They Are Kind to Animals

Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2010, 11:16 AM | #

Good grief!  This is genius!

Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2010, 12:19 PM | #

Yep.  It’s a magnifying glass, but that’s still truth underneath it.

Posted by Lurker on June 04, 2010, 12:20 PM | #

Brilliant.

Posted by DRS on June 04, 2010, 12:37 PM | #

Posted by Dan Dare on June 04, 2010, 12:48 PM | #

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.

Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2010, 01:41 PM | #

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.

Posted by danielj on June 04, 2010, 02:10 PM | #

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…

Posted by uh on June 04, 2010, 02:19 PM | #

Excellent!

Posted by danielj on June 04, 2010, 02:55 PM | #

Takes a stable of writers to do a show like that every night.

Posted by Dasein on June 04, 2010, 03:55 PM | #

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.

Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2010, 05:26 PM | #

danielj:  Just 10 minutes of amateur youtube video a week with writing anywhere near this good would be a triumph.

Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2010, 05:36 PM | #

Dasein, that’s not a bug, its a feature.

Posted by Dasein on June 04, 2010, 05:51 PM | #

Where racism begins, privacy ends.

Brillliant.  I’ve never heard this before (it’s also a Google whack).

Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2010, 07:14 PM | #

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.

Posted by Thorn on June 04, 2010, 07:19 PM | #

“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.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 04, 2010, 07:55 PM | #

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.

Trouble at Marxmount

There has long been an ideological rift in the Dutt-Pauker family. Mrs Dutt-Pauker herself and her daughter Deirdre support the Soviet Russian line, whereas Deirdre’s bearded activist little son, Bert Brecht Mao Che Odinga and Gjoq, the Albanian au pair girl, owe ideological allegiance to Peking.

The other day yells of anger were heard coming from the nursery wing at Marxmount, the Hampstead thinker’s mansion beside the Heath. Going to investigate, Deirdre found that a secondary rift had opened up. Bert had not only accused Gjoq of supporting the discredited Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-ping but also of “capitalist roading” and favouring “Khrushchev’s goulash paradise.”

The hot-tempered Albanian girl had put hirn across her knee and given hirn a sound spanking, only to be called a “neo-revisionist dwarf” and “adventurist” monster. Deirdre rebuked Gjoq for her reactionary methods of punishment, whereupon the Maoist pair, temporarily united, turned on her and drove her out with shouts of “running dog of the Kremlin imperialist clique!”

They then returned to their own dispute, Bert hastily scrawling a “big character” message on the day-nursery wall which unfortunately cannot be reproduced in a column intended for family reading by the fireside.

Posted by Thorn on June 04, 2010, 07:57 PM | #

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.

Posted by Tim on June 04, 2010, 08:29 PM | #

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

In the endless sort of struggle that neurobiologists have ? in terms of free will, determinism ? my feeling has always been that there’s not a whole lot of free will out there, and if there is, it’s in the least interesting places and getting more sparse all the time. But there’s a whole new realm of neuroscience which I’ve been thinking about, which I’m starting to do research on, that throws in another element of things going on below the surface affecting our behavior. And it’s got to do with this utterly bizarre world of parasites manipulating our behavior. It turns out that this is not all that surprising. There are all sorts of parasites out there that get into some organism, and what they need to do is parasitize the organism and increase the likelihood that they, the parasite, will be fruitful and multiply, and in some cases they can manipulate the behavior of the host.

Some of these are pretty astounding. There’s this barnacle that rides on the back of some crab and is able to inject estrogenic hormones into the crab if the crab is male, and at that point, the male’s behavior becomes feminized. The male crab digs a hole in the sand for his eggs, except he has no eggs, but the barnacle sure does, and has just gotten this guy to build a nest for him. There are other ones where wasps parasitize caterpillars and get them to defend the wasp’s nests for them. These are extraordinary examples.

The parasite my lab is beginning to focus on is one in the world of mammals, where parasites are changing mammalian behavior.

[...]

But then we looked at how much winds up in different areas in the brain, and it turned out Toxo preferentially knows how to home in on the part of the brain that is all about fear and anxiety, a brain region called the amygdala. The amygdala is where you do your fear conditioning; the amygdala is what’s hyperactive in people with post-traumatic stress disorder; the amygdala is all about pathways of predator aversion, and Toxo knows how to get in there.

[...]

So on a certain level, that explains everything. Ah ha! It takes over sexual arousal circuitry. This is utterly bizarre. At this point, we don’t know what the basis is of the attraction in the females. It’s something we’re working on.

