Dear Mr Thomas,

I am a blogger at majorityrights.com, an American-based website for thinking nationalists.  Like many readers of the DT blogs, I imagine, I was disappointed to see the conclusion of your piece on the Muslim Grooming gang in Oxford.  I did not see the most offensive version, apparently, since you tweeted that it has been amended.  The version on the page now remains quite appalling, both in its treatment of the facts and in its underlying presumptions.  I am gathering information for a post on the article, and I wondered whether you would kindly help by answering some questions about it and about yourself.  I must warn you that they are a nationalist’s questions.  They present a challenge to the liberal mind.  Please answer them as directly as you are able.

First, the question of historical accuracy ...

You wrote of Nick Griffin that “He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred. Which is exactly what he was doing, of course. He was making his allegations to stir up ethnic strife.”

In fact, along with Mark Collett he was tried twice at Leeds Crown Court for inciting racial hatred, as a result of speeches made in the Reservoir Tavern, Keighley on 19th January 2004.  Both were acquitted of all charges (two in Griffin’s case, four in Collett’s).  Do you accept that they were innocent, or do you have new evidence to the contrary?

Are you aware that the BNP compiled a dossier on the grooming of young English girls by Muslims in the early 2000s, which it handed to West Yorkshire Police.  Does that action demonstrate racial hatred or concern for the victims of a very evil crime no one in authority wanted to acknowledge?  If the former, would you assume that of any other group that had gathered the evidence and made its representations to police officers?  Do you believe that nationalists are capable of any virtuous action whatsoever?  Or do you think they are simply “thugs”?

Second, the question of the legitimacy of the charges themselves ...

The settled view of British nationalism is that, since we English have never been asked whether we wished foreign (not simply Muslim) populations to grow in our midst, or whether we wanted to be dispossessed and replaced by them in many of our towns and cities - with a prospect of minoritisation nationally within the expected life-span of anyone under forty today - we are free to act in our own interests at any moment of our choosing.

Is this view based on a correct interpretation of the demography of England?  If correct, would action to end the English dispossession and replacement be sensible, or should we simply give in à la Jens Orbach, the former Social Democrat minister in Sweden who observed, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and the Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us”?  Would you expect any other generation of Englishmen to give in, or would they fight for the freedom and life of their people and the birthright of their children?  Would they be moral or immoral men for doing so? Would you accuse them of stirring up racial hatred?

Third, the question of independence of mind ...

You wrote, in that final paragraph, “Right-thinking people, aware of the BNP’s record as liars, presumed that these stories were just racist demagoguery.”  Please provide examples of these lies.  Please explain why it is “right thinking” to label BNP officers as “racist demagogues”.  Indeed, what does “right-thinking” mean?  Does it mean that Englishmen should behave like Jens Orbach?  Please explain what is good for the English people in such “right-thinking”.

How did you become a “right-thinker” yourself, rather than the kind of Englishman who loves his people and puts them first?  Do you consider yourself to be virtuous in the liberalistic sense of “freedom” from prejudice, or are you merely prejudiced against those who express English ethnocentrism?  Do you, for example, rail at Jews, who are so very ethnocentric, or look down upon Africans and Asians, who also remain highly conscious of their race and ethnicity?

Last question.  You write of Griffin, “it was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.”  Are you aware that a retired police officer has stated that the history of police neglect of this crime may date back thirty years?  Did the police and social workers who turned their face away value the lives of the victims above or below the continuity of multiculturalism in the land of the English?  If the latter, was this “right-thinking”?  Was the BNP responsible in some way for it?

I would remind you of the case of Charlene Downes.  Was the BNP responsible in some hidden way for her murder?

That will do for now, I feel.  I will be most interested in your attempt at an answer, should you be so minded.

Yours truly,

John Piggott

Somewhat to my surprise Thomas replied, beginning by saying that, “I respect your opinion, and position, even if I disagree with much of it. However I do not have time to enter into a long debate.”  He then went on to explain that his blog had been misinterpreted, or perhaps he had just not made a clear case.  But what he was trying to say was that Nick Griffin’s reputation attached to his work on the Moslem Grooming issue, and “made it easy for the Establishment to ignore the truth of what he was saying”.

I think this is most unlikely.  Many desperate young girls - victims of these paedophiles - escaped their captors long enough to report their situation to the police and social services.  They were uniformly ignored, an attitude that prevailed over a period of a decade at the very least.  In one case, social workers told parents that their daughter was simply choosing a life of prostitution.  This wasn’t happening because the BNP had got hold of the issue and was campaigning on it.  It happened because the professionals involved had a deeply perverse sense of values and were derelict in their duty of care.

We are not out of the woods yet.  I’ve lost count of the number of prosecutions since Heywood, and the police are now actively looking out for this type of offence.  But the racist nature of it is still denied.  Two days ago I watched an interview at the end of Channel 4 News in which Jon Snow (who has an African wife), a concerned Moslem “community leader”, and a Jewish woman named Sue Berlowicz, apparently the “deputy children’s commissioner” and a woman who is compiling an official report on organised child abuse,  all agreed that racism played no part in proceedings.  Doubtless that judgement would not extend to a white gang that targeted Moslem children.  Probably the police would want to know if they were BNP members, too.

