|
|
|
They Are Kind to Animals by I. Bismuth They are out there. They are in here. They are all around us. Is there one near me at this very moment? Do I know what is going on behind that face? Or that one? Am I even now within touching distance of an attitude that has no place in a decent society? These are not comfortable questions, but they have to be asked. They have to be answered too. Over the years I have brought many offenders to justice, and most of them are unremarkable in appearance and speech. They look like you and me and him and her. Most of the time they seem preoccupied with traffic conditions and discounted prices and their health and your health and warm fronts approaching from the south-west. How better to put you off your guard? But underneath — underneath there stirs the beast. At the university we are used to relying on our trained antennae to monitor our own and others’ attitudes so as to ensure a perfect uniformity of diversity, and sometimes it’s easy to forget that not everyone enjoys our advantages. Out there, millions of attitude-carriers are still having to go for hours and, in the worst cases, whole days without being professionally monitored, a neglect that can allow the inner beast to grow and strengthen. In my own small way, and as a civic duty, I therefore make it my practice, whenever I venture out into the wild, to hunt it down and point the accusing finger. Often the long-unmonitored are all too easy to identify. Yesterday lunchtime, for instance, as I was passing through the local park (how heart-warming to see its hideous Whiteness firmly consigned to the shameful past!) I noticed a little girl feeding the ducks. Her mother was standing behind her at the water’s edge smiling and handing her pieces of bread, pieces of bread that could have gone to Africa. This long slender woman, with her mesmeric angularity of profile, with her hair a mahogany waterfall startled into stillness by beauty’s held breath, and with her Lebensborn daughter so obviously not the product of a vibrant relationship, had banality of evil written all over her. But my commitment to truth and justice is such that I felt it necessary, before I took action, to find incontrovertible evidence of what I was already instinctively certain, so I feigned an interest in the consumers of Africa’s bread and engaged her in conversation. ‘It is a little known fact,’ I said, ‘that mallards do not say quack. The word coming from their bills is not quack. It is by no means quack. It is work, but work pronounced in the Liverpudlian way, that is, werk, werk-werk, werk-werk.’ She smiled weakly in the womanly way that means: You are a boring, stupid, socially inept, physically unappealing excuse for a man, and, worse than all that, harmless. I refuse to be drawn on the first part of her dismissal of me, but she was badly mistaken about my harmlessness. I was in fact moving in for the kill. ‘How old is your little girl?’ ‘Three and a half. Aren’t you, Jacqueline?’ ‘She’s quite tall for her age.’ ‘She takes after her father.’ ‘Do you have any other children?’ ‘Two boys and a younger girl.’ ‘And is your husband the father of all of them?’ ‘Come on, Jacqueline, it’s time to go home.’ I had perhaps not handled that quite as smoothly as the people person I am should have done. Before I could start stuttering my apologies, she had gathered up the child and was hurrying away, leaving a trail of crumbs behind her. I devised a quick salvage scheme and took off after her. ‘I’m sorry,’ I said, keeping pace with her, ‘what I meant was that I have two children of my own and an adopted son. I was wondering whether it was the same in your family.’ You will note that here I was giving her a chance to redeem herself. If she had other children besides Jacqueline the pale, they could have been enriching ones and my suspicions would be unfounded. ‘Please leave me alone.’ ‘I’m a single parent, no wife, no live-in girlfriend, no civil partner, no other person sharing my life, sharing my burden. Bringing up a family is so hard, so hard. I just need to talk. I’m so alone. Show you care. Show you really care. Won’t you just talk? Won’t you, please?’ She slackened her pace, stung by my pitiable whining. ‘It must be terrible to be on your own,’ she murmured. ‘I know how very lucky I am to have my husband.’ By this time she had stopped and set the little girl down again. ‘A few of our friends are trying to cope alone with their children,’ she said. ‘We do what we can to help. I really don’t know how they manage. Even with the two of us, it’s a struggle. You have an adopted son. Well, as a matter of fact, one of our boys is adopted too.’ Now came another tricky bit. ‘How old is he?’ ‘Seven.’ Why did I ask that? Knowing his age didn’t help. How could I establish whether she was not guilty after all? What was the right question to settle it? Is he a good mover? How is he doing at school? Does he carry a knife? No particular answer to any of those would have been decisive. ‘All of my boys,’ I said at last, ‘including my adopted son, are freckly, and on a day like today they have to wear their floppy hats.’ She smiled like spring in the high meadows, but said nothing. I was close to abandoning hope of ever getting the full facts out of her. ‘Any freckles in your family?’ I said, with a note of desperation. ‘Not many.’ ‘No need for floppy hats in the sun?’ ‘Not often. Only on the very hottest of days. But otherwise, especially when the children are playing in the garden, I love to see their little blond heads all glowing in the sunshine.’ ‘Their little blond heads, did you say? All glowing in the sunshine, did you say? All of them? All of them?’ The panic began to return to her face, as well it might. ‘Yes, all of them,’ she said, picking up the child again. ‘I knew it. I’m never wrong. I can smell your kind.’ She ran rather awkwardly. Jacqueline must have been heavier than she looked. ‘Leave me alone.’ ‘You obscene piece of filth!’ ‘Leave me alone.’ ‘Oh yes, leave you alone!’ ‘Leave me alone. Leave me alone.’ ‘Is that all you can say? All racists ever want is to be left alone. Of course you do. That’s all any criminal wants.’ ‘Let go!’ ‘But we won’t leave you alone to practice your loathsome way of life in private. Where racism begins, privacy ends.’ ‘Please let me go.’ ‘This sinister movement to mind your own business must be stamped out.’ ‘You’re hurting me.’ ‘Minding your own business is racist. There must be monitoring. There must be supervision. There must be inspection. There must be reviewing, testing, probing. Only the guilty want to be left alone.’ ‘Let me go. Let go. Help! Help!’ ‘Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum!’ I said, and called the police. I. Bismuth’s latest book Why Aren’t We Doing More to Destroy Ourselves? Is Racism to Blame? is published by Sunlit Uplands. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:19 | # Yep. It’s a magnifying glass, but that’s still truth underneath it. 5
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:48 | # I was searching for the perfect avatar, and I believe you have found it DRS. I. Bismuth is the nom-de-plume of a senior official in the Equality and Diversity Industry. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:41 | # Hold on just a second there… I have been trying to come up with a Colbert-in-reverse and this may be it. I have enough of the facial features of that guy, including the glasses—just need to “style” my hair appropriately and strike the same pose. A video camera, some chromakey backdrop, editing software and maybe another writer or two ... PS: I should also mention that another angle on Colbert is to do a parody of Colbert’s parody—that is to say—just as he mocks conservative views by going after straw men and knocking them down for “comedic” value, it is equally possible to go after real issues in a mock attempt to mock them—complete with the self-satisfied audience cheering and jeering something that only someone like Mr. Bismuth would deem effective satire. 7
Posted by danielj on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:10 | # I have been trying to come up with a Colbert-in-reverse and this may be it. I have been hoping for quite some time that one will come along… 9
Posted by danielj on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:55 | # Takes a stable of writers to do a show like that every night. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:26 | # danielj: Just 10 minutes of amateur youtube video a week with writing anywhere near this good would be a triumph. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:14 | # Dasein: I’m not sure humour is the best tag for this piece. It gave me the creeps. Well, the scouse ducks were good for a laugh. But, really, I just think that I Bismuth is a glorious comic creation on a par with the sublimely inventive and solidly racialist Michael Wharton’s Dr Heinz Kiosk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wharton Long may the struggles of I Bismuth grace this page. 13
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:19 | # “I’m not sure humour is the best tag for this piece. It gave me the creeps. I’ve been reading 1984 at night the past week before going to bed, and this piece is similarly well written and disturbing.” —- It’s not nearly as ‘creepy’ as the way the ruling elites are reacting to the new Arizona immigration Law. 14
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:55 | # Speaking of Peter Simple, GW, I’m wondering whether I. Bismuth might be a neighbour of or perhaps even distantly related to the Dutt-Paukers. I feel certain he hails from at least Islington if not Hampstead itself.
