|
|
The latest statistics on race in BritainThe number of people in ethnic-minority groups is growing significantly as the white British population continues to decrease, government figures show. England’s non-white population rose by more than half a million between 2001 and 2003 to 7.1 million, with the Chinese community growing at the fastest rate. Over the same period the white British population fell by 100,300 to 42.8 million, according to a report by the Office for National Statistics. The figures suggest an overall decline in ethnic segregation as non-white groups move into almost every area of the country. London continues to have the greatest concentration of non-white British ethnic groups, with 40.7 per cent of the capital’s population in 2003 belonging to a non-white British group. But faster growth of the non-white British population in all areas outside London means that its share of the non-white population has fallen from 44.7 per cent to 42.5per cent. The North East of England has the lowest proportion of its population from a non-white British group (4.6 per cent) and had the highest average annual growth of those groups between 2001 and 2003 (9.9 per cent). The results suggest that the growth in the non-white population in urban areas such as London is being driven by people arriving from abroad, while growth outside the capital is attributable largely to an urban exodus of minority groups from the cities. Ceri Peach, Professor of Social Geography at Oxford University, said that racial segregation appeared to be in steady decline. “The traditional movement of population from inner cities to the suburbs is now happening among all groups,” he said. Although the population of most ethnic groups grew between 2001 and 2003, two groups showed a small decline over the period: white Irish and white British. This is because of net emigration, and, in the white Irish group, because deaths are outstripping births, the report says. The figures also show that the Chinese community in England grew at 11 per cent a year between 2001 and 2003, faster than any other ethnic group. This was largely because of the arrival of people born in China. William Ong, the publisher of Chinatown magazine, said that the growth was being led by students. “Around 15 per cent of the UK student population is Chinese and there are 90,000 mainland Chinese students studying in the UK,” he said. “The majority like to stay to get some work experience here before they return to their own country. As they pay full fees, the student population is very welcome in this country.” There had also been an influx from China of manual workers and economic migrants, some of them illegally. “The huge growth of cities such as Shanghai and Beijing has attracted in lots of people from rural areas, but they cannot all find jobs, so many are looking for work abroad in places such as Australia and England,” Mr Ong said. (From The Times) Posted by jonjayray on Friday, January 27, 2006 at 12:14 AM in Immigration Comments:2
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 01:42 AM | # Right on Al Ross;but when a black leaves Nigeria for the UK,the average IQ in both countries goes DOWN! I’m old enough to remember back in the 60’s,when we[theUS] were constantly berated for our inability to handle our “race problems"by the Brits,as they had none—End result-“Commonwealth Citizenship” is as dangerous as slave-holding and open borders. 3
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 02:20 AM | # End result-“Commonwealth Citizenship” is as dangerous as slave-holding and open borders. Dangerous? Too late. Disasterous. I think its increasingly important to think of exit strategies. Even if nuclear war were to bring down civilization tommorrow, the gene-flow that has occurred renders any gifts from our ancestors in profound jeopardy in the homelands as well as offspring lands. 4
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 03:29 AM | # James Bowery-the prose on this site astounds me-between you and Al Ross ,I’ll have to try and understand Chaucher [sp.] again! Bottom line-weré running out of places-Rhodesia is history;SA soon to follow;Australia[which I personally held as the great white hope] has succumbed to the multi-culti disease,Iceland now has 3% non-whites,Antartica is about it,but you can’t grow tomatos.STAY AND FIGHT!!! We ALLOWED this shit to happen;now let’s clean up our mess.CHEERS! 5
Posted by Steve Edwards on January 27, 2006, 04:03 AM | # Gosh! If I didn’t know better, I’d think there was race-replacement going on in Britain, or something. 6
Posted by Steve Edwards on January 27, 2006, 04:05 AM | # “The figures suggest an overall decline in ethnic segregation as non-white groups move into almost every area of the country.” Meanwhile, indigenous Britons are falling in numbers. But don’t worry, “race-replacement” is a ridiculous idea. 7
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 04:07 AM | # STAY AND FIGHT!!! We ALLOWED this shit to happen;now let’s clean up our mess.CHEERS! Fight? The cause of our problems is Jews and Jews are off limits. We can’t address our problems in our territories because we let Jews into them and they are protected by the Holycaust. It’s that simple. 8
Posted by UPD on January 27, 2006, 04:47 AM | # I stumbled upon the following blogs by Zionists. Very interesting in that they consciously promote immigration and race-mixing to eliminate their racial competitors, speak of the zionist role in the impending war on iran and more. Seems legit, as they comment in Hebrew at strategic points. http://www.xanga.com/Zionism_Strike_Team 9
Posted by Al Ross on January 27, 2006, 05:04 AM | # The saga of Britain’s post-war immigration debacle is a sorry one indeed. Firstly we should have divided the Commonwealth, for immigration purposes, into the Old (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) whose citizens could acquire British right of abode in the manner which obtains between citizens of Oz and NZ, and the New, from whence no immigration whatsoever would be permitted. Secondly the EEC (as was), which pressured Britain to curtail the immigration of Old Commonwealth citizens, should have been firmly resisted in this vital matter. Lastly the perfidy and imbecility displayed by British politicians was such that nobody would ever accuse them of acting in the interests of the unfortunate people who elected them 10
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 05:10 AM | # James Bowery-Wow,I must have lit a fire under you-I can understand you the first reading! Yes,the Jews have been instrumental in bringing this plague amonst us,as it suits their purposes.BUT-remove their minons,[the liberals,CFR,ACLU,SPLC,NAACP,NEA,BILDERBURGERS,etc.]-I know,an impossible scheme,But lets start with the Liberals,because THEY ARE THE FACILLITATORS! If you are a Brit, vote BNP-if American -ANY CONSERVATIVE ! 11