[...]

Tyrosine hydroxylase is the critical enzyme for making dopamine: the neurotransmitter in the brain that’s all about reward and anticipation of reward. Cocaine works on the dopamine system, all sorts of other euphoriants do. Dopamine is about pleasure, attraction and anticipation. And the Toxo genome has the mammalian gene for making the stuff. It’s got a little tail on the gene that targets, specifies, that when this is turned into the actual enzyme, it gets secreted out of the Toxo and into neurons. This parasite doesn’t need to learn how to make neurons act as if they are pleasurably anticipatory; it takes over the brain chemistry of it all on its own.

[...]

So what about humans? A small literature is coming out now reporting neuropsychological testing on men who are Toxo-infected, showing that they get a little bit impulsive. Women less so, and this may have some parallels perhaps with this whole testosterone aspect of the story that we’re seeing. And then the truly astonishing thing: two different groups independently have reported that people who are Toxo-infected have three to four times the likelihood of being killed in car accidents involving reckless speeding.

In other words, you take a Toxo-infected rat and it does some dumb-ass thing that it should be innately skittish about, like going right up to cat smells. Maybe you take a Toxo-infected human and they start having a proclivity towards doing dumb-ass things that we should be innately averse to, like having your body hurdle through space at high G-forces. Maybe this is the same neurobiology. This is not to say that Toxo has evolved the need to get humans into cat stomachs. It’s just sheer convergence. It’s the same nuts and bolts neurobiology in us and in a rodent, and does the same thing.

On a certain level, this is a protozoan parasite that knows more about the neurobiology of anxiety and fear than 25,000 neuroscientists standing on each other’s shoulders, and this is not a rare pattern. Look at the rabies virus; rabies knows more about aggression than we neuroscientists do. It knows how to make you rabid. It knows how to make you want to bite someone, and that saliva of yours contains rabies virus particles, passed on to another person.

The Toxo story is, for me, completely new terrain ? totally cool, interesting stuff, just in terms of this individual problem. And maybe it’s got something to do with treatments for phobias down the line or whatever it is to make it seem like anything more than just the coolest gee whiz thing possible. But no doubt it’s also a tip of the iceberg of God knows what other parasitic stuff is going on out there. Even in the larger sense, God knows what other unseen realms of biology make our behavior far less autonomous than lots of folks would like to think.

With regard to parasite infections like Toxo in humans, there is a big prevalence in certain parts of the world. There’s a higher prevalence in the tropics, where typically more than 50 percent of people are infected. Lower rates in more temperate zones for reasons that I do not understand and do not choose to speculate on. France has really high rates of Toxo infection. In much of the developing world, it’s bare feet, absorbing it through soil, where cats may have been. It’s food that may not have been washed sufficiently and absorption through hands. It’s the usual story that people in the developing world are more subject to all sorts of infectious stuff.

A few years ago, I sat down with a couple of the Toxo docs over in our hospital who do the Toxo testing in the Ob/Gyn clinics. And they hadn’t heard about this behavioral story, and I’m going on about how cool and unexpected it is. And suddenly, one of them jumps up, flooded with 40-year-old memories, and says, “I just remembered back when I was a resident, I was doing a surgical transplant rotation. And there was an older surgeon, who said, if you ever get organs from a motorcycle accident death, check the organs for Toxo. I don’t know why, but you find a lot of Toxo.” And you could see this guy was having a rush of nostalgic memories from back when he was 25 and all because he was being told this weird factoid ... ooh, people who die in motorcycle accidents seem to have high rates of Toxo. Utterly bizarre.

What is the bottom line on this? Well, it depends; if you want to overcome some of your inhibitions, Toxo might be a very good thing to have in your system. Not surprisingly, ever since we started studying Toxo in my lab, every lab meeting we sit around speculating about which people in the lab are Toxo-infected, and that might have something to do with one’s level of recklessness. Who knows? It’s very interesting stuff, though.

You want to know something utterly terrifying? Here’s something terrifying and not surprising. Folks who know about Toxo and its affect on behavior are in the U.S. military. They’re interested in Toxo. They’re officially intrigued. And I would think they would be intrigued, studying a parasite that makes mammals perhaps do things that everything in their fiber normally tells them not to because it’s dangerous and ridiculous and stupid and don’t do it. But suddenly with this parasite on board, the mammal is a little bit more likely you go and do it. Who knows? But they are aware of Toxo.

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*?