15
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:57 | # Too bad we don’t have atheists like GW et al to rule over us. However the only thing wrong with the godless missionaries of enlightenment and kindness are the Maos, Hitlers, Lenins, Pol Pots, Congo Bongos, Castros, etc etc etc. These loving cuties generally show any ‘believer’ how you really get the slaughter and genocide done. (Do you hear that Soren?) Sophomore atheists: If they did not already exist, we might have to invent them. 16
Posted by Tim on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 01:29 | # James Bowery, Off topic but I thought you might be interested in this. Jewish neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky talks about parasites: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html
A lot of this sounds like what Dawkins said 30 years ago, and what you’ve been talking about for a long time. So why now? Is he trying to get “ahead” of the issue? Is he trying to “manage” it? Does he *know*? 17
Posted by Tim on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 01:31 | # Another link on Sapolsky and the Toxoplasma parasite’s effect on humans: 18
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:37 | # Too bad that the Marxists whom Thorn cites were following a levelling doctrine well - known to those righteousness - enforcing, triumph - of - the - underdog, Christians who babble incessantly about idiocies like “blessed are the meek” and “blessed are the poor”. Of course, the Communists sensibly stripped the Supernatural elements from the risible, Christian wads of puerile piffle which so excite childish minds. It is no coincidence that Stalin spent 7 formative years in a Christian seminary learning his trade. 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:03 | # Yes, but the phrase is ““Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit” [Matthew 5:1-13] which is considerably different when you think about it Al. It would be interesting to explore the fitness benefit of humility. 20
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:25 | # Thank you for the correction, Desmond. Perhaps, in order to illustrate the glorifying, Christian attitude to poverty which so influenced the Marxist view of capital accretion, I should have quoted the passage about a rich man’s chances of entering Heaven as being as unlikely a camel’s passing through the knee of an idol, as Dr Spooner might have put it. Humility has its place, no doubt, but is so easy to fake, in the unctuous manner of Uriah Heep, that to make assay of its value is no simple task. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:23 | # Dan, It is, of course, also possible that I Bismuth is a familial relative of Dr Strabismus (whom God preserve) of Utrecht, made famous by Spike Milligan and originating not from Whartonia but in the Daily Express: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beachcomber_(Pen_name) But it just goes to show how a good family can come all to pieces when it moves to Hampstead. Thorn, As much as I might like to sit in palaces signing state papers and dining with oil sheiks I’m happy to settle for a dissident’s life, like Odysseus among the souls choosing new lives in Plato’s Myth of Er
Of course, I might change my mind about that pretty quickly if I Bismuth shows up here. 22
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:02 | # I should have quoted the passage about a rich man’s chances of entering Heaven as being as unlikely a camel’s passing through the knee of an idol, as Dr Spooner might have put it. It wouldn’t have mattered since that is talking about the spiritually “rich” as well. 23
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 02:31 | # You may be right, danielj. After all, your soul has been neatly dry - cleaned for admittance to the company of the old Jew - God, Yahweh and that artfully sired, detached part of Him with which Christian blood - drinkers are familiar. 25
Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:58 | # You may be right, danielj. After all, your soul has been neatly dry - cleaned for admittance to the company of the old Jew - God, Yahweh and that artfully sired, detached part of Him with which Christian blood - drinkers are familiar. You truly have a way with words. This is some of your best blasphemy! 26
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:11 | # Danielj, it is impossible for a non-believer to commit blasphemy. It is, of course, a sin for a believer so to do. 27
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:16 | # Fred, from Kalb