Posted by Mark Richardson on January 27, 2006, 05:18 AM | # James, I know we’re going to disagree on this, but let me point out what I see as a problem with your comment. If you put the source of our difficulties outside of ourselves, in some other group, then it becomes difficult to see a way forward. If we are doing the right thing, but still not able to advance our cause because of some other more powerful group, there’s not much more to do but to lament the fact that some other group has it over us. Whilst I don’t deny that the Jewish role is an issue (as unfortunately is the role of the Christian churches also), the great hindrance as I see it is that our own intelligentsia acts against our own interests. Once you see that we ourselves are making mistakes, there is something to be done, something within our own control. The thing to do then is to understand what makes our own intellectuals think the way they do, and to seek to persaude them to a different view. 12
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 05:25 AM | # UPD, cute satire but it doesn’t solve the problem. 13
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 05:38 AM | # Al Ross-interesting and perspective approach[altho retrospective now]-I WONDER WHAT CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE DONE? Unfortunately,both our countries are saddled with poofter politicians who want to be all things to all people,but especially those who protest the most[musn’t show any disharmony] In a sense ,we have only ourselves to blame-we trusted those we elected to do our will -and then in most cases, WE ELECTED THEM AGAIN!!! It’s been150 years since our Civil War-possible time to stir the pot again-most of yours have been UNcivil wars-get it right this time! LOL Nick T 14
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 06:18 AM | # The thing to do then is to understand what makes our own intellectuals think the way they do, and to seek to persaude them to a different view. Posted by Mark Richardson on Friday, January 27, 2006 at 09:18 AM | # 15
Posted by Mark Richardson on January 27, 2006, 07:26 AM | # Nick, I’m not referring to older, professional liberal intellectuals. I’m referring more broadly to members of what you might call the “political class”: the 5% or so of the population who take an interest in politics and who think about political issues. It’s already the case that shifts have occurred in the politics of such people. In Australia 15 years ago it was rare to find a young person who wasn’t a left-liberal. Now, thanks in part to the internet, there are many more right-wing liberals. The question is whether a further shift can take place, in which a section of the political class is won over to a non-liberal politics. It’s not easy to achieve because there is no pre-existing milieu to attract people: it has to be created from scratch. But already there are some good signs - we’ll see how things go over the next few years. 16
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 09:16 AM | # Mark,I’m impressed-areyou a proponet of the"Alinsky Method” ,or the somewhat more refined “Delphi Technique”,in gaining consensus with your positions?—Military interrogation approaches-before you kick them in the balls-been there-done that-don’t work on this old Marine,but good try! Bottom line-the nogs and wogs do not belong-send them back-save your country. 17
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 10:02 AM | # Mark,Ijust reread you missive,-what the hell is a “right-wing liberal”?Other than an oxymoron YOU just created.In the real world-people of character will take only so much abuse from family’friends,or associates.Then we have a Boston Tea Party !And rebellions are started by the elders[right or wrong],fought by their sons,but only remembered in history as the elders achievements.Believe me,there are forces in Australia that want their country back,and the young people are the ones capable.More power to them-get back the country their parents gave away. Nigs,Nogs,and Wogs are NOT Australia’s future. 18
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 11:11 AM | # Mark Richardson wrote: Once you see that we ourselves are making mistakes, there is something to be done, something within our own control. I look to one key event as an exemplar of ourselves making mistakes: Cromwell, who made his entire career out of young men willng to sacrifice themselves to rid themselves of absolute monarchy, acted as an absolute monarch when he went against the will of his own Rump Parliament and the law of the land to readmit the Jews to England. Shed light on that event and our flaws will be revealed. The thing to do then is to understand what makes our own intellectuals think the way they do, and to seek to persaude them to a different view. This is precisely where a country occupied by Jews is doomed. Look at the 20th century’s leading intellectual movements that metastasized into the current situation. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on January 27, 2006, 12:47 PM | # Nick, Mark hasn’t made anything up. Stick around and you will bump into what is and is not Conservatism regularly here. Suffice to say for the moment that right-wing liberalism encompasses economic libertarianism, such as that practised by Reagan and Thatcher, and all postures and policies that do not explicitly oppose liberal social policy. That means that every mainstream right-wing party (such as the GOP, the British Conservatives, the German Christian Democrats, John Howard’s Liberals ... every one of them) belongs to the historical drift of liberalism. Conservatism as a pure political movement is virtually unpractised in the West today, save by the odd brave throw-back. It was severed from political life long ago when its adherents pursued instead the chimera of relevancy, thereby confirming the liberal prescription for society. The loss of Conservatism in the West as an alternative (or, at the very least, a healthy counterweight) to liberalism’s excessive individualism and nihilism has been a fundamental cause of our present difficulties. Not the only one, of course. 20
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 12:49 PM | # Nick Tamiroff what the hell is a “right-wing liberal”? This: 21
Posted by Alex Zeka on January 27, 2006, 02:38 PM | # Do any of you know why white numbers are falling? I mean, is it immigration or actual extinction. If the former, there’s hope yet, if emigree whites can find a place to regroup. How about Tunisia? Not meaning to sound like JJR, but Tunisians seem remarkably European looking, and certainly act like Europeans. 22
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 03:22 PM | # Do any of you know why white numbers are falling? The biggest population explosions of whites have been during population of frontiers. Take it to the bank or take it to the grave with your people. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on January 27, 2006, 03:48 PM | # Reasons not to have a baby:- 1. The pill eliminates (the great majority of) little accidents. What did I miss? Oh, the mejah and Hollywood. 24