However, even the excuse for ignorance is no longer valid given the fact that entire genomes are being reconstructed from samples far older than neolithic.

What excuse can Brotherton et al, or their apologists offer for this ignorance?

*Nation:  People related by consanguinity and congeniality—contrasted with Nation State

[ A description of how I generated the data for this plot is at the bottom of the post.  A larger image is here.  I will add some more plots and summaries later.  To my knowledge, this is the first genome-wide calculation of percent ancestral alleles in different human groups.  Other studies I’m aware of have calculated indirect measures (e.g. the chimpanzee genome paper) or have only looked at limited sets of genes (e.g. Rogers et al., 2007).  If anyone knows of other reports based on large-scale genetic data, please let me know. ]

As expected, the major division is between African and non-African populations.  Bantu groups (Bantu, Mandenka, and Yoruba) have ~68% ancestral alleles, pygmy groups (Biaka and Mbuti) have ~70%, and Bushmen (San) have ~72%.  European groups (e.g. Orcadians, French, Tuscans, Russians) have ~62.5%, while the biggest East Asian groups (Han and Japanese) have ~63%.  It is perhaps of interest that Melanesians and Papuans have relatively high percentages for the Eurasian group (~64%), though I am not sure yet how to interpret this.  It could partly be due to higher levels of Denisovan ancestry.  As discussed by Rogers et al., one should use caution in interpreting the causes of differences in ancestral allele makeup.  [I will address some of their points in a follow-up post.  Ideally, one could also look at SNPs from full genome sequencing- e.g. 1000 Genomes Project- to avoid problems with ascertainment bias.]

The difference in ancestral allele percentages may seem small, but an evolutionary model currently gaining favour (polygenic adaptation), suggests that small changes in allele frequency across many loci have driven much of human evolutionary change (the shift from searching for few loci with strong differentiation to many loci with weak differentiation can be seen to represent a swing away from the Mendelians and back to the biometricians—see The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics for more on the history of this conflict, which Vogel & Motulsky describes as the fundamental division in human genetics, Fisher’s 1918 synthesis notwithstanding).  This was shown to be the case for genes affecting difference in stature between Northern and Southern Europeans, where the mean allele frequency difference was ~.01 (1%).

While not all of the SNPs will play a functional role (the recent brouhaha surrounding the claims from the ENCODE project showing that this is not a resolved issue), many will.  And in those cases, African populations will tend towards the primitive phenotype.  For highly polygenic traits (like complex behaviours), the additive effect of higher ancestral allele frequencies could make African populations very primitive relative to others.

In the next post, I will begin looking at possible functional consequences of these differences in ancestral allele frequency.

Methods:

Genotype data came from HGDP_FinalReport_Forward.txt (in http://hagsc.org/hgdp/data/hgdp.zip).

Population information was taken from http://people.umass.edu/foulkes/asg/data/HGDP_AKT1.txt

I excluded the 2 individuals Rosenberg et al. (2006) suggested were misclassified.

The ancestral allele designation was taken from http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/goldenpath/hg19/database/hgdpGeo.txt.gz which, were determined by mapping the human SNPs to the chimpanzee genome. 

For each individual, the mean percent ancestral alleles was calculated across the 656303 SNPs common to HGDP_FinalReport_Forward.txt and hgdpGeo.txt.
I assumed the SNPs in hgdpGeo.txt were from the positive strand and took the complement for any genotypes in HGDP_FinalReport_Forward.txt where the sequences in the 2 files did not match.  There were no cases of SNPs whose alleles were A/T or C/G.

Boxplots were created with R.

Analysis was inspired by post and comments at Dienekes.

Today we see liberal capitalism and its political system, parliamentarism, as the only natural and acceptable solutions. Every revolutionary idea is considered utopian and ultimately criminal. We are made to believe that the global spread of capitalism and what gets called “democracy” is the dream of all humanity. And also that the whole world wants the authority of the American Empire, and its military police, NATO.

In truth, our leaders and propagandists know very well that liberal capitalism is an inegalitarian regime, unjust, and unacceptable for the vast majority of humanity. And they know too that our “democracy” is an illusion: Where is the power of the people?

We live in a contradiction: a brutal state of affairs, profoundly inegalitarian — where all existence is evaluated in terms of money alone – is presented to us as ideal. To justify their conservatism, the partisans of the established order cannot really call it ideal or wonderful. So instead, they have decided to say that all the rest is horrible. Sure, they say, we may not live in a condition of perfect goodness. But we’re lucky that we don’t live in a condition of evil. Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.

The refrain of “human rights” is nothing other than the ideology of modern liberal capitalism: We won’t massacre you, we won’t torture you in caves, so keep quiet and worship the golden calf. As for those who don’t want to worship it, or who don’t believe in our superiority, there’s always the American army and its European minions to make them be quiet.

