concerns itself with an awakening of the local Anglo-Celtic majority to the plight of their wog* compatriots who are in danger of being subsumed within a rising tide of colour. Well, I can appreciate the concern but hope you will to excuse us if we have more pressing matters to deal with closer to home. It’s hardly our fault if your elected government is set upon populating those parts of Australia which have not yet been dug up and hauled off to China with Subcons, Somalis and Chinkies. You’ll need to fix it yourselves or come home.

*Wog in the Australian context refers to migrants of Mediterranean origin.

Posted by Silver on Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:57 | #

Dan,

The pinpointing of differences is important for the simple reason that, although all liberal democracies are travelling along the same trajectory, and headed for oblivion, their reasons for being on it, and their position along the curve, vary wildly. If we don’t understand how and why we got into this pickle in the first place there will be little prospect of us ever getting out of it.

You could certainly be forgiven for thinking so.  Yet in my experience the details of these differences illuminate very little. 

It’s in understanding the similarities that exist among all these supposedly very different historical contexts that illumination results (and solutions become more apparent). 

It hardly bears repeating that the experiences of the white settler countries and countries in Western Europe, some of which have only very recently become recipients of enrichment by Afro-Asians, could hardly have been more different. There is no ‘white’ solution to what is essentially a localised problem.

I disagree.  Any solutions (that actually are solutions) and the ways in which they are rationalized are going to differ only cosmetically; there’s always going to be a core similarity.  Once countries decided that the general welfare of the citizenry was a government’s proper concern, the various programs across all welfare states came to look very much alike—because, when you get down to it, there are only so many ways of going about the task.  The value of a generalized ‘white’ solution—and I’d simply refer it as a generalized racial solution—is that it (a) allows for harmonization where harmonization may be important, (b) much more importantly, it multiplies moral confidence, which, call me stupid, I believe will be crucial in confronting ‘world opinion’ (bound to be negative).

Now I get it. Your clarion call to white solidarity isn’t based upon any overarching regard for the ‘race’ but instead concerns itself with an awakening of the local Anglo-Celtic majority to the plight of their wog* compatriots who are in danger of being subsumed within a rising tide of colour. Well, I can appreciate the concern but hope you will to excuse us if we have more pressing matters to deal with closer to home. It’s hardly our fault if your elected government is set upon populating those parts of Australia which have not yet been dug up and hauled off to China with Subcons, Somalis and Chinkies. You’ll need to fix it yourselves or come home.

Dan’s miffed that my motives are impure.  I don’t seek a racial solution because it benefits him, I seek it because it benefits me.  The nerve!

In actual fact, there’s nothing impure or even questionable about a racial stance that states: race matters; it’s too important to whole host of life goods to continue to downplay or ignore; thus racial problems require racial solutions. 
(The fact that that’s a very pure strain of moral thought is obscured by the racial rancor that typically accompanies it.  Such rancor should be understood as expressions of sorrow for the life goods mentioned being severely compromised by the presence of absurdly vast numbers of absurdly divergent ‘others.’)

Its purity aside, this stance also offers tremendous pragmatic value.  Firstly, it’s ‘safe.’  One can express these ideas and very easily ignore shrill cries of protest of every Ranjit, Sanjit and Gupta (and protest these arrogant pricks do incessantly).  But there’s much more than that.  Stop and think about it for moment. You can in this way have someone who is not you, doesn’t claim to be you, yet is willing to stand up and say for this and this and this reason you have a point and something should be done about it and here are some things that can be. If that could get air time it’d be worth a hundred John Tyndall speeches (in the present climate). 

It’s the purists on your own side, overwhelmed with racial loathing, their bodies convulsing with racial revulsion, who’ve set the tone for ‘what racism is’ and thereby prevented such a reasonable approach to the issue.  To this day there are many of them who’d tell me, oh no, you greasy bastards don’t get off that lightly for all the trouble you’ve caused us; there’s hell to pay.  There was a time I allowed such sentiment to put me off.  Now I figure that only a scant few will be ever moved by their exhortations so fuck them, they can be safely ignored.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:11 | #

No rejoinder, Graham?

It’s as though I spit in the sea around here…