Posted by Phil Peterson on January 27, 2006, 03:59 PM | # Low fertility is not just a “white problem”. East Asia has extremely low fertility rates as well. In some East Asian nations, the fertility rates are lower than Britain and the US (by which I mean American whites). As for the Jews as “the root cause of our ills”, if only life was that simple. It is an argument which one could probably make with some force in America. But to say that Britain is happily race replacing itself because its “the Jews” is nonsense, with due respect, James. 25
Posted by Ben Tillman on January 27, 2006, 04:36 PM | # Phil, I am at a loss to think of any individual that had either the motive or the opportunity to effect the demographic changes we observe, other than the one identified by James. 26
Posted by Andrew on January 27, 2006, 04:43 PM | # A slight tendency to agree Phil, Saudi Arabia, and the Economic Monetary control it has is alarming, and armed with the knowledge of the European experience of Multiculturalism, And Arab Culture: Well, it is catastrophic. So choose your friends- Is that what it has come to? 27
Posted by Andrew on January 27, 2006, 04:50 PM | # I stuffed up the Hot Link to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia 28
Posted by Phil Peterson on January 27, 2006, 04:52 PM | # Phil, I am at a loss to think of any individual that had either the motive or the opportunity to effect the demographic changes we observe, other than the one identified by James. Ben, Civilizations are founded, they prosper, they become decadent and then they die. Who had the “motive” to destroy the Romans after they had conquered the earth? Did “the Jews” destroy Rome? The decay and collapse of a civilization is ultimately a reflection of life itself. Men are born, they live and they die. By your logic, unless there were parties with “motives”, no civilization would ever die out. That is not to say that our civilization must die the death that it is inflicting upon itself. But looking for “the Jews” as the ultimate cause of our problems is a one way road to an intellectual (and practical) dead end. 29
Posted by Andrew on January 27, 2006, 04:53 PM | # I’ll sack my self. Bugger. 30
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 04:56 PM | # Phil Peterson writes: to say that Britain is happily race replacing itself because its “the Jews” is nonsense I think you ignore not only Cromwell’s readmittance but the choice made by the British to establish a trade empire among nations now colonizing Britain itself. This decision was driven by the same force as the industrial revolution and the associated technological breakthroughs: Higher labor costs due to loss of labor to the New World. The reaction of men like Disraeli, Sassoon, and Rothschild was the reaction typical of Jews: Find humans to do your work for you. This is in stark contrast to the approach take by more indigenous British forces that drove the scientific and technological revolutions of the 19th century. Beyond that, we come to the post WW II era during which the United States exercised an unprecedented amount of geopolitical influence not to mention the horrors of Hollywood. 31
Posted by Phil Peterson on January 27, 2006, 05:01 PM | # James, Why did we start getting race replaced in the 1960s if Cromwell let the Jews into Britain in the 17th century? Were the Jews in the 17th century plotting to race replace Britain in the 20th (after they had built in empire, let native Anglo-Saxons/Celts colonise vast portions of the Earth)? I am astonished how remarkably intelligent people believe this sort of stuff. 32
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on January 27, 2006, 05:41 PM | # To Guessedworker-After reading your description of a right-wing liberal,I guess Iwill have to concurr,altho I perceived it as libertarian in nature .If you can include Thacher and Reagan in the group,then I guess I are one.NOW-WHAT DO I TELL MY RED-NECK FRIENDS? Do I have to go into the “don’t ask,don’t tell"mode,or give up darting,pool-shooting,NASCAR-watching,motorcycle racing{which I still do at 66],because to a lot of people , “liberal” equates to lesbians,sodomites,Ted Kennedy,abortionists,etc. At my age,I don’t like to be “made aware"of anything-ergo-I hate you! Just joking,of course. 33
Posted by Mark Richardson on January 27, 2006, 05:46 PM | # Ben, first, there have existed other groups with the motive and opportunity to press for open borders. Think, for example, of businessmen who want cheaper labour or larger domestic markets. Or churchmen who believe that God made us all the same. But the larger point is that people don’t always act according to their own long-term interests. It takes some wisdom to do this, and people don’t always manage this. In England in the 1700s and 1800s, the most politically influential group were the Whigs, made up of the wealthiest aristocratic families. The Whigs were known to be very proud of their aristocratic distinction. Nonetheless, they supported a radical politics which doomed their own future. This was pointed out to them time and again. As one history of the Whigs puts it: “Tories always predicted the Whigs would cut their own throats. Without seeming to sense the danger to their own position, the latter blithely encouraged the opening up of politics to new social groups ...” “To Tories, Whigs strongly resembled those liberal members of the French aristocracy, such as Talleyrand and Lafayette, who, in the early stages of the French Revolution, had thrown in their lot with those advocating great change. Like their French friends, the Whigs were simply consigning themselves to oblivion…” Ideals and political traditions have their own influence. This is especially true if you are a comfortably established group in society - there is a lot more room for complacency than those who feel their position to be precarious. 34
Posted by Al Ross on January 27, 2006, 06:38 PM | # “Did the Jews destroy Rome?” asked Phil Peterson. The introduction of the Jewish heresy, Christianity, in Rome certainly was a major contibutor to the republic’s destruction. At the beginning of chapter 15 of Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall’, the author gives the main reason for the spread of Christianity, viz and I quote, “The zeal of the Jews”. 35
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 06:55 PM | # Phil, I’ll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth and then being astonished at them. Nowhere did I posit a multi-centry conspiracy. Such argumentation is typical of people attempting to avoid the very difficult subject. 36