Posted by Tim on June 04, 2010, 08:31 PM | #

Another link on Sapolsky and the Toxoplasma parasite’s effect on humans:

http://tobiastenney.com/2010/06/toxoplasma/

Posted by Al Ross on June 04, 2010, 11:37 PM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 05, 2010, 03:03 AM | #

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.

Posted by Al Ross on June 05, 2010, 03:25 AM | #

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2010, 08:23 AM | #

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

There came also the soul of Odysseus having yet to make a choice, and his lot happened to be the last of them all. Now the recollection of former tolls had disenchanted him of ambition, and he went about for a considerable time in search of the life of a private man who had no cares; he had some difficulty in finding this, which was lying about and had been neglected by everybody else; and when he saw it, he said that he would have done the had his lot been first instead of last, and that he was delighted to have it.

Of course, I might change my mind about that pretty quickly if I Bismuth shows up here.

Posted by danielj on June 05, 2010, 09:02 AM | #

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.

Posted by Al Ross on June 05, 2010, 09:31 PM | #

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.

Posted by Excelsior on June 06, 2010, 12:16 AM | #

Christianity is Jew psy-ops.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 02:13 AM | #

From Kalb’s latest, up today over at Richard Spencer’s:

[…W]e need to question positions that are now beyond discussion in respectable discourse. […]

—Freedom means comprehensive control of human relations so we don’t oppress each other.

—Equality means rule by irresponsible and unrepresentative elites.  Otherwise there’s no one to keep us equal.

—Inclusiveness means distinctions can’t be allowed to matter, so they have to be destroyed or neutered.

—Democracy means everyone has to be powerless.  Otherwise, some would be more powerful than others and that wouldn’t be democratic.

—Giving people what they want means destroying the goods they care about most, since those goods can’t be equal, optional, and externally manageable.

—Reason means submission of the mind and will to expert pronouncements that always turn out to promote the power and authority of experts and bureaucrats.

—Diversity means that people attached to nonliberal principles must be demonized as bigots and fundamentalists.

It’s evident something has gone wrong.  But what?

The present situation reflects contradictions hidden in modern ideals.  It thus has an essential intellectual component.

The problems have to do with the most basic issues:  how we acquire knowledge, and how we choose our goals.  Liberal modernity tries to be clear, rational, and progressive.  With that in mind it tries to simplify things so they can be understood and put right.

That means it insists on making men and things manageable.  As time goes by it finds more and more that needs reform, and becomes more and more demanding and intrusive.  The result is that it goes to extremes and becomes tyrannical and destructive.

In particular, liberals insist on treating knowledge as strictly public and goods as strictly private.  The alternative would be obscurantism and oppression — government based on claims of private knowledge that override individual preferences.

Knowledge, then, is public and scientific, while goods are personal and subjective.  If you want to know what’s true, you ask the experts, who determine the answer by objective critical standards.  As to questions of value, however, each of us defines his goods, chooses his goals, and pursues his purposes as freely as possible and however he wishes.

Such principles seem the quintessence of reason, but they have consequences that are much less reasonable.  In particular, they tell us we have wants, and can’t satisfy them on our own, because our own knowledge isn’t reliable.  As a result, somebody else has to arrange matters for us.  It’s for our own benefit.

They also tell us that wants conflict, since they are individual and arbitrary, and we can’t resolve the conflicts for ourselves, since we just want what we want and there’s nothing to tell us what should give way to what.  The conclusion is that someone else has to decide things for us.  Experts have to cut our wants down to size and make sure we only want things that fit the smooth functioning of the system.

The result is that we live in perpetual tutelage.  What was intended as freedom and equality becomes an odd sort of servitude.  Kindergarten becomes the model for the whole of social life.

To avoid such a result, politics must be based on recognitions that are more realistic and less mindlessly simple:

—Not everything can be reduced to a clear rational system, and not all impulses are equally good.

—Goods [Scroob note:  or, “the Good,” or “that which is good’] and goals are partly social, since what’s on offer and what it’s worth depends partly on other people.

—Knowledge is partly local, individual, and inarticulate, since not everything can be made explicit, noted down, and incorporated into expertise.

—For that reason, much of our knowledge comes from experience and the resulting growth of habits that work.

—More generally, our society learns through tradition, and as social beings we learn through participation in the traditions of our society.

The effect of such recognitions is fundamental rejection of liberal modernity.  Since expert knowledge, social engineering [Scroob note:  which of course includes miscegeneering], and subjective wants aren’t enough for social life, expertise, utility, and equal freedom can’t be the highest standards.