There is no contradiction between the affirmation that liberal capitalism and democracy are the good and the affirmation that evil is a permanent possibility for any individual. The second thesis (evil inside of each of us) is simply the moral and religious complement to the first thesis, which is political (parliamentary capitalism as the good). There is even a “logical” connection between the two affirmations, as follows:

1. History shows that democratic liberal capitalism is the only economic, political, and social regime that is truly humane, that truly conforms to the good of humanity.

2. Every other political regime is a monstrous and bloody dictatorship, completely irrational.

Liberal capitalism is not at all the good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.

The full interview can be found here

Is evil a useful philosophical and political concept? And in what ideological ways is the notion of evil used within the narratives of liberal modernity? What conceptual obfuscation, mystification or indeed clarification can the idea of evil be used for?

At the core of liberal modernity, and present in all of it’s forms and expressions, is a radical form of nihilism at work?

Why does liberal modernity seem to be a phenomenon in which “All that is solid melts into air”?

I don’t have the answers to those questions, but half-witted responses about ‘cultural-Marxism’ - mostly from fans of Glenn Beck - would seem somewhat historically and analytically inadequate to the task of answering them.

Eagleton is a literary critic and is both a sometime Marxist and a Catholic – but of those two options he is by far a Catholic.

Still whatever the possible errors and omissions of Eagleton’s thought on culture and the death of God, I would suggest reasonable people must forgive him - we can’t all be obsessed about the burning issues of the day such as the corruption (by gays as a proxy for the J-lizards) of the boy scouts of America now can we?

Obviously Eagleton – being someone with an IQ in three figures - will be a little scary for the typical MR denizen but honestly he really doesn’t possess ‘mind-control’ powers.

Oh and Eagleton isn’t too keen on liberalism in case anyone thinks that Mill and Marx are the same ‘thing’.

Every social-order – including non-Voodoo ones - has some form of moral-order. Even that old favourite of philosophers the ‘rational immoralist’ is actually making some type of normative claim.

Evolution by natural selection gave human beings moral capabilities, empathy, imaginative sympathy etc., because they are adaptive (in some way) under certain bounded conditions. Those capacities and capabilities are not a gift from the supernatural ether or a Nobodaddy. The question has always been what type of moral-order, what type of social-order, and what types of human flourishing, virtues, relationships and communal values should be normative? And, of course, the relationship between particularity and universalism in the expression of such values.

As this conspiracy of conspiracy theory goes, the powers that be want so badly to cover that motive that they’ve got McGowan working under post-hypnotic suggestion to spin a 20 some-odd part saga about how the hippies were a complete CIA operation from top to bottom. For those who want to believe that Jim Morrison was a CIA agent instead of a spoiled, drunken kid, feel free to indulge in McGowan’s narrative. You will also find many hide-bound traditional men and women looking to find the hippies an easy excuse for everything that has gone wrong. That would appeal to these kinds who are ready to have you go to war for any excuse that Israel can give – they are unwittingly participating in a diversion from Jewish and oligarch culpability and from the legitimacy and importance of the White male motive of the time.

What suggests that there could actually have been a conspiracy to get this guy to render this conspiracy theory? Let’s focus on one salient example:

Look at his discussion of the Altamont incident, when during the Rolling Stones performance, Hunter Meredith was stabbed to death by a Hell’s Angel:

McGowan says:

“Many of the accounts of the tragedy at Altamont include the demonstrably false claim that Hunter can unmistakably be seen drawing a gun just before being jumped and killed by the Angels (some accounts even have Hunter firing the alleged gun). The relevant frames from the film are included here for your review. What can certainly be fairly clearly seen is the large knife being brought down into Hunter’s back. But a gun being brandished by Mr. Hunter? If you can see one, then you either have far better eyes than I, or a far more active imagination. Or both.”

The fascinating thing is, you can clearly see the gun in Hunter Meredith’s hand.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr106.html

Just as you will see people under post-hypnotic suggestion say, skip a number that they have been told to forget, McGowan is apparently defying you to not see a gun that you can see plain as day.

If you go through his articles you will see him point to hidden “racist” motives, such as the “tragic” killing of Meredith Hunter, who “did not really have a gun.”

Never does he suggest Jewish underhandedness anywhere in his essays.

He claims there was no organic motive for the men of the time, asserting that war protest was not even prominent in the songs of the era: “For What it’s Worth?” he says, “was the biggest protest song and it was about riots surrounding the closing of a music bar, Pandora’s Box, not about Viet Nam at all.”

McGowan conveniently overlooks one of Woodstock’s signature moments:

Feel Like I’m Fixin’ To Die Rag*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HVACPv_KFw

Gentlemen, this is not about making pacifists of us, but about fighting for the right thing, our people, and valuing ourselves enough to do that – ourselves as men as well – our being, specifically our there-being amidst the class of Europeans.

It is about warranting our midtdasein, particularly for White men - a most crucial feature of our ontology.

* Naturally, that there was a draft during the Viet Nam war makes a big difference in organic motivation against it for White men, despite the fact that this song, encouraging its defiance, was written by the all too kosher Country Joe and the Fish.