Posted by Phil Peterson on January 27, 2006, 07:08 PM | # James, I have never avoided the Jewish Question. You can check through the archives of all the threads at this blog. But I believe in being fair in my criticism and being rational. Ascribing the downfall of an entire civilization to a single cause - in this case to a people who barely make up 1 percent of the population of the West is rather silly in my opinion. Anyway, I have tried reasoning with the “hawks” on this issue in the past with little or no success. So I am not insisting on endlessly debating the point. But I just thought I’d express my own opinion on this matter which does differ considerably from that of some of our bloggers. 37
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 07:33 PM | # That’s fine but at least lets be clear about what you are disagreeing with—and massive conspiracy isn’t it. I think J. Bolton and I have pretty much expressed the view that the proper model is horizontal transmission via migration/open borders leading to an evolution of parasitic virulence. You can’t say that a population of 1% parasite tissue within a body can do any less damage to an infected organism than we observe in the nations of the West. 38
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 07:37 PM | # Let me rephrase to get correct the double negative: It is certainly plausible that an organism with merely 1% of its body weight consisting of parasite tissue would exhibit pathology comparable to that seen in the nations of the West. 39
Posted by fgsg on January 27, 2006, 08:16 PM | # The cause of our problems is Jews and Jews are off limits. We can’t address our problems in our territories because we let Jews into them and they are protected by the Holycaust. It’s that simple. Posted by James Bowery on Friday, January 27, 2006 at 08:07 AM I guess that explains the race problems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands…after all, those countries have so many Jews. 40
Posted by James Bowery on January 27, 2006, 08:48 PM | # I guess that explains the race problems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands…after all, those countries have so many Jews. I’d be interested in your views. Nordics seem to be more susceptable than most to many fallacies of political correctness. I suspect it is a genetic facet of their character. This doesn’t mean they are the origin of those fallacies. The same goes for Canadians and Russians. Climatic-originated naivte/lack of disease experience explains a lot about the pattern of political behavior. 41
Posted by Al Ross on January 27, 2006, 09:59 PM | # The’genetic facet of their character’ was the same when Scandinavians were Vikings and roamed the known world tearing through their enemies without mercy. Their end began with the adoption of Christianity, which was the first step in the feminization of this group’s character, a process which now seems to have reached its logical conclusion. 42
Posted by anonymous on January 27, 2006, 10:53 PM | # Sometime in the not too distant future, perhaps in five, ten or twenty years time, the British Government will enact legislation designed to restrict its citizens emigrating to other countries. These laws will be framed in such a way that their real purpose will be hidden. The intent and effect of the laws, however, will be to make it more difficult for British people to quit their own country. Governmental actuaries employed to model the financial and social structure of Britain understand that the economic and social viability of Britain is contingent on an intelligent and well-educated work-force. If the entrepreneurial and consumer classes fall below a critical mass, economic collapse follows. This imperative will necessitate governmental restriction on the emigration of its citizens. Consequently, those who generate wealth in Britain (wealth being defined in the general sense), may find themselves in a similar position to the White Afrikaners in South Africa, eloquently depicted by Dan Roodt in his essay “Afrikaner Survival Under Black Rule” That is, as members of a quasi-slave caste whose principal purpose is to create wealth to maintain the life styles to which the under-classes have become accustomed. 43
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 01:17 AM | # I guess that explains the race problems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands…after all, those countries have so many Jews The Jews of Sweden seem to have quite a bit of influence…and not all of it positive: Who Rules Sweden? by Fredrik Haerne June 24, 2002 CNN’s website carried a headline yesterday declaring “Israel calls up reservists to fight terror,” which means that the Israelis are going to occupy even more Palestinian territory. Do we even notice the distortion of the language anymore? I do, but I have a major advantage: I am not a U.S. citizen, and so the codewords used in American broadcasts haven’t been hammered into my brain day after day. Instead I only see them when I access American newssites, and the codewords—the Newspeak that George Orwell warned us about—become more striking since we don’t use them where I live. “Hate,” for example, is still just one feeling among many to my fellow Swedes; it can be either good or bad, depending on what it is you hate - just like the value of your love or mistrust or anything else is dependent on the object of the emotion. Curious, then, to see “hate” being used as a Newspeak substitute for “pro-White” overseas. Would I notice the trick if it had been invented here in Sweden instead? I hope so. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have Newspeak words of our own. Perhaps it is interesting to learn that we have our very own media oligopoly in Sweden, producing a result very similar to that in other European countries, and the United States. Perhaps some of you think that European media are freer than your own—I used to think the same thing about the United States. The study Who Rules America? at the National Alliance website opened my eyes completely to the peril we face, and since then I have made a point of studying the media owners in my own part of the world. ... 44
Posted by Hal Callahan on January 28, 2006, 02:33 AM | # Far from blaming Christianity for the problem of non-white immigration into traditionally white countries, one should look to it as the solution. If whites followed the teachings of the Catholic church, for example, they wouldn’t be aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence and therfore wouldn’t have room for so many foreigners. 45
Posted by Mark Richardson on January 28, 2006, 02:57 AM | # Hal, I agree that Christianity does not adequately explain why the Scandinavians are so caught up with liberalism. After all, the level of liberalism is increasing with the level of secularism, not with Christianity. I think the explanation could be that northerners, especially the middle-class variety, tend to have a more quiet, inward intensity, intellectualism and self-discipline, qualities which mean that once the liberal principle is adopted it is patiently taken much further. If some other principle were adopted, then it too would probably be implemented with the same conscientious and systematic idealism. It’s why northerners in particular need to be careful to get their principles right. 46