We need a different social ideal.  Instead of an equal, free, efficient, and rational society, we need to aim at a society that functions normally in the way societies normally function.  Such a society would feature legitimate tradition and particularity as ordering principles, along with the boundaries, exclusions, and authoritative attachments needed for them to function.

Such things are basic to every actual society but they are entirely inconsistent with equal freedom and utilitarian rationality as ultimate standards.  The point of rejecting contemporary inclusivist liberalism, then, is to re-establish the intellectual preconditions of a society that works and makes sense.

To get started we need to go to the basics and:

—Claim the right to define the problems.  The point of politics is not getting rid of inequalities, it’s facilitating a life worth living.  If you can’t talk about what makes life worth living, you can’t talk about politics.

—Reclaim history.  It’s not the story of human emancipation culminating in an ever more comprehensive system of global human rights.  It’s the story of attempts to deal with problems and attain goods [by “goods” here, Kalb means “the good”].  As such, it has its victories and defeats, very few of which are unequivocal or irreversible.

—Reclaim the concept of the normal.  People may question what it includes, but we can’t get along without it, and tradition is the normal way to establish what it is.

—Claim the high ground.  We have little hope of achieving anything enduring unless we connect our views to grand principle and the common good.  Men of good will should recognize the need for a normally functioning society.  Why not insist on the point and keep it front and center?

Once those things are done there is still a huge amount to argue about.  It’s clear that general antidiscrimination laws are bad, but those laws are part of something much larger.  What do we do about that, and how do we fight it?  For that matter, what do we do about technology?  Religion?  The idiocy of youth?  The obstinacy of age?  Current corruptions?  Foreign threats?  Actually-existing diversity?  And should we aim at reform, revolution, or secession?

There’s a lot that needs doing. The basic point, though, is that the situation is hopeless until we lay claim to reason, history, and the public good.  Battle cries, denunciations, and good strong blows may be fun and even useful, but they are subordinate.  Opposing inclusiveness isn’t bigotry, it’s support for what is normal and human.  Our first need is to make fruitful discussion possible, among ourselves, with others, and in response to objections.  And it is that goal that an alternative right must emphasize if it is to define itself and achieve anything that matters.

[ http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/toward-an-anti-inclusivist-right/ ]

“Opposing inclusiveness isn’t bigotry, it’s support for what is normal and human.” — James Kalb

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 02:34 AM | #

I agree by the way with all the commenters who deemed this little satire of I. Bismuth’s a truly first-rate piece of work.  It is precisely what goes on in the minds of these people, these little totalitarians, these little Stalins, including many of our overlords, ones like (as someone pointed out above) John Wadham belonging to our own ethnicity and ones belonging to a certain other ethnicity that dwells among us especially on this side of the Atlantic, if one gets my meaning (I know Armor gets my meaning).

Posted by danielj on June 06, 2010, 07:58 AM | #

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!

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 09:11 AM | #

Danielj, it is impossible for a non-believer to commit blasphemy. It is, of course, a sin for a believer so to do.

Posted by Wandrin on June 06, 2010, 11:16 AM | #

Fred, from Kalb

Claim the high ground. We have little hope of achieving anything enduring unless we connect our views to grand principle and the common good.

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.

Posted by Robert Reis on June 06, 2010, 12:12 PM | #

La France a besoin de plus d’immigrants.

http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/05/30/agresion-a-una-joven-por-parte-de-inmigrantes-en-francia/

Posted by danielj on June 06, 2010, 01:12 PM | #

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2010, 03:31 PM | #

Robert,

Some context to that video.  It is posted by a negro from Bamako, Mali who, by way of introduction, writes:

“That’s for girls who do not want to give their mobile number, who will not cooperate, that’s what happens too quickly from ca. Death of laughter. Boboche (Bobigny), it’s crazy guys!”

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.

Posted by Dasein on June 06, 2010, 03:56 PM | #

The idea - who’s, exactly - is to attract a further 50 million negros to Europe.

Dan was sceptical about the source for that 50 million claim.  As I remember, it came from a rather trashy tabloid.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2010, 04:20 PM | #

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 ...

Posted by Dasein on June 06, 2010, 04:37 PM | #

One of these people is one too many.

Hear, hear.