This is the number one thing in my view. The multicult is a religion which is a morality i.e a definition of right and wrong, good and bad. It’s a false religion whose sole purpose is creating the beliefs neccessary to bring about white genocide and its sole purpose is identical to the sins it claims are the ultimate sins. The multicult is a genocidal anti-white racist cult claiming to be anti-racist and anti-genocidal. Claiming the moral high ground is vital. 28
Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:12 | # Danielj, it is impossible for a non-believer to commit blasphemy. It is, of course, a sin for a believer so to do. No sir! People will get pressed to death for the kind of shit that comes outta your mouth when I’m in charge. Only non-believers commit the sin of blasphemy Al. Think before speaking or speak before drinking. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:31 | # Robert, Some context to that video. It is posted by a negro from Bamako, Mali who, by way of introduction, writes:
The thread on Francois Desouche ran to 1,889 commentaries since 30th May - that is the degree of anger and contempt it engenders. Bamako, by the way, is where the EU has positioned the first of its immigration offices in Africa. The idea - who’s, exactly - is to attract a further 50 million negros to Europe. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:20 | # Dasein, They have two offices open now, and a further four are in the pipeline. It is an open-ended programme, and amounts, in my view, to a “what it takes” scenario for the next two to three decades. The fifty million appeared somewhere, I recall, as fifty-six million. Well, this is the ancient hearth of Europe. One of these people is one too many. African culture, African chaotica, African violence, African sexualisation, Africa, damn it, has its place on this planet. Is that not enough in this post-colonial, post-Apartheid age? I don’t understand. It’s obviously completely deliberate, but why would any EU elitist want this race in our house? The British knew the value of negros during the days of empire, and for anything more demanding than cane-cutting used Indians instead. It is inconceivable that this had been forgotten in 1948, when the decision to import Jamaicans was taken. It is inconceivable that the knowledge is not well-entrenched among the EU ruling elites now. And yet, and yet ... 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:31 | # GW,
The implication seems to be that negroes were imported in 1948 as an opening gambit of what was to be the intended engine of the destruction of the English via mongrelization. In other words, a grandiose, secret, long-term plan bent on re-imagining the world that was then that could only result in the destruction of civilization as the human potential to maintain it would have been destroyed along with the English. Clement Attlee must be in some way implicated. Attlee - and the vast majority of White men for that matter - doesn’t strike me as the type who who would be knowingly given to messianic visions the end result of which would be utterly nihilistic, granted he possessed, as you insinuated, a profoundly visceral sense of racial differences and their implications; as Churchill did. White men of that ilk, the grandiose messianic type, more often than not wind up shot in the head in a bunker, or the equivalent. And of course there is the Semitic counter-point, much more prevalent with them than with us. Assuming the above, would not a better psychological explanation for the race-dissolving macro-policies of Whites elites then and now be self-deceived do-gooderism and patrician detachment marinated in denial of the full implications of their prescriptions?
Is that how you say “nigger” without saying it? “Nigger” at least has the virtue of brevity. And of course “nigger-lover” readily connotes the the level of white trash our genepool could do without anyway. Ship them back to the Congo along with their nappy lotharios I say. 32
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:02 | # In your imaginary world of punishment for blasphemy, danielj, you would, I suppose, be doing just what old Yahweh would do if He were better informed about events. 33
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:33 | # It doesn’t really matter in a practical sense how many Africans ‘the EU’ would wish to import into Europe since for the present at least immigration policy is a prerogative of the national governments. If none of them elect to open their labour market to Africans then none will be imported (legally). If any of them do, then it is the particular national government which is to blame, not ‘the EU’.