Posted by James Bowery on January 28, 2006, 03:15 AM | # I think the explanation could be that northerners, especially the middle-class variety, tend to have a more quiet, inward intensity, intellectualism and self-discipline, qualities which mean that once the liberal principle is adopted it is patiently taken much further. I think this is fairly accurate. The ecological origin of this—I suspect—is the less forgiving climate. Basically if you are told by your elders to do thus and such and not do thus and such—and you deviate due to some urge or temptation—you not only could kill yourself but the entire tribe. 47
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:23 AM | # Ben, first, there have existed other groups with the motive and opportunity to press for open borders. Think, for example, of businessmen who want cheaper labour or larger domestic markets. “Businessmen” are not a group. They are individuals, and there is no profit for businessmen, in the aggregate, in cheap labor. There is profit for a particular businessman if his labor is cheaper than his competitor’s. 48
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:29 AM | # But the larger point is that people don’t always act according to their own long-term interests. It takes some wisdom to do this, and people don’t always manage this. In England in the 1700s and 1800s, the most politically influential group were the Whigs, made up of the wealthiest aristocratic families. The Whigs were known to be very proud of their aristocratic distinction. Nonetheless, they supported a radical politics which doomed their own future. Yes, of course. And the same can be said of Milner & Rhodes, and Churchill. And Woodrow Wilson. The question is, why? 49
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:37 AM | # It is certainly plausible that an organism with merely 1% of its body weight consisting of parasite tissue would exhibit pathology comparable to that seen in the nations of the West. Can you get half a pound of rabies virus out of a 50-pound dog? No. 50
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:46 AM | # I guess that explains the race problems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands…after all, those countries have so many Jews. Holland has had oodles of Jews for over 500 years, but that’s beside the point. If you don’t think that power can be wielded from afar, them you haven’t been paying attention. 51
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:52 AM | # I guess that explains the race problems of Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands…after all, those countries have so many Jews. And it should be instructive to read Friedrich Braun’s link: though Jews are few in Sweden, they seem to have done quite well in getting a grip on the media of public opinion formation. 52
Posted by ben tillman on January 28, 2006, 03:55 AM | # “Businessmen” are not a group. They are individuals, and there is no profit for businessmen, in the aggregate, in cheap labor. There is profit for a particular businessman if his labor is cheaper than his competitor’s. Is there any evidence that “businessmen” tried to overturn the 1924 law? Both empirically and theoretically, the scapegoating of business interests finds no support. 53
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 05:59 AM | # “Did the Jews destroy Rome?” The latest scholarship suggests that it was Jews and Christians who together conspired to burn Rome in 64 A.D. and not Nero. Why would they both conspire to burn Rome? Well, no one hated the Roman system more than Jews and Christians (the Jesus cult was part of normative Judaism for the first two centuries). Hence, yes, Jews and Christians played their part in the fall of Rome. 54
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 06:34 AM | # Thus far, the best explanation that I’ve read for the preponderating role of Jews in England comes from the great Ludovici. In chapter 3 of “Jews, and the Jews in England” he argues that there has been a strong infusion of Jewish blood among the English upper classes and this might in part explain some English character traits, as well as some historic decisions that England has made and that might seem inexplicable to a casual observer. I strongly recommend his little book. 55
Posted by Phil Peterson on January 28, 2006, 06:37 AM | # I stand unconvinced. Europe had Jews in the Middle Ages. Europe had Jews in the early years of the enlightenment. Race replacement is occuring now. Why did it not occur 500 or 1000 years ago? I don’t look at society as an “organism” or some of its components as “rabies viruses”. And as for blaming Christanity, given that the West officially became Christian sometime in the 4th century AD, it is strange that it should be facilitating race replacement in Europe in the 21st century (when a tiny minority even bother to follow its precepts in Western Europe). Lastly, Roman decadence destroyed Rome. Christianity emerged after decadence had established its firm hold. I suggest a good reading of the debauchery of the Roman Emperors. Tiberius would be a good starting candidate. 56
Posted by AD on January 28, 2006, 06:43 AM | # The same goes for Canadians and Russians. Climatic-originated naivte/lack of disease experience explains a lot about the pattern of political behavior. So does that explain the ‘racist redneck’ stereotype? In Australia, racialism seems more pronounced in the warmer states; One Nation in Queensland, White terrorism in Western Australia in the 80s and early 90s(aswell as largest number of ‘white nationalists’ in the country despite lowish population). They are also the two states most resistent to cutting ties to UK, based on the republic vote. Then we think of the US South and South Africa. And compare it to the US North,New Zealand and Canada. I really hope there is no biology-meets-environment factor to this, as i’m not moving away from the chilly mountains of the south-east to a bloody hot state. 57
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 07:08 AM | # Not one single cause destroyed Rome…all historians agree that it was a combination of factors… As to how Christianity harms the the White race, I suggest Michae W. Masters’s article in American Renaissance; unfortunately Edwin Clark’s rejoinder on this same topic seems to be unavailable: 58