On a related note, I might have seen my first pygmy today.  Either that or it was an incredibly short Bantu.  It crossed in front of me on the way to the bakery, the effect was like having a deer dart across the Autobahn at night.  Perhaps the only pygmies left in the world will be those in Europe, once the Bantus are through eating them in Africa.  If she really was a pygmy, I’m sure we can get her to sign a petition to get these immigration centres closed

Posted by Captainchaos on June 06, 2010, 05:31 PM | #

GW,

It is inconceivable that this had been forgotten in 1948, when the decision to import Jamaicans was taken.

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?

African culture, African chaotica, African violence, African sexualisation,

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.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 05:43 PM | #

“Dan was sceptical about the source for that 50 million claim.  As I remember, it came from a rather trashy tabloid.”

Right, Dan somewhat vehemently (not to say a little angrily) disputed it.  Which surprised me at the time, it being crystal-clear to me at least that exactly that, the complete race-replacement of Euro peoples in their own homelands, is the plan, so one way or another the above or its equivalent is right now not just on the drawing boards but in the early implementation stage.  Whether we’re talking about it or its equivalent is unimportant; the end-game is all that’s important.  Grasping that is called connecting the dots, something Dan Dare isn’t fond of attempting.  So, I don’t believe Dan Dare, I believe the trashy tabloid.  As everyone knows, lots of true things are leaked then denied, such as when Ariel Sharon blurted out that “We, the Jewish people, control the U.S. Congress and the Americans know it!”  World Jewry has been twisting itself in pretzels ever since, trying to claim that quote was made up.  Obviously it wasn’t.  That there is a plan to import far more than 50 million African Negroes into Europe and shove them down white throats is blindingly obvious to anyone with a pair of functioning eyes.  Are all the lines of the picture neatly drawn somewhere we can go to see the full blueprint at a glance?  No.  How do we perceive it?  We connect the dots.  When a soccer player kicks the soccer ball we can tell where it’s going to fly before it does, because we can see its initial trajectory.  We can see this thing’s initial trajectory too:  it’s all around us.  Except for Dan Dare.  He can’t tell where the kicked soccer ball is going to go until it has completed its flight and it’s all viewable on the instant playbacks.  The team playing defense though see instantly where it’s headed the moment it’s kicked and position themselves accordingly.  Dan is hopeless at defense.  Hasn’t got the “connect the dots” circuitry in his brain and for some reason gets pretty testy at anyone who does.

“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.”  (—GW)

Notice the relative land areas in question by the way:  Africa, 11.7 million sq mi, minus the uninhabitable Sahara Desert, 3.6 million sq mi, leaves 8 million habitable sq mi these Negroes and mulattoes possess all for themselves back home.

Europe to the Urals is 3.9 million sq mi and the portion of Europe undergoing forced race-replacement is about half that, about 2,000,000 sq mi.  One-fourth the size of what the Africans have back home.

So, our overlords tell us the Sub-Saharan African Negroes and North African mulattoes with eight million square miles between them (almost twelve million if you count the Sahara) must, absolutely must keep on coming, crowding into an area of Europe one quarter the size, in ever greater numbers, non-stop, they just have to, there’s no conceivable alternative according to the overlords running the show with lies, abuses, and dictatorial powers.  The hideous white race has to go out of existence because it bothers some people who see it generally as in their way.  It’s being phased out.  On purpose.  Of course no one admits it.  They’ll lie through their teeth until it’s irreversible as they see things, then they won’t care who knows the truth, the truth being that it was planned all along.  Dan Dare can’t see that of course and doesn’t want anyone saying he sees it, because Dan doesn’t do something called “connecting the dots.”  He just doesn’t.  And he doesn’t want anyone else doing it either in his presence.

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 07:02 PM | #

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.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 06, 2010, 07:33 PM | #

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’.

Of course once Africans do make it in and achieve permanent residence in one EU state they will be able to take advantage of the freedom of movement which all EU residents enjoy.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2010, 07:54 PM | #

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.

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 08:01 PM | #

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.

Posted by danielj on June 06, 2010, 08:05 PM | #

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?

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 08:21 PM | #

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.

Posted by Wandrin on June 06, 2010, 08:23 PM | #

Another nice bit of amateur video propaganda http://rugfish.blogspot.com/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 08:47 PM | #

“As for the motives of the elites, that too requires evidential certainty.”  (—GW)

That’s as regards motives.  As regards the act itself, the crime, we already have certainty:  they committed it.

Getting back to motives, the elites will never explain theirs, as that would entail admitting outright their desire for race-replacement genocide, something they’ll never do.  That leaves us in the position of either connecting the dots as best we can or forever scratching our heads in bewilderment at it all. 