34
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:54 | # CC, Obviously, the history of race-replacement immigration is yet to be written. I imagine there is not one English nationalist who does not wonder, especially post-Neathergate, how decisions were taken prior to Windrush, and by whom. It would be interesting to know what the government lock on the documentation is. The standard period of secrecy for redacted state papers is thirty years. I would bet those covering Windrush are at least 75 years. As for the motives of the elites, that too requires evidential certainty. 35
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:01 | # DD, Permanent Residence granted in one EU country does not necessarily confer the right of abode in any other of the Union’s member nations. However, the acquisition of citizenship most certainly would. 36
Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:05 | # In your imaginary world of punishment for blasphemy, danielj, you would, I suppose, be doing just what old Yahweh would do if He were better informed about events. Have you never heard the story of Calvin and Servetus? 37
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:21 | # Yes, but my memory of this is dim. Usual story about ignorant Christians persecuting an intelligent man of Science as a heretic, I think. This sorry but sadly typical episode is, I believe, the reason for the dramatist Webster’s mockery of Calvin in that excellent play, The Duchess of Malfi. 38
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:23 | # Another nice bit of amateur video propaganda http://rugfish.blogspot.com/ 40
Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:27 | # Usual story about ignorant Christians persecuting an intelligent man of Science as a heretic, I think. This is slander and balderdash, which is something, of which, only you are capable. Servetus was just as much a fan of Jesus as Calvin. The persecution narrative changes as required by your calumnies. Sometimes, it is inter-religious strife and persecution of heretics, and at other times, the poor, picked on, man of science standing up to the big, bad church. Christianity laid the foundation of the scientific revolution. It didn’t happen in the more advanced Arab world, or the Asian world, because of the adoption of heretical religions with irrational philosophies. 41
Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:27 | # On topic: This is an excellent piece. Better than the last, which was too long. 42
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:45 | #
‘Third country nationals’ are subject to more restrictions on residence and employment than are citizens of EU member states, but they are certainly able to enjoy the right to freedom of movement in principle and in practice once having achieved long-term resident status in one member state, meaning five years continuous residence. 43
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:15 | # Yes,DD, I omitted the word ‘immediate’ between ‘the and ‘right’. 44
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:21 | #
The Cabinet Papers for 1915 to 1979 are available to view on the NA website. Let’s not be inventing bogey-men again, there are enough real-life villains to be going on with. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/cabinet-gov/meetings-papers.htm 45
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:40 | # Christianity laid the foundation for the sort of abysmally ignorant and arrant nonsense which you, danielj, have, unsurprisingly, swallowed hook, line and sinker. Don’t feel downhearted,though. Your inane remarks are simply snivelling addenda to the long, tiresome and depressing history of Christians’ fantasies about their impudent superstition.
Sometimes I feel that my superciliousness towards Christianity may be slightly unkind but when I read your risible offerings, I am cheered and reassured as it would seem that my attitude is entirely justified. 46
Posted by franko on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:59 | # “Christianity laid the foundation of the scientific revolution.” Every time I drop by here there’s some crackpot statement that just instantly strikes one as bizarre. Aryans, Whites, Europeans - whatever one wants to call them - these “laid the foundation of the scientific revolution.” It wasn’t springing up from the Copts or the Nestorians or the fine adherents of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Now back to getting your head smacked by Benny Hinn or eating Jebu’s body or whatever it is your particular branch of the Yahweh cult does. 47
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:22 | # Sorry Fred I haven’t been able to get access to the secret proceedings of the Board of Deputies, they don’t appear to be available online. 48
Posted by Jebus on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:40 | # Christianity today is a joke. It exists as nothing but a tool to channel the well-meaning “Christian aid” from the west to Missionary outposts in places like India and Africa. It seems that Christian missionaries take particular pleasure in destroying native cultures and traditions in the world, just like they did with the gun two centuries back, except that today it is done with a piece of bread. Really, what is the need to “save” those hapless souls? Is Christianity a corporate organisation, so insecure in its existence that it requires more and more adherents? Why did the pope himself proclaim that the future of Christianity lay in India? Obviously, hindus have no right to exist. Their souls are going to burn in hell, just for practicing a faith that they’ve been doing for the past five millenia. Peace 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:56 | # Dan, Where are the cabinet papers detailing the government’s “social objectives” in 2000? Are we to presume that Labour ministers and civil servants did not correspond about these? How so, then, that they are mentioned in the document Andrew Green received from his FoI request, written by Jonathan Portes & Co in the Home Office and posted online at MW? I think it would be very useful to issue an FoI request seeking information regarding those objectives. On the basis of the reply it would be possible to formulate an opinion, at least, as to the completeness of government documentation currently available for the pre-Windrush decision-taking. Do you fancy giving that a try? You know more about the working of government than I. 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:16 | # Charles Murray, On Human Accomplishment:
The negative impact upon the societas christianas by the advancement of Roman Law over the Christian doctrine of ‘just pricing’ in Holland is interesting. It is explored in Whitman’s piece called the ‘moral menace of Roman law and the making of commerce: some Dutch evidence.’
Servetus’ main theme was to deny Christ as divine (or at least eternal as in the son of the eternal God). Very interesting, in that Servetus was a descendant of Conversos.