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 07:11 AM | # Here I found it: On Victor Craig’s by Edwin Clark Christianity Pro and Con (1) Mr. Craig writes that Christianity “created the very culture that men of the West claim to defend.” To racialists, this is just not so. The race—the white gene pool—created the culture. The genes of white people predispose their carriers to behave in certain ways, and eventually those ways of behavior are shaped into institutions and those institutions constitute the culture, which then reinforces and selects for the genetically based behavioral patterns. Moreover, white culture existed long, long before Christianity appeared—among the ancient Indo-Europeans, the “barbarians” known to the Greeks and Romans, and most obviously the Greeks and Romans themselves. What is interesting is that white men took the rather measly contributions of the early Christians (the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and various apologetic and polemical writings) and invested them with classical philosophy, Greek and Roman legal and political institutional structures, Western art forms, and even pagan religious usages (saints in place of gods, Christian festivals in place of pagan ones, the portrayal of Christ as a European, etc.) In other words, whites re-invented Christianity to reflect their innate preferences, and it is in that form that Christianity shaped, “created,” and pushed white European civilization. Revilo Oliver in his Christianity and the Survival of the West makes the interesting point that Christianity survived only among whites, that it died out in the Near East with the appearance of Islam and never took much root in Asia or Africa. That is because by the time Islam appeared, Christianity had already been re-invented as a European religion that exerted little appeal to non-Europeans. Subsequently it flourished among non-Europeans only at the point of the sword. So I think Mr. Craig is wrong in his basic premise that Christianity created the West; on the contrary, the West and its underlying genetic substratum created Christianity. (Even ignoring the genetic factor, it is still clear that whites had civilizations long before Christianity and that a very large part of post-Christian civilization derives from it). (2) Mr. Craig writes that “Christianity must therefore be rescued and revived.” Two points here: (a) why the “therefore”? Even if we concede that Christianity “created” the West, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the continuing survival of the West depends on the continuation or revival of Christianity. By analogy, art may have first appeared as a means of propitiating the gods or the forces of nature, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue to believe that art can really do that in order to keep producing art. (B) How is it possible for traditional Christianity as Mr. Craig depicts it to be revived? I really don’t grasp this. Christianity has died or declined to its present state because of the effects of modern science and historical scholarship; it’s all very well for Christian intellectuals to concoct fancy apologetics for Christianity, but the fact is that it is simply impossible for modern educated men to believe in the Bible or the claims of the church to the degree necessary for the revival of traditional Christianity. At the time Christianity first appeared and for many centuries afterward, it was a plausible set of beliefs because it shared with paganism a supernaturalist world view. Even highly educated men, Christian or not and usually even non-religious people, readily believed in supernatural phenomena and explanations—miracles, magical cures, curses, witchcraft, demonic possession, ghosts, omens, various kinds of fortune telling, etc. They were as ready to invoke supernatural explanations of natural phenomena they didn’t understand as to invoke or look for naturalistic ones, and they really did not have very convincing explanations of phenomena they knew were natural (magnetism, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, etc.). Hence, it was not implausible to minds steeped in supernaturalism to believe that a man could rise from the dead, that loaves and fishes could be created from nothing, that a man could walk on water, that virgins could give birth, and that some beings (gods, demigods, magicians) could work miracles. Today, virtually no educated person and few uneducated ones believe in this kind of supernaturalism. Some may suspend their normal naturalistic habits of mind to acknowledge belief in biblical miracles, but almost no one believes that supernatural explanations are as plausible as naturalistic ones. Since the 18th century, modern science has offered naturalistic explanations and denied the existence of the supernatural so effectively that the modern mind has simply retreated from and abandoned a supernaturalistic world view. Yet the restoration of just such a supernaturalistc world view is what would be required for traditional Christianity to be revived as the dominant creed of Western man. I do not say that it is not possible to be some kind of a Christian, but it is not possible to be a traditional Christian if you are intellectually serious in the light of modern science. The only people in the last century who have been serious Christians have been either ignoramuses (i.e., people who because of stupidity and ignorance or because of willful blindness have closed their minds to the implications of science) or intellectuals (Kierkegaard, Dostoevski, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, etc.), who are able to come up with extremely sophisticated defenses of it that most people can’t understand and which are usually intensely personal. That may be fine for intellectuals, but a religion confined to them and the ignorati will not be traditional Christianity and cannot be a culturally dominant force or an effective guide for most people. Given the blows suffered by Christianity in the last 200 years or so, I see no alternative to the conclusion that the Christian cat is out of the bag and can’t be put back in as long as the forces that let him out are still in existence, and personally I would take those forces (science and scholarship) over Christianity. 59