I vote for connecting the dots as best we can.  That is, until the likes of Lord Lester (is he still alive?) and all his ilk decide to come clean as to motives.  A snowball stands a better chance in hell than that does of happening.

Posted by Lurker on June 06, 2010, 09:02 PM | #

Glad to see Fred has surfaced!

Posted by danielj on June 06, 2010, 09:27 PM | #

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.

Posted by danielj on June 06, 2010, 09:27 PM | #

On topic: This is an excellent piece. Better than the last, which was too long.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 06, 2010, 09:45 PM | #

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.

‘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.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l23034_en.htm

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 10:15 PM | #

Yes,DD, I omitted the word ‘immediate’ between ‘the and ‘right’.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 06, 2010, 10:21 PM | #

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. - GW

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

Posted by Al Ross on June 06, 2010, 10:40 PM | #

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.

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.

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.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2010, 10:46 PM | #

“Let’s not be inventing bogey-men again, there are enough real-life villains to be going on with.”  (—Dan Dare)

Right, let’s not invent bogey-men, we do so much bogey-man inventing around here.  That’s gotta stop.  So, who were the real ones again Dan, the ones who decided behind closed doors to begin importing Negroes and other non-whites and damn the public’s wishes, and to aggressively root out and utterly crush any and all opposition to that plan?  Who were the exact individuals responsible for that again, Dan?  We certainly don’t want to “invent bogey men again.”

Posted by franko on June 06, 2010, 10:59 PM | #

“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.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 06, 2010, 11:22 PM | #

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.

Posted by Robert Reis on June 07, 2010, 01:04 AM | #

The white hating rulers of Sweden are tightening the noose.

Sweden’s palace coup
June 6, 2010 by Cavatus

The Swedish code of laws
The Swedish government intends to change the Swedish constitution. In order to do this there is a need for two parliamentary decisions with an election in between. Since there will be an election in September, the government was in a hurry to vote for this decision now before the MPs go on holiday so that they can deal with the issue after the election again – provided that they get the necessary majority in order to do so.

The contents of the government bill gives every reason for concern. The Ministry of Justice describes the amendments as extensive, and they are indeed so extensive that they in practice reshape all the public power. The main function of the constitutional government bill is to further centralize the political power to the hands of the State. The main features that are alarming are: (links to different sources)

- There is a far-reaching discussion on why it is a good idea to restrict the free right of nomination at general elections. There is in other words just a question of time until such restrictions will take place.

- It will not be possible to freely add candidates on ballots on the election day

- There will be a stronger barrier against small parties at the municipal level.

- Municipalities and county councils are defined without being given today’s power of taxation. The municipal self-government has a long history and is thus put an end.

- The principle of public access to official records is abolished for backup copies.

- Introduction of secret government meetings, that have always been public, this means that the government can legislate without the presence of the supervision of the public. Thus people cannot know anything about how or why the MPs voted as they did.

- The power of the State is dissociated even more from the people since you cannot bring a lawsuit against an MP at office without the permission of the parliament with a five sixth majority.

- The cabinet ministers must be Swedish citizens. Earlier they had to have been Swedish citizens for 10 years in order to get such an appointment.

- The number of citizens who demand a municipal referendum will be 10% instead of earlier 5%. The result will continue to be solely ”advisory”.

- Multiculture becomes constitutional: unaccompanied refugee children partly get more constitutional rights than earlier.

- On the same time a policy that demands immigrants’ assimilation is rendered impossible. They get a constitutional right to be excused from becoming Swedish and learn the Swedish language. the State imposes thus a balkanization of the society that is paid by the majority.

- Swedes get the same rights as illegal immigrants. I many cases the constitution does not any longer comprise Swedish citizens. The word “citizen” is changed into “everybody”. In that way the constitution comprises immigrants, legal as well as illegal ones. This is certainly not explicit, but there is undoubtedly room for the fact that the law will be interpreted like this in practice.

- The right to use the military within the country against Swedes. This is contrary to what the military authorities themselves want.

This ambition to centralize the political power even more in Sweden is very alarming. That no debate exists is the strongest sign of the fact that the constitutional amendment without doubt is the biggest political piece of news i Sweden – everything according to the Swedish rule “the greater importance, the greater silence“. The changes will come into force in 2011, unless there is a formidable revolution among the party support of the electorate.