Michael Servetus, humanist, denier of Christ, inspiration for Locke, Hume, Mill and Madison was most likely a Jew. 51
Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:23 | # I am sure that old Yahweh is rather busy so it may well be that your elevation to the Vice Regent’s post in that ghastly mental concoction which is your future Theocracy will provide you with a free hand to deal with spiritual malefactors in the time - honoured Christian manner. It is the human condition. I’m sure you’d put me to the very same sword. 52
Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:26 | # Christianity today is a joke. Most of it is. Yerp. Nobody here denies that. It exists as nothing but a tool to channel the well-meaning “Christian aid” from the west to Missionary outposts in places like India and Africa. It isn’t that simple, but it does have that effect. It seems that Christian missionaries take particular pleasure in destroying native cultures and traditions in the world, just like they did with the gun two centuries back, except that today it is done with a piece of bread. They don’t usually have that much of an effect. The Africans merely add it to the societies as another piece of cultural and psycho-spiritual jewelry. Only Europeans and some Asians are capable of “Christianization” proper. Really, what is the need to “save” those hapless souls? Is Christianity a corporate organisation, so insecure in its existence that it requires more and more adherents? It is called the Great Commission. Why did the pope himself proclaim that the future of Christianity lay in India? Obviously, hindus have no right to exist. Their souls are going to burn in hell, just for practicing a faith that they’ve been doing for the past five millenia. I don’t know. I’m not the Pope, Catholic or concerned with the content of his bulls but I do agree they will burn in Hell. 53
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:44 | #
I don’t think the Windrush was a government thing. I think the commonwealth citizenship laws were left deliberately wide in the expectation that only commonwealth people of British descent would take advantage of the right to come to Britain. But then… http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/ss-windrush/biography/windrush-biography
I’d expect the people behind the advert were jews. I’d also expect the most prominent political and media support for letting them in came from jews but overall i think it was originally a mistake. I’ve read bits and pieces of the cabinet discussion at the time and it was mostly against them coming but there was no legal basis for saying no to the Windrush apart from colour. It was only later that the nationality acts were changed but by then the ball had got rolling. I don’t think the native elite began to actively conspire against their people until later. (Later on i think the capitalist half of the elite realised they could use immigration to attack the unions and the marxist left realised they could use immigration to build up an alternative ethnic voting bloc in opposition to the more moderate native working class organisations.) I think the Windrush event comes down to racism being a bad thing because you are discriminating against people *just* on the basis of things like skin colour. There is no rational basis for it. Most people are naturally racist to a degree but the bulk of white rabbits aren’t racist *enough* to support a racist argument in a debate without some rational reasons for that support. If there’s no debate there’s no need for an argument and natural racism wins by default but as soon as there’s an actual debate natural racism isn’t enough, in fact it becomes enough to lose the argument automatically through being attacked as solely an irrational reaction to skin colour. So the Windrush created a debate out of thin air and the racists had no rational argument to fight with. That’s still the case today with most arguments against immigration being forced on to material grounds like housing and jobs. However if you take on board the EGI argument - which to me makes perfect sense then in reality natural racists are instinctively following their EGI. So i guess the solution for people who aren’t natural racists, or not enough so, is to give them *rational* explanations in favour of racism and racial seperation based on EGI: greater average genetic distance creates more violent crime, diversity kills, diversity destroys social capital, genetic distance destroys altruism, genetic closeness creates a centripetal force that in a ethnically balkanized country increasingly pulls society apart etc. Sensibly argued practical racism aimed at minimizing risks to one’s kith and kin so it’s not *just* about skin colour. Robert Reis
Scary times. I expect the next 20 years either we’ll all die in gulags part 2 or everything will have come crashing down. If the later hopefully it will come down in a good, Nuremberg 2025, way. 54
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:44 | #
As I’m sure you’re aware the 30-year rule applies. Regarding the Neathergate revelations, I am working up a piece based on an academic paper I turned up a few weeks ago, which I think will give us something to chew on. In the meantime I think it would be an ahistorical error to project the motivations and behaviour of the NuLabor regime onto the Attlee government, when all the evidence is to the contrary. 55
Posted by Armor on Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:11 | #
In other words: Most people are naturally reluctant to be race-replaced.