Posted by friedrich braun on January 28, 2006, 07:12 AM | # (3) I also don’t see why “no student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow `inherently’ defective in ways that weaken the race.” Liberal Christianity is by no means a product of the post-1945 era; it goes back at least to the Renaissance and maybe to the origins of Christianity. There are certainly passages in the New Testament that instruct us to practice an unmitigated universalism, altruism, subordination of self-interest, and rejection of this world (power, wealth, family, class, nation, race, self, etc.) I am the first to admit that these passages can be interpreted in various ways, but repeatedly throughout Christian history they have been interpreted in “liberal” ways. There is no way to settle what they “really” mean except through imposing your own meaning, which is what the traditional church tried to do, ultimately unsuccessfully. When racialists say that Christianity is “inherently” egalitarian, universalist, etc., they usually mean that these passages are part of the Christian baggage train and can’t be removed and sooner or later will pop up. They are right; these passages and heresies based on them popped up throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. Ah, yes, but, says Mr. Craig, they were heresies, condemned by the church, and can’t fairly be ascribed to real or true Christianity. Yes, and the church did suppress them, but they kept coming back and eventually triumphed. I might also point out, especially with reference to Mr. Craig’s statement that “what we now think of as `liberalism’ rose up as a force independent from and hostile to the Church,” that “liberalism” didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. Liberalism is essentially a secularized version of Christianity that takes its “liberal” branches and exaggerates them into the whole tree. I can grant that this was done erroneously and fallaciously, but it still happened and was bound to happen once people started mouthing off about “the meek shall inherit the Earth” and that sort of stuff. It is very clear that only Christian civilization has ever spawned anything like liberalism. The Greeks and Romans knew nothing of it, and their class struggles were simply that—conflicts between rich and poor for class power—without any jabber about “rights,” “equality,” “peace,” and “universal brotherhood.” All these latter blessings derive ultimately from Christianity. (4) The fact that it took a long time for the “inherent” tendencies of Christianity to triumph is not a persuasive argument that these tendencies aren’t really there. It takes a long time for smoking to cause cancer, but just because you smoke one cigarette and don’t get cancer doesn’t mean smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Most traditional Christians would argue that tendencies planted in the Renaissance or Enlightenment blossomed into modern secularism and communism, but the fact that it took a long time for them to so blossom isn’t a problem. Moreover, as I mentioned above, it didn’t take so long after all, because the inherent tendencies of Christianity began to sprout even in antiquity in various heresies; they were denounced and suppressed by other tendencies but survived underground and resurfaced later. (5) I also disagree with the idea that “our culture is so saturated with Christianity that the two simply cannot be separated.” The example given is that of Bach’s B Minor Mass. Why not the Parthenon or the Iliad? How can we truly appreciate classical architecture and literature unless we restore the classical paganism that inspired them? The truth is that white men can appreciate white culture regardless of the religion or philosophy behind it; that’s why we as whites do appreciate the art of the pagans or even that of non-whites, whom we persist in imagining as white people. Sharing a religious or philosophical point of view might help us appreciate it, but I can’t see that it is necessary, and not sharing it might even help explain or illuminate the art and literature of pagan or Christian cultures. Certainly the Christian artists of the Renaissance appreciated classical pagan art and literature, despite their disagreements with pagan religious beliefs. Finally, I think Mr. Craig and I could find common ground by agreeing that human beings, including and perhaps especially whites, need some kind of myth of transcendence as a motivating and justifying framework of action. Paganism provided that once, just as traditional Christianity did also once, but today neither one can be revived or restored. What whites need now is a new myth of transcendence that can offer transcendent, absolute validation for what they need to do to survive and continue their civilization. Where they can get such a new myth I don’t know. 60
Posted by Steve Edwards on January 28, 2006, 08:07 AM | # Good point Phil - hence my belief that the most likely cause of the West’s ailment lies in the desire of the Anglo-American elites to forge a world state. There is ample documentation for this, just as there is plenty of evidence that the same elites (according to Professor Carroll Quigley) financially bankrolled marxist front organisations throughout the 20th century. Destroying nation-states may well resonate with radical Jewish intellectuals, but I think the critical decisions have been made by Gentile elites who, as I have pointed out before, have a desire to rule the world. 61
Posted by James Bowery on January 28, 2006, 11:55 AM | # Phil Peterson writes: I stand unconvinced. Europe had Jews in the Middle Ages. Europe had Jews in the early years of the enlightenment. Race replacement is occuring now. Why did it not occur 500 or 1000 years ago? Primarily because Jews had remained ghettoized and the mass indoctrination mechanisms of society were still in the hands of a relatively benign infection known as Christianity—which I view as somewhat analogous to being infected with Cowpox warding off Smallpox. When mass media technologies arrived, you will notice the unique intensity with which Jews pursued their capture. Within a single generation, Edison’s monopoly was captured by newly arrived East European Jews all born within a few hundred mile radius of each other. That was a biological attack of unprecedented proportions since indoctrination of the next generation is, for humans—particularly the European Christians—on par with editing their DNA. 62
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 02:55 PM | #
Yes. Strip a man of everything but money-hunger and he’ll sell his wife into prostitution, his children into slavery, and himself out to murder. That’s the direction of things. Now, I think James & co. might just be saying, “sure, but who started the stripping in the first place?” I say “James & co.” because I’m somewhere between them and Phil on this one. As for jewish media influence outside of America, it is helpful to keep in mind that jewry is relatively highly international. Until 1948 the jewish nation was exclusively an international diaspora. Think of jews as only members of the non-jewish nations in which they lived and you’re making a fatal error. Exactly how much help can an international powerhouse like jewry be for a cotribalist in, say, the relative backwater media market in Sweden? You tell me. Here’s another take on “jewish influence” in Europe:
That’s from the Sydney Morning Herald, but I find Amren’s links far more stable over time than the mass media’s: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/time_to_confront_failures_not.php Anyone who thinks the idea that the holocaust narrative wields extraordinary influence over Europe is “absurd” needs to check his own wiring.