It also shows that the resolution was taken with acclamation and not by the ordinary way of voting: by pressing the yes or no button. By doing so, the decision of a single MP cannot be questioned – they are anonymous. We cannot know who voted for what. Acclamation means that there is no objections whatsoever among the 349 MPs, something that itself is serious.

Even worse is actually fact that the committee that has prepared the government bill only claims for a partial approval. In other words there were objections in the committee that were not made public in the final discussion in the parliament. This is nothing less than a flagrant example of a full-scale palace coup!

The last – but not least – shocking part of this is that nothing has been mentioned about this in the Swedish media. Are the journalists so incompetent that they find the princess wedding more interesting? Or are they trying to conceal something from the people?

The constitutional amendment paves the way for the abolition of every part of the Swedish parliamentary democracy. Sweden is, in short, in bad trouble – economically, socially and constitutionally.

Posted by Jebus on June 07, 2010, 01:40 AM | #

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
- An indian guy. Heck, I could even describe myself as Indo-Aryan, but the commentators here would probably lash me for violating their narrow definitions of race and hijacking the beloved ‘A’ word.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 07, 2010, 02:56 AM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 07, 2010, 05:16 AM | #

Charles Murray, On Human Accomplishment:

I didn’t think that Christianity, per se, was going to be that important. But I eventually became convinced of the importance of Thomas Aquinas in combining Aristotelian thought with the Christian message and creating an extremely powerful creative impulse. To put it very quickly: What Aquinas did was to say that creating beauty is pleasing to God, that discovering the workings of his universe is pleasing to God and glorifies God, and that by doing these things you are fulfilling your role as a Christian. When you combine that with rediscovery of the Greek legacy at about that same time, you just got a huge explosion of creativity. And the Roman Catholic Church, I think, deserves a lot of credit for that. It backslid later, became much more conservative, but for the Renaissance it was a big deal.

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.’

Unsavory as this old idea may sometimes sound, there are (as the work of some medievalists has recently suggested(12)) important arguments to be made for the claim that Roman law laid some of the behavioral foundation for the rise of commercial society. And those arguments are not only important for our understanding of European legal history. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the rise of modem commerce. As I am going to try to show, discussing the question of the “morally corrupting” impact of Roman law, at first glance so bizarre, will help us approach a deeper question about the development of a commercial order: the question of the extent to which the legal history of commerce is a history, not just of the rise of functioning commercial institutions, but also of the rise of a commercial morality. More broadly, discussing the “morally corrupting” impact of Roman law will help us see the importance of a question that hovers over all legal historiography: the question of whether we can really disentangle the history of law from the history of ideas of good and evil, right and wrong.

I am going to begin by reviewing what the great legal historians of the nineteenth century said on this topic, sketching out some classic claims about how the spread of Roman law brought moral evil in its wake. I will concentrate on two charges against Roman law in particular: first, the charge that Roman law’s “property absolutism” made it peculiarly “unbrotherly” or “uncommunal”; and second, the charge that Roman law was excessively “rationalistic.”

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.

His paternal ancestors came from the hamlet of Serveto, in the Aragonian Pyrenees, which gave the family their surname. The maternal line descended from Jewish Conversos of the Monzón area.

Michael Servetus, humanist, denier of Christ, inspiration for Locke, Hume, Mill and Madison was most likely a Jew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

Posted by Dasein on June 07, 2010, 06:40 AM | #

Copernicus’ prayer:

Almighty God, who have made the heavens to tell your glory and The firmament to proclaim your handiwork: we bless you for placing us in a rational universe, and for giving us rational minds suited for understanding it; and today we praise you especially for the gifts of intellect that you have given to your servants Nicolas Copernicus and others, by which our understanding of the nature of your creation has been much advanced, to our good and your glory, who live and reign, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

Posted by danielj on June 07, 2010, 07:23 AM | #

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.

Are you really denying that church doctrine wasn’t responsible for the scientific prowess of Europe? It isn’t really that big of a deal to admit it. It isn’t even admitting that there is anything true about the faith. I’m only asserting that without the doctors of the church, there wouldn’t have been a scientific revolution in Europe. I don’t think any historians disagree.

Posted by danielj on June 07, 2010, 07:26 AM | #

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.

Posted by Wandrin on June 07, 2010, 10:44 AM | #

Right, let’s not invent bogey-men, we do so much bogey-man inventing around here.

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

An advert had appeared in Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner newspaper on April 13th, offering cheap transport on the ship for anybody who wanted to come and work in the UK.