I think what they need is a kick in their butts, not information about EGI. 56
Posted by joe on Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:25 | # No offense, Desmond, but the philosemite Murray always strikes me as slightly full of shit, and in particular that aspect of his book. Where was the big revolution in thought by the Indians of S. America after they were converted? 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:15 | # It’s a good point Joe, however, when the cherry picking starts where does it end? In answer to the question, the revolution in thinking for these cultures probably came with the Christian belief that child sacrifice, infanticide, incest, body mutilation, child rape and tortures, were in fact deviant behaviors and not culturally acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_infanticidal_childrearing 58
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:38 | # Armor,
I’m mostly thinking aloud. When you see immigration debated on TV very often the enemy will say something like “the people who oppose immigration are prejudiced against immigrants just because of the colour of their skin.” Now my experience, as proved again and again by white flight, is white people have an extreme ethnic prejudice. Given a choice, when there is no debate, they move to live among their own kind. In fact all ethnic groups do this. London is becoming a patchwork of ethnicity based neighbourhoods as a result of this universal behaviour. jews in particular are well noted for forming 100% jewish enclaves. The main exception to this rule is when people move away from their own kind for some material benefit that outweighs the benefit of a homogenous environment. As well as the genocidal levels of non-white immigration into white countries this also includes things like white people retiring to poorer countries because their pension stretchs further So when there’s no debate, when they don’t have to verbally justify it, white people act racially. But when there is a debate most of the same people feel unable to express it. So what’s happening? Is it that they need a rational and moral explanation for their behaviour? So my point isn’t that EGI based arguments around the practical negative consequences of increasing genetic distance: less altruism, more rapes and murders, destuction of social capital etc, would act as positive arguments for making people racial, it’s that providing those arguments removes a rational brake on instinctive behaviour. My take is there are people who agree with the ethno-centric position, people who disagree, and people who agree but won’t act on it because the multicult makes them feel guilty. What i’m talking about here is just another angle on that as “being irrational” is a bad thing in white cultures. So if prejudice based on “just skin colour” is irrational then it’s bad. However if your children are scientifically safer in a homogenous environment and if homogenous means genetic closeness and skin colour is a marker for genetic distance then ethnic prejudice based on skin colour isn’t “just skin colour” - it’s minimizing risk to your children - maybe not noticeably so in academic environments but very much so in blue collar environments. 59
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:59 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_heS6Fnwa4 Encouragement of this sort to produce mixed race kids is very common in areas where white people have become a minority. They always do that stupid laugh afterwards. 60
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:06 | #
Military assets to use against us.
You’re joking aren’t you? Do you really think it remotely possible that those at the top believe the multi-culti “everyone’s the same” bullshite?! Or a project lasting since 1948 and expending vast resources, political capital and Herculean obfuscation and subterfuge efforts is just about “cheap labour”? Homogeneous Europeans are the only peoples standing in the way of their global hegemony, a.k.a, the New World Order. The panmixia project has been in the planning 140 years old, as one of the articles on this site indicates. As the screws of the panopticon police/nanny state with total control of and intrusion into every aspect of our lives, get ever tighter, generally following along the same curve as third-world immigration into the West, Euros, Americans, and Australians, et. al. are the only ones who have the will and are capable of resisting. It doesn’t take a graduate degree to figure that one out. You might require unobtainable incontrovertible evidence of the obvious but I don’t, nor should I think do most posters here. 61
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:28 | # Thought you’d like this one, Fred (if you haven’t already seen it).
62
Posted by John on Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:37 | # That cartoon reminds me of something that happened at my son’s preschool. There was an African girl pushing a toy pram with a black doll in it. My 2-year-old at the time took it away from her, went over to the pile of dolls, dug through and selected a white one and put it in the carriage. That episode did alot to allay my fear that one day when he was old enough he’d bring home a girl named Raghad (or her sister Towelhad). I was glad there were no scowling Jewish psychologists around to see that. Post a comment:
Next entry: You my Heidegger: Dasein vs. The World of They
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:16 | #
Good grief! This is genius!