That’s interesting. So, basically you’re saying northern Euros are vulnerable to ideology, and prone to letting it trump natural interests? Intuitively I have to agree, at least in the sense of white vs. black. I find the idea that whites (or, particularly northern Euros) are inherently (biologically) more individualistic than any other race to be counterintuitive. Blacks strike me as more individualistic than whites - in nature. Behaviorally they are more collectivist, at least in America, but I think environment has a lot to do with that (on both sides of the racial divide). This also goes back to Mark’s point about letting brains get in the way, so to speak. American whites show every indication of believing what they’re told, rather than their own lying eyes (at a superficial level anyways - I’m convinced anti-racism is a mile wide and an inch deep in all but a small fraction of whites*). Tangentially: 63
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 02:57 PM | #
I think reforming Christianity is more feasible (and desirable) than creating a new myth. 64
Posted by DissidentMan on January 28, 2006, 03:01 PM | # I agree with a lot about what is being said about Christianity. I don’t agree that Christianity is overly effeminate as some people say although I used to back in my more reactionary days. IMO, now that the subject is being discussed, iChristianity’s most serious problem is in its strong ontological dualities. Examples are 1) saved/not saved 2) humans have souls/animals don’t 3) humans are free-willed beings who choose between good and evil and animals are ruled instinct. These ideas are totally in conflict with the idea that unchristian behaviour could be the result of genetic predisposition and they are therefore effectively compatible with Marxist thinking. Just read church publications and you can see that Marxist ideas are now very much in vogue in churches and there is no great philosophical conflict. On the other hand, self-identified Marxists often go apeshit at the mention of Christianity and that is because Christianity used to be an ethnocultural unifier of the west, but that was by accident and not design. There is no reason for conservatives to be supportive of it now. Analogously because some newpaper columnists refer to neo-cons as ‘far right’ that doesn’ t change the fact that the neocons are stilll died in the wool Trotskyists comfortable with leftwing ideology. Just consider Podoretz attacking Steve Sailer for one politically incorrect remark. The mainstream left won’t even acknowledge that neocons hate unmodified conservatives. 65
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 03:16 PM | # Hmm, good points DM. My counter is that Christianity has credibility. It has precedent. Creating new myths in the current secularism is hard going (not that it’s ever easy). Sure, we need something for all the apostates, for those like myself who are incapable of believing in the supernaturalisms of the past, but we also need to remember that a huge part of our audience already has a belief-system; modifying it is a hell of a lot easier (especially given the precedents involved) than replacing it. By no means do I think we should look to Christianity to save the west, rather I think the west should look to save Christianity and in so doing, save Christians. Also, on your point about Marxism, consider that the foundation of Christianity is Judaism, the most explicitly racialist major religion the world has ever seen. That’s the kernel of something that can be saved and be a source of strength, I think. 66
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 03:19 PM | # Did I say “modify”? I meant reform. Consider the idea of the “holy seed of Israel,” and compare its frequency in the Bible with that of “there is neither jew nor Greek.” It’s no contest. 67
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 28, 2006, 03:23 PM | # Another thought that has been lurking in my head is that any reformed Christianity will need to be non-fundamentalist; just throwing the Bible at people and telling them everything is between them and God is not a good idea. There needs to be an orthodox interpretive layer, whether that’s a body of priests (okay) or a series of texts (better) or some other mechanism. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on January 28, 2006, 08:06 PM | # Darwin’s notion is that out-group sympathy is evolved:
His observation, that it is unfelt by savages, may reasonably be extended to the concept that not all ethnic groups have the same level of ethnocentrism. Evolutionary psychology has shown that most groups differ significantly on those traits, like IQ, that are selective in differing environments. Some groups, like the Northern Europeans, because of environmental variables, may have evolved a different (higher) sympathy quotient (SQ). Darwin suggests that it is re-inforced:
Grant writes of the Puritan sentimentalism towards blacks in the South and the guilt felt by the union movement toward exclusion of southern and eastern Europeans. Both are examples of powerfully evolved out-group sympathies. If it is an evolved sentiment, constantly re-inforced by public opinion, can it be checked? Or does evolution ensure extinction for groups with highly evolved sympathy quotients? 69
Posted by James Bowery on January 28, 2006, 10:42 PM | # If it is an evolved sentiment, constantly re-inforced by public opinion, can it be checked? Or does evolution ensure extinction for groups with highly evolved sympathy quotients? I think it is better characterized as 3 dimensions: 1) A lack of evolved in-group sympathy—most likely due to a lower population/heterosity during the EEA with associated “disease” experience. 2) A tendency to take on moral imprints more rigidly from tribal authorities for reasons I’ve pointed out above. 3) Environmental changes towards increased heterosity resulting in brood parasitism utilizing 2 and exploiting 1 above. 70
Posted by James Bowery on January 28, 2006, 10:51 PM | # Perhaps I should have said “with associated ‘disease’ inexperience”. What I mean is those who didn’t experience a lot of exploiters in their environment might not evolve adequate xenophobia to survive encroachment of those who exploited an evolutionary assumption which basically says: “They’re here so they’re kin.” 71
Posted by UPD on January 29, 2006, 02:05 AM | # Also, on your point about Marxism, consider that the foundation of Christianity is Judaism, the most explicitly racialist major religion the world has ever seen. That’s the kernel of something that can be saved and be a source of strength, I think. The other side had this idea first. That’s what Christian Zionism is, an invention, except the their beloved Scofield Bible’s altered in the favor of Jews. http://www.whtt.org/articles/020807.htm The tricks they play on these jebus-lovers are absolutely astounding. Imagine that, to have within the span of two generations created dozens of millions of massmen who worship you and your tribe-nation as gawd’s Chosen, and whom may be manipulated to support your policies politically. What an ingenius scam! Next entry: True Liberalism Is Conservative Previous entry: More on ethanol for the peak-oil freaks |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. web design singapore commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/24/12, 06:31 PM. (go) (view) Jemsaphiemi commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) pierdzimaka commented in entry 'Political lies, lived lies, all that is not real' on 05/24/12, 03:25 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) hnjoewdh commented in entry 'Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot' on 05/24/12, 02:39 PM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 02:24 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Trofigiogelry commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) DiefleleziG commented in entry 'Tiger Tiger' on 05/24/12, 12:18 PM. (go) (view) Martha Barreda commented in entry 'Sunic interviews Fraser' on 05/24/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Adalberto Deavers commented in entry 'The compassion of the court' on 05/24/12, 12:00 PM. (go) (view) Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Al Ross on January 27, 2006, 01:02 AM | #
As London is 40% non-White it would be reasonable to assume that when a Chinese leaves Shanghai to settle in London, he raises the average IQ of both cities.