While the Windrush was on its way to Britain, there was some debate in Parliament as to whether its passengers had any right to come here. Some argued that they ought to be turned away on arrival. It was pointed out in their defence that they had British passports, had served King and Country in wartime and would only be likely to stay for a year anyway.

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

The white hating rulers of Sweden are tightening the noose.

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.

Posted by Dan Dare on June 07, 2010, 11:44 AM | #

Where are the cabinet papers detailing the government’s “social objectives” in 2000? - GW

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.

Posted by Armor on June 07, 2010, 09:11 PM | #

Most people are naturally racist to a degree (—Wandrin)

In other words: Most people are naturally reluctant to be race-replaced.
(I don’t like to use the word “racist” !)

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 separation based on EGI

I think what they need is a kick in their butts, not information about EGI.
EGI is a useful concept to better understand what it is we are trying to preserve, but scientific arguments are not very inspiring. Alex Kurtagic has a different strategy: he says we should try to improve our style. My preference goes to another method: I like exPF’s series of exercices in snappy refutations. That series should be expanded and shared.

Posted by joe on June 07, 2010, 10:25 PM | #

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?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2010, 11:44 PM | #

Canadian scientist Peter Frost, an expert on the genetics and evolution of skin color, hair color, and eye color is somewhat skeptical of the claimed significance of “doll tests” of the sort that famously influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegregation decision in Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/06/use-and-abuse-of-doll-tests.html .

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 08, 2010, 04:15 AM | #

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

Posted by Wandrin on June 08, 2010, 07:38 AM | #

Armor,

I think what they need is a kick in their butts, not information about EGI. EGI is a useful concept to better understand what it is we are trying to preserve, but scientific arguments are not very inspiring.

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.

Posted by Robert Reis on June 09, 2010, 10:34 AM | #

The last Spartan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBDsr6T-AE

Posted by Robert Reis on June 10, 2010, 12:44 AM | #

Swedish TV avoids mentioning that youths that burned down school and stoned firemen and police are from Somalia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8l0gDAsdlE&feature=player_embedded 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxi6giV2QzM&feature=player_embedded#!

Current election campaign in Belgium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyk3-lNh92E&feature=player_embedded#!

McDonalds aims at gay market in France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBuKuA9nHsw

The last Spartan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBDsr6T-AE

Posted by Wandrin on June 10, 2010, 03:59 PM | #

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.

Posted by Dasein on June 10, 2010, 05:49 PM | #

Another of our top recruiters in action:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/10/punching_and_shoving_man_physically_attacks_tea_partiers_in_nc.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 19, 2010, 09:44 AM | #

Further to my comment above of June 8, here’s some more by Peter Frost on the racial “doll test” scam:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-on-doll-tests.html .

Incidentally, ever wonder whom the “doll test” was brought to you by?  You guessed it, it was brought to you by your friendly neighborhood  ….  well, here I’ll let you read it for yourself:  check out Richard Spencer’s second paragraph here (I didn’t know this before reading it last night at Spencer’s):

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/desegregating-the-holy-land/ . 

So, they invented it, and then they used it, used this bogus science they themselves fraudulently cooked up and then hyped through the media they control and the college textbooks and courses they also control (and continue to hype), used it to influence the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most destructive rulings by that body in U.S. history.

(See what is meant by the expression “Cherchez le juif”?  It’s a rule of thumb that seldom disappoints in this grand quest to understand the crap, the complete and utter filth, the absolutely sickening, nauseating shit that goes on constantly in the world — or at least an immense proportion of it.  It’s an indispensable rule of thumb:  steers you right, nine times out of ten.  A sailor never steered by the stars more surely.  Saves time, cuts corners, gets straight to the no-bullshit heart of the matter.  Gets you where you need to go, depend on it.)  (Guys who live in countries where there aren’t lots of [fill in the blank] _______ , don’t worry, the rule still applies, but via the thing in math called the transitive law:  the mechanism in question molds the U.S. and the U.S. molds you:  it’s like the rabies virus — the virus doesn’t bite you, the animal controlled by it does.  A rabid United States is biting Europe, is biting the Eurosphere, is biting the whole world.)

Posted by John on June 19, 2010, 11:06 AM | #

“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 ...”

Military assets to use against us.

As for the motives of the elites, that too requires evidential certainty.

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.

Posted by John on June 19, 2010, 11:28 AM | #

Thought you’d like this one, Fred (if you haven’t already seen it).

Posted by John on June 19, 2010, 01:37 PM | #

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.